Jumbo sells for £190K at auction

Essex County Standard: Jumbo set to go under the hammer today Jumbo set to go under the hammer today

                                            See live tweets below

COLCHESTER’S iconic water tower Jumbo has sold for £190K at auction.

The Grade II listed building was auctioned off in London this morning with no reserve.

Paul Flatman, from Colchester, is the new owner of Jumbo.

Mr Flatman, who is a poultry farmer, hopes to develop the building in a similiar style to the previous application made.

Former owner George Braithwaite decided to sell the famous tower after his plans to convert it into luxury flats, offices, a restaurant and a museum were refused by the Colchester Council.

Charity Balkerne Tower Trust had hoped to buy the tower after launching an appeal for public donations, but was unsuccessful.

Our reporter Wendy Brading is at the auction today. See her tweets below.

Read the full story in tomorrow's Gazette.

Comments (184)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:30am Thu 29 May 14

MaryPoppins87 says...

I say knock it down. Problem solved!
I say knock it down. Problem solved! MaryPoppins87
  • Score: -3

8:43am Thu 29 May 14

HARRY438 says...

MaryPoppins87 wrote:
I say knock it down. Problem solved!
+1
[quote][p][bold]MaryPoppins87[/bold] wrote: I say knock it down. Problem solved![/p][/quote]+1 HARRY438
  • Score: 2

8:51am Thu 29 May 14

Shrubendlad says...

This has got to be SORTED after nearly 2 decades.
No more childish games from Sirbobalob.
This has got to be SORTED after nearly 2 decades. No more childish games from Sirbobalob. Shrubendlad
  • Score: 21

9:10am Thu 29 May 14

Ritchie_Hicks says...

For auction: Lot number 666. 230 year old water tower. 3 previous owners. Ideal for pigeon fancier. Persons with aspirations need not apply.
For auction: Lot number 666. 230 year old water tower. 3 previous owners. Ideal for pigeon fancier. Persons with aspirations need not apply. Ritchie_Hicks
  • Score: 49

9:58am Thu 29 May 14

Shrubendlad says...

There has to be cross party agreement on this. Mr Quince knows that politicizing this is a vote loser and it cant be left as Brian Lights giant climbing frame.
There has to be cross party agreement on this. Mr Quince knows that politicizing this is a vote loser and it cant be left as Brian Lights giant climbing frame. Shrubendlad
  • Score: -10

10:15am Thu 29 May 14

totallyfootball says...

Good luck to the buyer as you will still have nothing in 20 years to show for your investment!
Good luck to the buyer as you will still have nothing in 20 years to show for your investment! totallyfootball
  • Score: 38

11:18am Thu 29 May 14

Shrubendlad says...

I understand that Farage and UKIP are also at the auction.
I understand that Farage and UKIP are also at the auction. Shrubendlad
  • Score: 7

12:10pm Thu 29 May 14

seikothrill says...

Balkerne Tower Trust - all talk and no action. This was the perfect time for them to put up the money to purchase Jumbo but as they didn't I hope they now shut up

Paul Flatman - I think you're a brave man but good luck in your plans which I hope Colchester Council will support more this time around
Balkerne Tower Trust - all talk and no action. This was the perfect time for them to put up the money to purchase Jumbo but as they didn't I hope they now shut up Paul Flatman - I think you're a brave man but good luck in your plans which I hope Colchester Council will support more this time around seikothrill
  • Score: 26

12:30pm Thu 29 May 14

IpsumDelor says...

Which part of 'two previous failed planning applications for development' does this new owner not understand?
Which part of 'two previous failed planning applications for development' does this new owner not understand? IpsumDelor
  • Score: 22

12:35pm Thu 29 May 14

Chris.Howell says...

Just to note, Balkerne Tower Trust did put up a bid (as reported in this article), but were clearly outbid.

George Braithwaite himself admitted his own plans for the building wouldn't have allowed him to recoup his outlay for quite some years, so such plans seem likely to have been designed to remove the II* listed status in order to allow hefty work to be done, or eventual demolition. A useful comparison to be drawn is with Battersea Power Station, also II* listed and over recent years under threat of demolition or part demolition by a series of owners.

I've yet to meet a property developer who is in the game for altruistic reasons - they're in it to make money. Fair enough, but it means communities and committees can't afford to take any plans or stated intentions on face value.

Hope a reasonable plan can be put forward - will be interested to see what is proposed.
Just to note, Balkerne Tower Trust did put up a bid (as reported in this article), but were clearly outbid. George Braithwaite himself admitted his own plans for the building wouldn't have allowed him to recoup his outlay for quite some years, so such plans seem likely to have been designed to remove the II* listed status in order to allow hefty work to be done, or eventual demolition. A useful comparison to be drawn is with Battersea Power Station, also II* listed and over recent years under threat of demolition or part demolition by a series of owners. I've yet to meet a property developer who is in the game for altruistic reasons - they're in it to make money. Fair enough, but it means communities and committees can't afford to take any plans or stated intentions on face value. Hope a reasonable plan can be put forward - will be interested to see what is proposed. Chris.Howell
  • Score: 28

12:40pm Thu 29 May 14

Say It As It Is OK? says...

Good luck to you Paul Flatman. You are a local resident and hopefully you will have lots of support from many in the town who want to see this building bought back into use for the next hundred years. As an old water tower it is dead, long live a development that will improve on the vision that Mr Braithwaite had for the building.

I'm sure you know you will have an uphill battle from Bob and his cronies on the council and on the planning committee, who have at every hurdle been hell bent on seeing this iconic tower gradually rot. They have never had a positive approach, or the financial will, to put their own money where their mouths are by buying the building. Again, good luck!
Good luck to you Paul Flatman. You are a local resident and hopefully you will have lots of support from many in the town who want to see this building bought back into use for the next hundred years. As an old water tower it is dead, long live a development that will improve on the vision that Mr Braithwaite had for the building. I'm sure you know you will have an uphill battle from Bob and his cronies on the council and on the planning committee, who have at every hurdle been hell bent on seeing this iconic tower gradually rot. They have never had a positive approach, or the financial will, to put their own money where their mouths are by buying the building. Again, good luck! Say It As It Is OK?
  • Score: 12

12:53pm Thu 29 May 14

seikothrill says...

IpsumDelor wrote:
Which part of 'two previous failed planning applications for development' does this new owner not understand?
I understand your comment but lets hope the new owners revised plans are better than previous ones and accepted by Colchester Council Planning Committee who seem to approve every other planning application within the borough with no thought to locals, infrastructure etc
[quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: Which part of 'two previous failed planning applications for development' does this new owner not understand?[/p][/quote]I understand your comment but lets hope the new owners revised plans are better than previous ones and accepted by Colchester Council Planning Committee who seem to approve every other planning application within the borough with no thought to locals, infrastructure etc seikothrill
  • Score: 22

1:01pm Thu 29 May 14

CJ1989 says...

It's hardly surprising that the Balkerne Tower Trust didn't raise enough to purchase Jumbo. Hats off to them for trying though, £40,000 is an impressive effort, but without a viable scheme for making money somehow at the end it was never going to be enough.

I hope the BTT are starting to realise that they are always going to be outbid by someone with a commercial goal, no matter how speculative it might seem. They can try and have applications blocked time and time again, but eventually the 'if we can't have it no-one can' attitude is going to wear thin and someone will get permission to do something with it.

I'm sure the BTT pats itself on the back every time an application from an evil developer is blocked, in the hope that they can buy it at a knock-down price (which strikes me as pretty dishonest behaviour), but realistically we have a choice - let it be developed, or let it stand unused for another few decades.

Either way the BTT aren't going to get what they're after. They don't have the money to buy it, maintain it, convert it into a museum, or to run it. So they can either relax their position and work with the new owner, possibly getting some minor input and ensuring public access, or continue fighting tooth and nail, get no input whatsoever, and ensure that no-one gets to go up jumbo in the foreseeable future.

I'd quite like to go up Jumbo at some point, and I'm sure there are many others who would also. If the BTT can't afford to open it up, they should stop blocking someone else who can.
It's hardly surprising that the Balkerne Tower Trust didn't raise enough to purchase Jumbo. Hats off to them for trying though, £40,000 is an impressive effort, but without a viable scheme for making money somehow at the end it was never going to be enough. I hope the BTT are starting to realise that they are always going to be outbid by someone with a commercial goal, no matter how speculative it might seem. They can try and have applications blocked time and time again, but eventually the 'if we can't have it no-one can' attitude is going to wear thin and someone will get permission to do something with it. I'm sure the BTT pats itself on the back every time an application from an evil developer is blocked, in the hope that they can buy it at a knock-down price (which strikes me as pretty dishonest behaviour), but realistically we have a choice - let it be developed, or let it stand unused for another few decades. Either way the BTT aren't going to get what they're after. They don't have the money to buy it, maintain it, convert it into a museum, or to run it. So they can either relax their position and work with the new owner, possibly getting some minor input and ensuring public access, or continue fighting tooth and nail, get no input whatsoever, and ensure that no-one gets to go up jumbo in the foreseeable future. I'd quite like to go up Jumbo at some point, and I'm sure there are many others who would also. If the BTT can't afford to open it up, they should stop blocking someone else who can. CJ1989
  • Score: 27

1:32pm Thu 29 May 14

Shrubendlad says...

BARGAIN-20p a Brick!!
BARGAIN-20p a Brick!! Shrubendlad
  • Score: -3

1:35pm Thu 29 May 14

AngryManNewTown says...

I hope that he is not counting his Chickens!!!!!!
I hope that he is not counting his Chickens!!!!!! AngryManNewTown
  • Score: 8

1:51pm Thu 29 May 14

Jess Jephcott says...

Hmmm. The owner and the buyer are both from Wormingford and know each other well I understand. The new owner is not a property developer. A handshake deal of some sort?
Hmmm. The owner and the buyer are both from Wormingford and know each other well I understand. The new owner is not a property developer. A handshake deal of some sort? Jess Jephcott
  • Score: -6

1:53pm Thu 29 May 14

mirokou says...

When the Eiffel tower was built every Parisian hated it.. Now ask any Parisian to knock it down… The moral . No individual likes change but it's generally better for the future…. So just let it be developed . As i said before on a similar story ,look at St. Pancras Station. modern and Victorian intertwined.
When the Eiffel tower was built every Parisian hated it.. Now ask any Parisian to knock it down… The moral . No individual likes change but it's generally better for the future…. So just let it be developed . As i said before on a similar story ,look at St. Pancras Station. modern and Victorian intertwined. mirokou
  • Score: 25

1:53pm Thu 29 May 14

Shrubendlad says...

CJ1989 wrote:
It's hardly surprising that the Balkerne Tower Trust didn't raise enough to purchase Jumbo. Hats off to them for trying though, £40,000 is an impressive effort, but without a viable scheme for making money somehow at the end it was never going to be enough.

I hope the BTT are starting to realise that they are always going to be outbid by someone with a commercial goal, no matter how speculative it might seem. They can try and have applications blocked time and time again, but eventually the 'if we can't have it no-one can' attitude is going to wear thin and someone will get permission to do something with it.

I'm sure the BTT pats itself on the back every time an application from an evil developer is blocked, in the hope that they can buy it at a knock-down price (which strikes me as pretty dishonest behaviour), but realistically we have a choice - let it be developed, or let it stand unused for another few decades.

Either way the BTT aren't going to get what they're after. They don't have the money to buy it, maintain it, convert it into a museum, or to run it. So they can either relax their position and work with the new owner, possibly getting some minor input and ensuring public access, or continue fighting tooth and nail, get no input whatsoever, and ensure that no-one gets to go up jumbo in the foreseeable future.

I'd quite like to go up Jumbo at some point, and I'm sure there are many others who would also. If the BTT can't afford to open it up, they should stop blocking someone else who can.
Totally agree.
[quote][p][bold]CJ1989[/bold] wrote: It's hardly surprising that the Balkerne Tower Trust didn't raise enough to purchase Jumbo. Hats off to them for trying though, £40,000 is an impressive effort, but without a viable scheme for making money somehow at the end it was never going to be enough. I hope the BTT are starting to realise that they are always going to be outbid by someone with a commercial goal, no matter how speculative it might seem. They can try and have applications blocked time and time again, but eventually the 'if we can't have it no-one can' attitude is going to wear thin and someone will get permission to do something with it. I'm sure the BTT pats itself on the back every time an application from an evil developer is blocked, in the hope that they can buy it at a knock-down price (which strikes me as pretty dishonest behaviour), but realistically we have a choice - let it be developed, or let it stand unused for another few decades. Either way the BTT aren't going to get what they're after. They don't have the money to buy it, maintain it, convert it into a museum, or to run it. So they can either relax their position and work with the new owner, possibly getting some minor input and ensuring public access, or continue fighting tooth and nail, get no input whatsoever, and ensure that no-one gets to go up jumbo in the foreseeable future. I'd quite like to go up Jumbo at some point, and I'm sure there are many others who would also. If the BTT can't afford to open it up, they should stop blocking someone else who can.[/p][/quote]Totally agree. Shrubendlad
  • Score: 11

1:56pm Thu 29 May 14

Boris says...

CJ1989 wrote:
It's hardly surprising that the Balkerne Tower Trust didn't raise enough to purchase Jumbo. Hats off to them for trying though, £40,000 is an impressive effort, but without a viable scheme for making money somehow at the end it was never going to be enough.

I hope the BTT are starting to realise that they are always going to be outbid by someone with a commercial goal, no matter how speculative it might seem. They can try and have applications blocked time and time again, but eventually the 'if we can't have it no-one can' attitude is going to wear thin and someone will get permission to do something with it.

I'm sure the BTT pats itself on the back every time an application from an evil developer is blocked, in the hope that they can buy it at a knock-down price (which strikes me as pretty dishonest behaviour), but realistically we have a choice - let it be developed, or let it stand unused for another few decades.

Either way the BTT aren't going to get what they're after. They don't have the money to buy it, maintain it, convert it into a museum, or to run it. So they can either relax their position and work with the new owner, possibly getting some minor input and ensuring public access, or continue fighting tooth and nail, get no input whatsoever, and ensure that no-one gets to go up jumbo in the foreseeable future.

I'd quite like to go up Jumbo at some point, and I'm sure there are many others who would also. If the BTT can't afford to open it up, they should stop blocking someone else who can.
You could have gone up. It was open to viewers the last three Monday mornings, including the bank holiday. Perhaps Mr Flatman will let you up, once he has finished counting his chickens.
[quote][p][bold]CJ1989[/bold] wrote: It's hardly surprising that the Balkerne Tower Trust didn't raise enough to purchase Jumbo. Hats off to them for trying though, £40,000 is an impressive effort, but without a viable scheme for making money somehow at the end it was never going to be enough. I hope the BTT are starting to realise that they are always going to be outbid by someone with a commercial goal, no matter how speculative it might seem. They can try and have applications blocked time and time again, but eventually the 'if we can't have it no-one can' attitude is going to wear thin and someone will get permission to do something with it. I'm sure the BTT pats itself on the back every time an application from an evil developer is blocked, in the hope that they can buy it at a knock-down price (which strikes me as pretty dishonest behaviour), but realistically we have a choice - let it be developed, or let it stand unused for another few decades. Either way the BTT aren't going to get what they're after. They don't have the money to buy it, maintain it, convert it into a museum, or to run it. So they can either relax their position and work with the new owner, possibly getting some minor input and ensuring public access, or continue fighting tooth and nail, get no input whatsoever, and ensure that no-one gets to go up jumbo in the foreseeable future. I'd quite like to go up Jumbo at some point, and I'm sure there are many others who would also. If the BTT can't afford to open it up, they should stop blocking someone else who can.[/p][/quote]You could have gone up. It was open to viewers the last three Monday mornings, including the bank holiday. Perhaps Mr Flatman will let you up, once he has finished counting his chickens. Boris
  • Score: 7

2:00pm Thu 29 May 14

Ritchie_Hicks says...

Jess Jephcott wrote:
Hmmm. The owner and the buyer are both from Wormingford and know each other well I understand. The new owner is not a property developer. A handshake deal of some sort?
How? The building went to auction. The highest bidder won.
[quote][p][bold]Jess Jephcott[/bold] wrote: Hmmm. The owner and the buyer are both from Wormingford and know each other well I understand. The new owner is not a property developer. A handshake deal of some sort?[/p][/quote]How? The building went to auction. The highest bidder won. Ritchie_Hicks
  • Score: 19

2:19pm Thu 29 May 14

Ontheball says...

Knock the **** thing down, it's a bl**dy eyesore.
Knock the **** thing down, it's a bl**dy eyesore. Ontheball
  • Score: -22

3:20pm Thu 29 May 14

wood1e2 says...

I have a hole in my back garden, more than happy for new owner to through 190 grand into it...more chance of getting a return or improvement in hole than owning the water tower...
I have a hole in my back garden, more than happy for new owner to through 190 grand into it...more chance of getting a return or improvement in hole than owning the water tower... wood1e2
  • Score: -12

3:24pm Thu 29 May 14

André says...

£40,000 will buy Bob Russell an awful lot of Prawn sandwiches.
£40,000 will buy Bob Russell an awful lot of Prawn sandwiches. André
  • Score: 9

3:36pm Thu 29 May 14

wood1e2 says...

Not sure of this?

"Either way the BTT aren't going to get what they're after. They don't have the money to buy it, maintain it, convert it into a museum, or to run it. So they can either relax their position and work with the new owner, possibly getting some minor input and ensuring public access, or continue fighting tooth and nail, get no input whatsoever, and ensure that no-one gets to go up jumbo in the foreseeable future."

What has BTT got to do with the Tower? Surely the private owner should just tell the self-righteous members to talk a short walk of the top of his tower?

When was there access to view from the top?

When has Colchester ever had some forethought...before a private buyer throws his money down the drain.!! :)
Not sure of this? "Either way the BTT aren't going to get what they're after. They don't have the money to buy it, maintain it, convert it into a museum, or to run it. So they can either relax their position and work with the new owner, possibly getting some minor input and ensuring public access, or continue fighting tooth and nail, get no input whatsoever, and ensure that no-one gets to go up jumbo in the foreseeable future." What has BTT got to do with the Tower? Surely the private owner should just tell the self-righteous members to talk a short walk of the top of his tower? When was there access to view from the top? When has Colchester ever had some forethought...before a private buyer throws his money down the drain.!! :) wood1e2
  • Score: 2

4:11pm Thu 29 May 14

romantic says...

Would this be the same guy whose company went into administration last year owing at least £800,000 due to "ongoing issues with the FSA"? The farm which had been fined £20,000 for badly affecting rivers with pollution? Why do I have the sinking feeling that this story is not over yet? Somebody please correct me if I'm totally wrong on this, but it's what comes up if you Google the name.
Would this be the same guy whose company went into administration last year owing at least £800,000 due to "ongoing issues with the FSA"? The farm which had been fined £20,000 for badly affecting rivers with pollution? Why do I have the sinking feeling that this story is not over yet? Somebody please correct me if I'm totally wrong on this, but it's what comes up if you Google the name. romantic
  • Score: 28

4:12pm Thu 29 May 14

stevedawson says...

The man has said he will procede with the same idea as the previous owner.l therefore thank god he has won it.all the council has to do now is work with his architects to see an outcome that will enhance the town and give us all a building we can share and be proud of.
The man has said he will procede with the same idea as the previous owner.l therefore thank god he has won it.all the council has to do now is work with his architects to see an outcome that will enhance the town and give us all a building we can share and be proud of. stevedawson
  • Score: 7

5:18pm Thu 29 May 14

CJ1989 says...

wood1e2 wrote:
Not sure of this?

"Either way the BTT aren't going to get what they're after. They don't have the money to buy it, maintain it, convert it into a museum, or to run it. So they can either relax their position and work with the new owner, possibly getting some minor input and ensuring public access, or continue fighting tooth and nail, get no input whatsoever, and ensure that no-one gets to go up jumbo in the foreseeable future."

What has BTT got to do with the Tower? Surely the private owner should just tell the self-righteous members to talk a short walk of the top of his tower?

When was there access to view from the top?

When has Colchester ever had some forethought...before a private buyer throws his money down the drain.!! :)
I was trying to be diplomatic ;)

He certainly could suggest they take a stroll off his tower, but given that it's a listed building with public interest, and a pressure group with the town's MP as patron is hell bent on stopping it's development at any cost, a bit of diplomacy (whether it's strictly required or not) would go a long way.
[quote][p][bold]wood1e2[/bold] wrote: Not sure of this? "Either way the BTT aren't going to get what they're after. They don't have the money to buy it, maintain it, convert it into a museum, or to run it. So they can either relax their position and work with the new owner, possibly getting some minor input and ensuring public access, or continue fighting tooth and nail, get no input whatsoever, and ensure that no-one gets to go up jumbo in the foreseeable future." What has BTT got to do with the Tower? Surely the private owner should just tell the self-righteous members to talk a short walk of the top of his tower? When was there access to view from the top? When has Colchester ever had some forethought...before a private buyer throws his money down the drain.!! :)[/p][/quote]I was trying to be diplomatic ;) He certainly could suggest they take a stroll off his tower, but given that it's a listed building with public interest, and a pressure group with the town's MP as patron is hell bent on stopping it's development at any cost, a bit of diplomacy (whether it's strictly required or not) would go a long way. CJ1989
  • Score: 7

6:06pm Thu 29 May 14

Zaffre says...

Let the people of Colchester vote - give us a say and then stand by it.
Let the people of Colchester vote - give us a say and then stand by it. Zaffre
  • Score: 1

7:04pm Thu 29 May 14

Dorian says...

Well I wait with interest to see what this inexperienced non-developer farmer offers us. If he comes up with a plan to offer public access without fundamentally altering the shape and character of Jumbo or removing the valves and pipes or breaching the cast iron tanks, I will be all for it. and probably so will the planners But it does seem to me that no real developer would risk paying more than anyone else to buy what is effectively a dead asset - or a dead liability - unless planning permission is granted. But as he will know if he has done his due diligence permission to alter its character is highly unlikely to be granted unless the consulattve bodies such as English Heritage, whose only remit is the protection of out ancient monuments and heritage change their minds, which they won’t., and Colchester Planners are legally bound to take their recommendation very seriously. There was a permission granted some years ago for a single apartment at the top, but since then the legal status has changed and its now protected by a higher grade than it was, so that particular planning permission cannot be duplicated again. So was it naivety, plain more money than sense, or something else that persuade the new owner to part with well over the odds?.
Well I wait with interest to see what this inexperienced non-developer farmer offers us. If he comes up with a plan to offer public access without fundamentally altering the shape and character of Jumbo or removing the valves and pipes or breaching the cast iron tanks, I will be all for it. and probably so will the planners But it does seem to me that no real developer would risk paying more than anyone else to buy what is effectively a dead asset - or a dead liability - unless planning permission is granted. But as he will know if he has done his due diligence permission to alter its character is highly unlikely to be granted unless the consulattve bodies such as English Heritage, whose only remit is the protection of out ancient monuments and heritage change their minds, which they won’t., and Colchester Planners are legally bound to take their recommendation very seriously. There was a permission granted some years ago for a single apartment at the top, but since then the legal status has changed and its now protected by a higher grade than it was, so that particular planning permission cannot be duplicated again. So was it naivety, plain more money than sense, or something else that persuade the new owner to part with well over the odds?. Dorian
  • Score: 0

7:07pm Thu 29 May 14

Shrubendlad says...

Zaffre wrote:
Let the people of Colchester vote - give us a say and then stand by it.
This is now the ONLY option.
BUT the Lib Dems wont let us vote on Europe-What chance has this got????
[quote][p][bold]Zaffre[/bold] wrote: Let the people of Colchester vote - give us a say and then stand by it.[/p][/quote]This is now the ONLY option. BUT the Lib Dems wont let us vote on Europe-What chance has this got???? Shrubendlad
  • Score: 1

7:22pm Thu 29 May 14

Dorian says...

Shrubendlad wrote:
Zaffre wrote:
Let the people of Colchester vote - give us a say and then stand by it.
This is now the ONLY option.
BUT the Lib Dems wont let us vote on Europe-What chance has this got????
Don't be silly most people won't care enough to turn out and anyway whatever the result, you can't force building owners to do what they don't want to do or Councils to break planning law. Referendums cost a lot of money to do because they have to follow the full rules. Are you paying for one?
[quote][p][bold]Shrubendlad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zaffre[/bold] wrote: Let the people of Colchester vote - give us a say and then stand by it.[/p][/quote]This is now the ONLY option. BUT the Lib Dems wont let us vote on Europe-What chance has this got????[/p][/quote]Don't be silly most people won't care enough to turn out and anyway whatever the result, you can't force building owners to do what they don't want to do or Councils to break planning law. Referendums cost a lot of money to do because they have to follow the full rules. Are you paying for one? Dorian
  • Score: 2

7:37pm Thu 29 May 14

Shrubendlad says...

Dorian wrote:
Shrubendlad wrote:
Zaffre wrote:
Let the people of Colchester vote - give us a say and then stand by it.
This is now the ONLY option.
BUT the Lib Dems wont let us vote on Europe-What chance has this got????
Don't be silly most people won't care enough to turn out and anyway whatever the result, you can't force building owners to do what they don't want to do or Councils to break planning law. Referendums cost a lot of money to do because they have to follow the full rules. Are you paying for one?
Well ,60 paid Councillors and one elderly MP have made a right mess of this .
£4.5Million has been spent upgrading the Castle and £100K a year is spent subsidising the Community Stadium.
Let the people of Colchester decide what happens to this Blot on their Landscape.
[quote][p][bold]Dorian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shrubendlad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zaffre[/bold] wrote: Let the people of Colchester vote - give us a say and then stand by it.[/p][/quote]This is now the ONLY option. BUT the Lib Dems wont let us vote on Europe-What chance has this got????[/p][/quote]Don't be silly most people won't care enough to turn out and anyway whatever the result, you can't force building owners to do what they don't want to do or Councils to break planning law. Referendums cost a lot of money to do because they have to follow the full rules. Are you paying for one?[/p][/quote]Well ,60 paid Councillors and one elderly MP have made a right mess of this . £4.5Million has been spent upgrading the Castle and £100K a year is spent subsidising the Community Stadium. Let the people of Colchester decide what happens to this Blot on their Landscape. Shrubendlad
  • Score: -5

7:50pm Thu 29 May 14

Shrubendlad says...

Dorian wrote:
Shrubendlad wrote:
Zaffre wrote:
Let the people of Colchester vote - give us a say and then stand by it.
This is now the ONLY option.
BUT the Lib Dems wont let us vote on Europe-What chance has this got????
Don't be silly most people won't care enough to turn out and anyway whatever the result, you can't force building owners to do what they don't want to do or Councils to break planning law. Referendums cost a lot of money to do because they have to follow the full rules. Are you paying for one?
I should add that the cost of the Alternative Vote Referendum held on 5/5/2011 at the instigation of the Lib Dems-and where they were humiliated cost £75 Million.
No wonder they don't trust the electorate!
[quote][p][bold]Dorian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shrubendlad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zaffre[/bold] wrote: Let the people of Colchester vote - give us a say and then stand by it.[/p][/quote]This is now the ONLY option. BUT the Lib Dems wont let us vote on Europe-What chance has this got????[/p][/quote]Don't be silly most people won't care enough to turn out and anyway whatever the result, you can't force building owners to do what they don't want to do or Councils to break planning law. Referendums cost a lot of money to do because they have to follow the full rules. Are you paying for one?[/p][/quote]I should add that the cost of the Alternative Vote Referendum held on 5/5/2011 at the instigation of the Lib Dems-and where they were humiliated cost £75 Million. No wonder they don't trust the electorate! Shrubendlad
  • Score: 3

9:56pm Thu 29 May 14

Dorian says...

Shrubendlad wrote:
Dorian wrote:
Shrubendlad wrote:
Zaffre wrote:
Let the people of Colchester vote - give us a say and then stand by it.
This is now the ONLY option.
BUT the Lib Dems wont let us vote on Europe-What chance has this got????
Don't be silly most people won't care enough to turn out and anyway whatever the result, you can't force building owners to do what they don't want to do or Councils to break planning law. Referendums cost a lot of money to do because they have to follow the full rules. Are you paying for one?
Well ,60 paid Councillors and one elderly MP have made a right mess of this .
£4.5Million has been spent upgrading the Castle and £100K a year is spent subsidising the Community Stadium.
Let the people of Colchester decide what happens to this Blot on their Landscape.
Its not 4.5 million of Colchester money, its incoming investment into the town of money that has already been collected plus grants and sponsorship, so it wont make any difference to your taxes or anyone else's and if we don't grab it some other town will. Thats life, suck it up and grab what you can to make our town better. Have you actually been in the Castle? Its a huge improvement. Jumbo doesn't belong to Colchester people, its a private building mores the shame. If BTT had it it would be far more accountable. via a trust committee to which anyone could belong
[quote][p][bold]Shrubendlad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dorian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shrubendlad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zaffre[/bold] wrote: Let the people of Colchester vote - give us a say and then stand by it.[/p][/quote]This is now the ONLY option. BUT the Lib Dems wont let us vote on Europe-What chance has this got????[/p][/quote]Don't be silly most people won't care enough to turn out and anyway whatever the result, you can't force building owners to do what they don't want to do or Councils to break planning law. Referendums cost a lot of money to do because they have to follow the full rules. Are you paying for one?[/p][/quote]Well ,60 paid Councillors and one elderly MP have made a right mess of this . £4.5Million has been spent upgrading the Castle and £100K a year is spent subsidising the Community Stadium. Let the people of Colchester decide what happens to this Blot on their Landscape.[/p][/quote]Its not 4.5 million of Colchester money, its incoming investment into the town of money that has already been collected plus grants and sponsorship, so it wont make any difference to your taxes or anyone else's and if we don't grab it some other town will. Thats life, suck it up and grab what you can to make our town better. Have you actually been in the Castle? Its a huge improvement. Jumbo doesn't belong to Colchester people, its a private building mores the shame. If BTT had it it would be far more accountable. via a trust committee to which anyone could belong Dorian
  • Score: 1

9:57pm Thu 29 May 14

Dorian says...

See my updated blog http://colchesterunc
overed.wordpress.com
/2014/05/08/jumbo-or
-balkerne-water-towe
r-the-future/
See my updated blog http://colchesterunc overed.wordpress.com /2014/05/08/jumbo-or -balkerne-water-towe r-the-future/ Dorian
  • Score: -9

11:23pm Thu 29 May 14

James Harrington says...

Rags to riches local business man Flatman of Worming ford God Bless him and my hat off to him.
If anyone is going to get this done Paul is the man for the job. Mr Lamborghini himself he eats in the town nearly every other Sunday night in a high street restaurant.
He has a fantastic car collection. This bloke oozes class and quality and is what Colchester should be all about.
Good on you PF 1 go for it mate.
Rags to riches local business man Flatman of Worming ford God Bless him and my hat off to him. If anyone is going to get this done Paul is the man for the job. Mr Lamborghini himself he eats in the town nearly every other Sunday night in a high street restaurant. He has a fantastic car collection. This bloke oozes class and quality and is what Colchester should be all about. Good on you PF 1 go for it mate. James Harrington
  • Score: -4

7:58am Fri 30 May 14

Colonel Kurtz says...

If a planning application for a massive new housing estate was submitted it would be fasttracked and approved on the spot. How many more decades to we have to wait for some corruption planning committee to give some life in to the town centre.

Anything would be better than empty derelict rusty shell. I just hope they can see beyond granting planning for yet another horrible cramped housing estate.
If a planning application for a massive new housing estate was submitted it would be fasttracked and approved on the spot. How many more decades to we have to wait for some corruption planning committee to give some life in to the town centre. Anything would be better than empty derelict rusty shell. I just hope they can see beyond granting planning for yet another horrible cramped housing estate. Colonel Kurtz
  • Score: 4

8:01am Fri 30 May 14

Ritchie_Hicks says...

Shrubendlad wrote:
Dorian wrote:
Shrubendlad wrote:
Zaffre wrote:
Let the people of Colchester vote - give us a say and then stand by it.
This is now the ONLY option.
BUT the Lib Dems wont let us vote on Europe-What chance has this got????
Don't be silly most people won't care enough to turn out and anyway whatever the result, you can't force building owners to do what they don't want to do or Councils to break planning law. Referendums cost a lot of money to do because they have to follow the full rules. Are you paying for one?
Well ,60 paid Councillors and one elderly MP have made a right mess of this .
£4.5Million has been spent upgrading the Castle and £100K a year is spent subsidising the Community Stadium.
Let the people of Colchester decide what happens to this Blot on their Landscape.
I keep seeing these sorts of comments.

"The tower belongs to the people of Colchester" and "let the people of Colchester decide".

Jumbo is now owned by a private individual. It belongs to the people of Colchester as much as the Taj Mahal belongs to the people of Colchester.

The new owner will want to develop Jumbo to make money. That's what developers do. And as soon as he gets permission for a viable build within planning regulations - whether that includes keeping the tower or not - he will go ahead with it.
[quote][p][bold]Shrubendlad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dorian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shrubendlad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zaffre[/bold] wrote: Let the people of Colchester vote - give us a say and then stand by it.[/p][/quote]This is now the ONLY option. BUT the Lib Dems wont let us vote on Europe-What chance has this got????[/p][/quote]Don't be silly most people won't care enough to turn out and anyway whatever the result, you can't force building owners to do what they don't want to do or Councils to break planning law. Referendums cost a lot of money to do because they have to follow the full rules. Are you paying for one?[/p][/quote]Well ,60 paid Councillors and one elderly MP have made a right mess of this . £4.5Million has been spent upgrading the Castle and £100K a year is spent subsidising the Community Stadium. Let the people of Colchester decide what happens to this Blot on their Landscape.[/p][/quote]I keep seeing these sorts of comments. "The tower belongs to the people of Colchester" and "let the people of Colchester decide". Jumbo is now owned by a private individual. It belongs to the people of Colchester as much as the Taj Mahal belongs to the people of Colchester. The new owner will want to develop Jumbo to make money. That's what developers do. And as soon as he gets permission for a viable build within planning regulations - whether that includes keeping the tower or not - he will go ahead with it. Ritchie_Hicks
  • Score: 5

9:22am Fri 30 May 14

Catchedicam says...

AngryManNewTown wrote:
I hope that he is not counting his Chickens!!!!!!
fowl joke :-)
[quote][p][bold]AngryManNewTown[/bold] wrote: I hope that he is not counting his Chickens!!!!!![/p][/quote]fowl joke :-) Catchedicam
  • Score: 6

9:31am Fri 30 May 14

Scoot says...

Interesting watching the news last night Bob spouting that its a grade 2* listed building and is unique in this country blah blah blah. Everyone said that about the damaged (i.e not beyond repair) Baltic Exchange site (except the exchange was unique in the world) after the IRA set a bomb off outside it and look what has replaced it - the Gherkin. What BTT and cap'n Bob should do is swallow their pride and work with the new owner and English Heritage to find a way that it can be developed so that the structure looks the same to most but the Owner can recoup any investment he has made. Maybe he should be able to build under it to a certain height (after all how much of it is visible from say the High street).
Interesting watching the news last night Bob spouting that its a grade 2* listed building and is unique in this country blah blah blah. Everyone said that about the damaged (i.e not beyond repair) Baltic Exchange site (except the exchange was unique in the world) after the IRA set a bomb off outside it and look what has replaced it - the Gherkin. What BTT and cap'n Bob should do is swallow their pride and work with the new owner and English Heritage to find a way that it can be developed so that the structure looks the same to most but the Owner can recoup any investment he has made. Maybe he should be able to build under it to a certain height (after all how much of it is visible from say the High street). Scoot
  • Score: 2

4:00pm Fri 30 May 14

Zaffre says...

The photographs in today's Gazette lead me to ask, was this actually a case of a mate bidding the auction up only to get carried away and so landed with the lot themselves?
The photographs in today's Gazette lead me to ask, was this actually a case of a mate bidding the auction up only to get carried away and so landed with the lot themselves? Zaffre
  • Score: 5

5:58pm Fri 30 May 14

stevedawson says...

Whats all this about his business in administration?
Whats all this about his business in administration? stevedawson
  • Score: 1

6:44pm Fri 30 May 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Scoot wrote:
Interesting watching the news last night Bob spouting that its a grade 2* listed building and is unique in this country blah blah blah. Everyone said that about the damaged (i.e not beyond repair) Baltic Exchange site (except the exchange was unique in the world) after the IRA set a bomb off outside it and look what has replaced it - the Gherkin. What BTT and cap'n Bob should do is swallow their pride and work with the new owner and English Heritage to find a way that it can be developed so that the structure looks the same to most but the Owner can recoup any investment he has made. Maybe he should be able to build under it to a certain height (after all how much of it is visible from say the High street).
Well now Scoot, there's something you should understand about being a subject in Bobtown. Basically King Bob can do what he wants. He is already absolutely full of self pride, so if he swallowed any more he would simply burst!

There is no chance of King Bob and the BTT considering the wider picture of what would be best for the town's development - they are besotted with their minority interest and will doubtless bleat on and on about how Jumbo is the holy grail of water storage plumbing.

Mind you Scoot, I had a chuckle reading the CS today, some article about King Bob accusing a conservative would be councillor of being a ...........er.

Takes one to know one Bob.
[quote][p][bold]Scoot[/bold] wrote: Interesting watching the news last night Bob spouting that its a grade 2* listed building and is unique in this country blah blah blah. Everyone said that about the damaged (i.e not beyond repair) Baltic Exchange site (except the exchange was unique in the world) after the IRA set a bomb off outside it and look what has replaced it - the Gherkin. What BTT and cap'n Bob should do is swallow their pride and work with the new owner and English Heritage to find a way that it can be developed so that the structure looks the same to most but the Owner can recoup any investment he has made. Maybe he should be able to build under it to a certain height (after all how much of it is visible from say the High street).[/p][/quote]Well now Scoot, there's something you should understand about being a subject in Bobtown. Basically King Bob can do what he wants. He is already absolutely full of self pride, so if he swallowed any more he would simply burst! There is no chance of King Bob and the BTT considering the wider picture of what would be best for the town's development - they are besotted with their minority interest and will doubtless bleat on and on about how Jumbo is the holy grail of water storage plumbing. Mind you Scoot, I had a chuckle reading the CS today, some article about King Bob accusing a conservative would be councillor of being a ...........er. Takes one to know one Bob. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: 2

6:45pm Fri 30 May 14

Ritchie_Hicks says...

stevedawson wrote:
Whats all this about his business in administration?
http://www.companies
intheuk.co.uk/ltd/pa
ul-flatman
[quote][p][bold]stevedawson[/bold] wrote: Whats all this about his business in administration?[/p][/quote]http://www.companies intheuk.co.uk/ltd/pa ul-flatman Ritchie_Hicks
  • Score: -2

6:59pm Fri 30 May 14

Catchedicam says...

stevedawson wrote:
Whats all this about his business in administration?
http://www.insiderme
dia.com/insider/cent
ral-and-east/95159-f
sa-probe-contributed
-poultry-processors-
demise
[quote][p][bold]stevedawson[/bold] wrote: Whats all this about his business in administration?[/p][/quote]http://www.insiderme dia.com/insider/cent ral-and-east/95159-f sa-probe-contributed -poultry-processors- demise Catchedicam
  • Score: 0

7:06pm Fri 30 May 14

roger bacon says...

Unless the Jumbo is developed into a restaurant with flats or offices it will still look like a wreck in another 20 years. With a 100 seater restaurant at the top what an attraction this would be for Colchester. It would draw people in from many miles away which would benefit many other businesses in the area.
Councillor Tim Young said Mr Flatman would have to compromise with what he wants to do with the Jumbo tower. Surely the council should have to compromise and get rid of this eyesore.as it stands at the moment
Unless the Jumbo is developed into a restaurant with flats or offices it will still look like a wreck in another 20 years. With a 100 seater restaurant at the top what an attraction this would be for Colchester. It would draw people in from many miles away which would benefit many other businesses in the area. Councillor Tim Young said Mr Flatman would have to compromise with what he wants to do with the Jumbo tower. Surely the council should have to compromise and get rid of this eyesore.as it stands at the moment roger bacon
  • Score: 3

7:57pm Fri 30 May 14

Angry of Lexden says...

roger bacon wrote:
Unless the Jumbo is developed into a restaurant with flats or offices it will still look like a wreck in another 20 years. With a 100 seater restaurant at the top what an attraction this would be for Colchester. It would draw people in from many miles away which would benefit many other businesses in the area. Councillor Tim Young said Mr Flatman would have to compromise with what he wants to do with the Jumbo tower. Surely the council should have to compromise and get rid of this eyesore.as it stands at the moment
I agree with you Roger, Colchester Borough Council should know when to manage compromise for the good of the whole Colchester community. I believe Jumbo should be allowed evolve into a useful commercial development. That would be a win win - employment, rates income, and just possibly an iconic building to attract visitors.

I have been involved in town centre maintenance and development work for retail chains over a long period the length and breadth. I have worked in other towns like Colchester where the salaried and elected council officers failed in their stewardship of wealth development. Such introspective management results in stagnant towns - lack of direction, poor access, empty shops and diminishing income.

Check out Norwich, Harrogate York, Staines, Whitby, they are buzzing. Few empty shops, vehicle access, attractive parking charges, tourist management and commercial development of historic structures. Harrogate boasts Victorian spa baths - no longer in use but transformed into attractive vibrant restaurants retail centres.

Wake up Colchestrians! kick out stagnation, think outside the box - don't King Bob and the other carpet baggers build a bigger box!
[quote][p][bold]roger bacon[/bold] wrote: Unless the Jumbo is developed into a restaurant with flats or offices it will still look like a wreck in another 20 years. With a 100 seater restaurant at the top what an attraction this would be for Colchester. It would draw people in from many miles away which would benefit many other businesses in the area. Councillor Tim Young said Mr Flatman would have to compromise with what he wants to do with the Jumbo tower. Surely the council should have to compromise and get rid of this eyesore.as it stands at the moment[/p][/quote]I agree with you Roger, Colchester Borough Council should know when to manage compromise for the good of the whole Colchester community. I believe Jumbo should be allowed evolve into a useful commercial development. That would be a win win - employment, rates income, and just possibly an iconic building to attract visitors. I have been involved in town centre maintenance and development work for retail chains over a long period the length and breadth. I have worked in other towns like Colchester where the salaried and elected council officers failed in their stewardship of wealth development. Such introspective management results in stagnant towns - lack of direction, poor access, empty shops and diminishing income. Check out Norwich, Harrogate York, Staines, Whitby, they are buzzing. Few empty shops, vehicle access, attractive parking charges, tourist management and commercial development of historic structures. Harrogate boasts Victorian spa baths - no longer in use but transformed into attractive vibrant restaurants retail centres. Wake up Colchestrians! kick out stagnation, think outside the box - don't King Bob and the other carpet baggers build a bigger box! Angry of Lexden
  • Score: 6

8:31am Sat 31 May 14

Ritchie_Hicks says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
roger bacon wrote:
Unless the Jumbo is developed into a restaurant with flats or offices it will still look like a wreck in another 20 years. With a 100 seater restaurant at the top what an attraction this would be for Colchester. It would draw people in from many miles away which would benefit many other businesses in the area. Councillor Tim Young said Mr Flatman would have to compromise with what he wants to do with the Jumbo tower. Surely the council should have to compromise and get rid of this eyesore.as it stands at the moment
I agree with you Roger, Colchester Borough Council should know when to manage compromise for the good of the whole Colchester community. I believe Jumbo should be allowed evolve into a useful commercial development. That would be a win win - employment, rates income, and just possibly an iconic building to attract visitors.

I have been involved in town centre maintenance and development work for retail chains over a long period the length and breadth. I have worked in other towns like Colchester where the salaried and elected council officers failed in their stewardship of wealth development. Such introspective management results in stagnant towns - lack of direction, poor access, empty shops and diminishing income.

Check out Norwich, Harrogate York, Staines, Whitby, they are buzzing. Few empty shops, vehicle access, attractive parking charges, tourist management and commercial development of historic structures. Harrogate boasts Victorian spa baths - no longer in use but transformed into attractive vibrant restaurants retail centres.

Wake up Colchestrians! kick out stagnation, think outside the box - don't King Bob and the other carpet baggers build a bigger box!
That's all well and good, but planning laws and regulations have to be obeyed, regardless of what the planning committee might otherwise think.

What I don't quite understand is that the tower in Wivenhoe has a penthouse at the very top and if bricked in from top to bottom. Why then can't Jumbo be redesigned on the same basis? That way you could have the penthouse/restaurant at the top and flats from ground level up. If it's OK for the tower in Wivenhoe, why not Jumbo?

A similar tower in Kennington, South London, had a huge glass box added to it. That wasn't in keeping with the area and was damned ugly but still went ahead.

If the town plannes aren't going to be at least a little flexible then Jumbo is doomed to remain and empty shell.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]roger bacon[/bold] wrote: Unless the Jumbo is developed into a restaurant with flats or offices it will still look like a wreck in another 20 years. With a 100 seater restaurant at the top what an attraction this would be for Colchester. It would draw people in from many miles away which would benefit many other businesses in the area. Councillor Tim Young said Mr Flatman would have to compromise with what he wants to do with the Jumbo tower. Surely the council should have to compromise and get rid of this eyesore.as it stands at the moment[/p][/quote]I agree with you Roger, Colchester Borough Council should know when to manage compromise for the good of the whole Colchester community. I believe Jumbo should be allowed evolve into a useful commercial development. That would be a win win - employment, rates income, and just possibly an iconic building to attract visitors. I have been involved in town centre maintenance and development work for retail chains over a long period the length and breadth. I have worked in other towns like Colchester where the salaried and elected council officers failed in their stewardship of wealth development. Such introspective management results in stagnant towns - lack of direction, poor access, empty shops and diminishing income. Check out Norwich, Harrogate York, Staines, Whitby, they are buzzing. Few empty shops, vehicle access, attractive parking charges, tourist management and commercial development of historic structures. Harrogate boasts Victorian spa baths - no longer in use but transformed into attractive vibrant restaurants retail centres. Wake up Colchestrians! kick out stagnation, think outside the box - don't King Bob and the other carpet baggers build a bigger box![/p][/quote]That's all well and good, but planning laws and regulations have to be obeyed, regardless of what the planning committee might otherwise think. What I don't quite understand is that the tower in Wivenhoe has a penthouse at the very top and if bricked in from top to bottom. Why then can't Jumbo be redesigned on the same basis? That way you could have the penthouse/restaurant at the top and flats from ground level up. If it's OK for the tower in Wivenhoe, why not Jumbo? A similar tower in Kennington, South London, had a huge glass box added to it. That wasn't in keeping with the area and was damned ugly but still went ahead. If the town plannes aren't going to be at least a little flexible then Jumbo is doomed to remain and empty shell. Ritchie_Hicks
  • Score: 2

8:48am Sat 31 May 14

jim_bo says...

100 seater ? Clearly a man who's never been up there, it's not that big.

Best thing is to put two lift shafts in, use stairs for emergency only. Cut out some of the tank and glass it. Gauze mesh the outside so you can see out but not in then it doesn't affect grade listing.

Move tourist info into there or coffee shop with a view. £7 ago like the Spinnaker Tower in Portsmouth and couple of years you'll have all your money back.

Events in evenings and socials it's a money maker!

You can have that one for free CBC!
100 seater ? Clearly a man who's never been up there, it's not that big. Best thing is to put two lift shafts in, use stairs for emergency only. Cut out some of the tank and glass it. Gauze mesh the outside so you can see out but not in then it doesn't affect grade listing. Move tourist info into there or coffee shop with a view. £7 ago like the Spinnaker Tower in Portsmouth and couple of years you'll have all your money back. Events in evenings and socials it's a money maker! You can have that one for free CBC! jim_bo
  • Score: 4

8:58am Sat 31 May 14

Ritchie_Hicks says...

jim_bo wrote:
100 seater ? Clearly a man who's never been up there, it's not that big.

Best thing is to put two lift shafts in, use stairs for emergency only. Cut out some of the tank and glass it. Gauze mesh the outside so you can see out but not in then it doesn't affect grade listing.

Move tourist info into there or coffee shop with a view. £7 ago like the Spinnaker Tower in Portsmouth and couple of years you'll have all your money back.

Events in evenings and socials it's a money maker!

You can have that one for free CBC!
I'd pay £7 to go up just to see the views.
[quote][p][bold]jim_bo[/bold] wrote: 100 seater ? Clearly a man who's never been up there, it's not that big. Best thing is to put two lift shafts in, use stairs for emergency only. Cut out some of the tank and glass it. Gauze mesh the outside so you can see out but not in then it doesn't affect grade listing. Move tourist info into there or coffee shop with a view. £7 ago like the Spinnaker Tower in Portsmouth and couple of years you'll have all your money back. Events in evenings and socials it's a money maker! You can have that one for free CBC![/p][/quote]I'd pay £7 to go up just to see the views. Ritchie_Hicks
  • Score: 11

10:11am Sat 31 May 14

Frank Scully says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
roger bacon wrote:
Unless the Jumbo is developed into a restaurant with flats or offices it will still look like a wreck in another 20 years. With a 100 seater restaurant at the top what an attraction this would be for Colchester. It would draw people in from many miles away which would benefit many other businesses in the area. Councillor Tim Young said Mr Flatman would have to compromise with what he wants to do with the Jumbo tower. Surely the council should have to compromise and get rid of this eyesore.as it stands at the moment
I agree with you Roger, Colchester Borough Council should know when to manage compromise for the good of the whole Colchester community. I believe Jumbo should be allowed evolve into a useful commercial development. That would be a win win - employment, rates income, and just possibly an iconic building to attract visitors.

I have been involved in town centre maintenance and development work for retail chains over a long period the length and breadth. I have worked in other towns like Colchester where the salaried and elected council officers failed in their stewardship of wealth development. Such introspective management results in stagnant towns - lack of direction, poor access, empty shops and diminishing income.

Check out Norwich, Harrogate York, Staines, Whitby, they are buzzing. Few empty shops, vehicle access, attractive parking charges, tourist management and commercial development of historic structures. Harrogate boasts Victorian spa baths - no longer in use but transformed into attractive vibrant restaurants retail centres.

Wake up Colchestrians! kick out stagnation, think outside the box - don't King Bob and the other carpet baggers build a bigger box!
I never understood the rationale for "preserving" a derelict water tower. It has no use unless it is redeveloped for uses which generate profit to cover maintenance. As for Bob Russell, I'd understood that MPs shouldn't get involved in individual planning applications.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]roger bacon[/bold] wrote: Unless the Jumbo is developed into a restaurant with flats or offices it will still look like a wreck in another 20 years. With a 100 seater restaurant at the top what an attraction this would be for Colchester. It would draw people in from many miles away which would benefit many other businesses in the area. Councillor Tim Young said Mr Flatman would have to compromise with what he wants to do with the Jumbo tower. Surely the council should have to compromise and get rid of this eyesore.as it stands at the moment[/p][/quote]I agree with you Roger, Colchester Borough Council should know when to manage compromise for the good of the whole Colchester community. I believe Jumbo should be allowed evolve into a useful commercial development. That would be a win win - employment, rates income, and just possibly an iconic building to attract visitors. I have been involved in town centre maintenance and development work for retail chains over a long period the length and breadth. I have worked in other towns like Colchester where the salaried and elected council officers failed in their stewardship of wealth development. Such introspective management results in stagnant towns - lack of direction, poor access, empty shops and diminishing income. Check out Norwich, Harrogate York, Staines, Whitby, they are buzzing. Few empty shops, vehicle access, attractive parking charges, tourist management and commercial development of historic structures. Harrogate boasts Victorian spa baths - no longer in use but transformed into attractive vibrant restaurants retail centres. Wake up Colchestrians! kick out stagnation, think outside the box - don't King Bob and the other carpet baggers build a bigger box![/p][/quote]I never understood the rationale for "preserving" a derelict water tower. It has no use unless it is redeveloped for uses which generate profit to cover maintenance. As for Bob Russell, I'd understood that MPs shouldn't get involved in individual planning applications. Frank Scully
  • Score: 2

10:17am Sat 31 May 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
roger bacon wrote:
Unless the Jumbo is developed into a restaurant with flats or offices it will still look like a wreck in another 20 years. With a 100 seater restaurant at the top what an attraction this would be for Colchester. It would draw people in from many miles away which would benefit many other businesses in the area. Councillor Tim Young said Mr Flatman would have to compromise with what he wants to do with the Jumbo tower. Surely the council should have to compromise and get rid of this eyesore.as it stands at the moment
I agree with you Roger, Colchester Borough Council should know when to manage compromise for the good of the whole Colchester community. I believe Jumbo should be allowed evolve into a useful commercial development. That would be a win win - employment, rates income, and just possibly an iconic building to attract visitors.

I have been involved in town centre maintenance and development work for retail chains over a long period the length and breadth. I have worked in other towns like Colchester where the salaried and elected council officers failed in their stewardship of wealth development. Such introspective management results in stagnant towns - lack of direction, poor access, empty shops and diminishing income.

Check out Norwich, Harrogate York, Staines, Whitby, they are buzzing. Few empty shops, vehicle access, attractive parking charges, tourist management and commercial development of historic structures. Harrogate boasts Victorian spa baths - no longer in use but transformed into attractive vibrant restaurants retail centres.

Wake up Colchestrians! kick out stagnation, think outside the box - don't King Bob and the other carpet baggers build a bigger box!
That's all well and good, but planning laws and regulations have to be obeyed, regardless of what the planning committee might otherwise think.

What I don't quite understand is that the tower in Wivenhoe has a penthouse at the very top and if bricked in from top to bottom. Why then can't Jumbo be redesigned on the same basis? That way you could have the penthouse/restaurant at the top and flats from ground level up. If it's OK for the tower in Wivenhoe, why not Jumbo?

A similar tower in Kennington, South London, had a huge glass box added to it. That wasn't in keeping with the area and was damned ugly but still went ahead.

If the town plannes aren't going to be at least a little flexible then Jumbo is doomed to remain and empty shell.
Good morning Ritchie, what an absolutely fantastic day.

Re your comment on planning rules. In my experience everything is negotiable. The problem we have in Colchester is that a certain yellow brested King Bob of Bobtown has made camp with the minority BTT interest of preserving Jumbo strictly as a water tower no matter what. "The no matter what" being their plans are fatally flawed - because:
1. It is a minority interest and
2. Their projected costs are miles out.

I suggest king bobs real duty is to use his persuasive skills on behalf of the best option for Colchester, that being to let Jumbo evolve into an asset for the town. King Bob should be aggressively applying pressure the salaried planning officers and "professional " (check out Timbo's family takings from the pot) elected councillors to come up with a strong argument in favour of commercial development of Jumbo and the surrounding area.

Planning is negotiable, even with a grade 2, but not if the local mp has his boots firmly planted in no where land.
[quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]roger bacon[/bold] wrote: Unless the Jumbo is developed into a restaurant with flats or offices it will still look like a wreck in another 20 years. With a 100 seater restaurant at the top what an attraction this would be for Colchester. It would draw people in from many miles away which would benefit many other businesses in the area. Councillor Tim Young said Mr Flatman would have to compromise with what he wants to do with the Jumbo tower. Surely the council should have to compromise and get rid of this eyesore.as it stands at the moment[/p][/quote]I agree with you Roger, Colchester Borough Council should know when to manage compromise for the good of the whole Colchester community. I believe Jumbo should be allowed evolve into a useful commercial development. That would be a win win - employment, rates income, and just possibly an iconic building to attract visitors. I have been involved in town centre maintenance and development work for retail chains over a long period the length and breadth. I have worked in other towns like Colchester where the salaried and elected council officers failed in their stewardship of wealth development. Such introspective management results in stagnant towns - lack of direction, poor access, empty shops and diminishing income. Check out Norwich, Harrogate York, Staines, Whitby, they are buzzing. Few empty shops, vehicle access, attractive parking charges, tourist management and commercial development of historic structures. Harrogate boasts Victorian spa baths - no longer in use but transformed into attractive vibrant restaurants retail centres. Wake up Colchestrians! kick out stagnation, think outside the box - don't King Bob and the other carpet baggers build a bigger box![/p][/quote]That's all well and good, but planning laws and regulations have to be obeyed, regardless of what the planning committee might otherwise think. What I don't quite understand is that the tower in Wivenhoe has a penthouse at the very top and if bricked in from top to bottom. Why then can't Jumbo be redesigned on the same basis? That way you could have the penthouse/restaurant at the top and flats from ground level up. If it's OK for the tower in Wivenhoe, why not Jumbo? A similar tower in Kennington, South London, had a huge glass box added to it. That wasn't in keeping with the area and was damned ugly but still went ahead. If the town plannes aren't going to be at least a little flexible then Jumbo is doomed to remain and empty shell.[/p][/quote]Good morning Ritchie, what an absolutely fantastic day. Re your comment on planning rules. In my experience everything is negotiable. The problem we have in Colchester is that a certain yellow brested King Bob of Bobtown has made camp with the minority BTT interest of preserving Jumbo strictly as a water tower no matter what. "The no matter what" being their plans are fatally flawed - because: 1. It is a minority interest and 2. Their projected costs are miles out. I suggest king bobs real duty is to use his persuasive skills on behalf of the best option for Colchester, that being to let Jumbo evolve into an asset for the town. King Bob should be aggressively applying pressure the salaried planning officers and "professional " (check out Timbo's family takings from the pot) elected councillors to come up with a strong argument in favour of commercial development of Jumbo and the surrounding area. Planning is negotiable, even with a grade 2, but not if the local mp has his boots firmly planted in no where land. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -2

10:41am Sat 31 May 14

Jess Jephcott says...

Listen to you lot. Who do you think owns Jumbo and how many of you put your hands in your pockets to help the Balkerne Trust buy it? If you didn't contribute then mind your own business. The present owner will be the only one deciding on its future, not you lot. What a load of self-righteous twaddle I am reading here. If 100,000 Colcestrians had put a fiver towards buying it, it would be ours now and the proper squabbling could begin. As it is, those who didn't contribute, your views are irrelevant so go find another bandwagon to vent your collective spleens on.
Listen to you lot. Who do you think owns Jumbo and how many of you put your hands in your pockets to help the Balkerne Trust buy it? If you didn't contribute then mind your own business. The present owner will be the only one deciding on its future, not you lot. What a load of self-righteous twaddle I am reading here. If 100,000 Colcestrians had put a fiver towards buying it, it would be ours now and the proper squabbling could begin. As it is, those who didn't contribute, your views are irrelevant so go find another bandwagon to vent your collective spleens on. Jess Jephcott
  • Score: 10

10:44am Sat 31 May 14

Ritchie_Hicks says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
roger bacon wrote:
Unless the Jumbo is developed into a restaurant with flats or offices it will still look like a wreck in another 20 years. With a 100 seater restaurant at the top what an attraction this would be for Colchester. It would draw people in from many miles away which would benefit many other businesses in the area. Councillor Tim Young said Mr Flatman would have to compromise with what he wants to do with the Jumbo tower. Surely the council should have to compromise and get rid of this eyesore.as it stands at the moment
I agree with you Roger, Colchester Borough Council should know when to manage compromise for the good of the whole Colchester community. I believe Jumbo should be allowed evolve into a useful commercial development. That would be a win win - employment, rates income, and just possibly an iconic building to attract visitors.

I have been involved in town centre maintenance and development work for retail chains over a long period the length and breadth. I have worked in other towns like Colchester where the salaried and elected council officers failed in their stewardship of wealth development. Such introspective management results in stagnant towns - lack of direction, poor access, empty shops and diminishing income.

Check out Norwich, Harrogate York, Staines, Whitby, they are buzzing. Few empty shops, vehicle access, attractive parking charges, tourist management and commercial development of historic structures. Harrogate boasts Victorian spa baths - no longer in use but transformed into attractive vibrant restaurants retail centres.

Wake up Colchestrians! kick out stagnation, think outside the box - don't King Bob and the other carpet baggers build a bigger box!
That's all well and good, but planning laws and regulations have to be obeyed, regardless of what the planning committee might otherwise think.

What I don't quite understand is that the tower in Wivenhoe has a penthouse at the very top and if bricked in from top to bottom. Why then can't Jumbo be redesigned on the same basis? That way you could have the penthouse/restaurant at the top and flats from ground level up. If it's OK for the tower in Wivenhoe, why not Jumbo?

A similar tower in Kennington, South London, had a huge glass box added to it. That wasn't in keeping with the area and was damned ugly but still went ahead.

If the town plannes aren't going to be at least a little flexible then Jumbo is doomed to remain and empty shell.
Good morning Ritchie, what an absolutely fantastic day.

Re your comment on planning rules. In my experience everything is negotiable. The problem we have in Colchester is that a certain yellow brested King Bob of Bobtown has made camp with the minority BTT interest of preserving Jumbo strictly as a water tower no matter what. "The no matter what" being their plans are fatally flawed - because:
1. It is a minority interest and
2. Their projected costs are miles out.

I suggest king bobs real duty is to use his persuasive skills on behalf of the best option for Colchester, that being to let Jumbo evolve into an asset for the town. King Bob should be aggressively applying pressure the salaried planning officers and "professional " (check out Timbo's family takings from the pot) elected councillors to come up with a strong argument in favour of commercial development of Jumbo and the surrounding area.

Planning is negotiable, even with a grade 2, but not if the local mp has his boots firmly planted in no where land.
To be completely honest I didn't know that Bob Russell is supporting keeping Jumbo as a water tower. Seems a bit daft IMO opinion but each to their own I guess.

Shame though as it could be a fantastic building with multiple uses.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]roger bacon[/bold] wrote: Unless the Jumbo is developed into a restaurant with flats or offices it will still look like a wreck in another 20 years. With a 100 seater restaurant at the top what an attraction this would be for Colchester. It would draw people in from many miles away which would benefit many other businesses in the area. Councillor Tim Young said Mr Flatman would have to compromise with what he wants to do with the Jumbo tower. Surely the council should have to compromise and get rid of this eyesore.as it stands at the moment[/p][/quote]I agree with you Roger, Colchester Borough Council should know when to manage compromise for the good of the whole Colchester community. I believe Jumbo should be allowed evolve into a useful commercial development. That would be a win win - employment, rates income, and just possibly an iconic building to attract visitors. I have been involved in town centre maintenance and development work for retail chains over a long period the length and breadth. I have worked in other towns like Colchester where the salaried and elected council officers failed in their stewardship of wealth development. Such introspective management results in stagnant towns - lack of direction, poor access, empty shops and diminishing income. Check out Norwich, Harrogate York, Staines, Whitby, they are buzzing. Few empty shops, vehicle access, attractive parking charges, tourist management and commercial development of historic structures. Harrogate boasts Victorian spa baths - no longer in use but transformed into attractive vibrant restaurants retail centres. Wake up Colchestrians! kick out stagnation, think outside the box - don't King Bob and the other carpet baggers build a bigger box![/p][/quote]That's all well and good, but planning laws and regulations have to be obeyed, regardless of what the planning committee might otherwise think. What I don't quite understand is that the tower in Wivenhoe has a penthouse at the very top and if bricked in from top to bottom. Why then can't Jumbo be redesigned on the same basis? That way you could have the penthouse/restaurant at the top and flats from ground level up. If it's OK for the tower in Wivenhoe, why not Jumbo? A similar tower in Kennington, South London, had a huge glass box added to it. That wasn't in keeping with the area and was damned ugly but still went ahead. If the town plannes aren't going to be at least a little flexible then Jumbo is doomed to remain and empty shell.[/p][/quote]Good morning Ritchie, what an absolutely fantastic day. Re your comment on planning rules. In my experience everything is negotiable. The problem we have in Colchester is that a certain yellow brested King Bob of Bobtown has made camp with the minority BTT interest of preserving Jumbo strictly as a water tower no matter what. "The no matter what" being their plans are fatally flawed - because: 1. It is a minority interest and 2. Their projected costs are miles out. I suggest king bobs real duty is to use his persuasive skills on behalf of the best option for Colchester, that being to let Jumbo evolve into an asset for the town. King Bob should be aggressively applying pressure the salaried planning officers and "professional " (check out Timbo's family takings from the pot) elected councillors to come up with a strong argument in favour of commercial development of Jumbo and the surrounding area. Planning is negotiable, even with a grade 2, but not if the local mp has his boots firmly planted in no where land.[/p][/quote]To be completely honest I didn't know that Bob Russell is supporting keeping Jumbo as a water tower. Seems a bit daft IMO opinion but each to their own I guess. Shame though as it could be a fantastic building with multiple uses. Ritchie_Hicks
  • Score: 5

10:45am Sat 31 May 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Frank Scully wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
roger bacon wrote:
Unless the Jumbo is developed into a restaurant with flats or offices it will still look like a wreck in another 20 years. With a 100 seater restaurant at the top what an attraction this would be for Colchester. It would draw people in from many miles away which would benefit many other businesses in the area. Councillor Tim Young said Mr Flatman would have to compromise with what he wants to do with the Jumbo tower. Surely the council should have to compromise and get rid of this eyesore.as it stands at the moment
I agree with you Roger, Colchester Borough Council should know when to manage compromise for the good of the whole Colchester community. I believe Jumbo should be allowed evolve into a useful commercial development. That would be a win win - employment, rates income, and just possibly an iconic building to attract visitors.

I have been involved in town centre maintenance and development work for retail chains over a long period the length and breadth. I have worked in other towns like Colchester where the salaried and elected council officers failed in their stewardship of wealth development. Such introspective management results in stagnant towns - lack of direction, poor access, empty shops and diminishing income.

Check out Norwich, Harrogate York, Staines, Whitby, they are buzzing. Few empty shops, vehicle access, attractive parking charges, tourist management and commercial development of historic structures. Harrogate boasts Victorian spa baths - no longer in use but transformed into attractive vibrant restaurants retail centres.

Wake up Colchestrians! kick out stagnation, think outside the box - don't King Bob and the other carpet baggers build a bigger box!
I never understood the rationale for "preserving" a derelict water tower. It has no use unless it is redeveloped for uses which generate profit to cover maintenance. As for Bob Russell, I'd understood that MPs shouldn't get involved in individual planning applications.
Frank, you have hit the nail on the head - shame it wasn't king bobs head, might woken him up to his actual duty to represent the people of Colchester.
[quote][p][bold]Frank Scully[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]roger bacon[/bold] wrote: Unless the Jumbo is developed into a restaurant with flats or offices it will still look like a wreck in another 20 years. With a 100 seater restaurant at the top what an attraction this would be for Colchester. It would draw people in from many miles away which would benefit many other businesses in the area. Councillor Tim Young said Mr Flatman would have to compromise with what he wants to do with the Jumbo tower. Surely the council should have to compromise and get rid of this eyesore.as it stands at the moment[/p][/quote]I agree with you Roger, Colchester Borough Council should know when to manage compromise for the good of the whole Colchester community. I believe Jumbo should be allowed evolve into a useful commercial development. That would be a win win - employment, rates income, and just possibly an iconic building to attract visitors. I have been involved in town centre maintenance and development work for retail chains over a long period the length and breadth. I have worked in other towns like Colchester where the salaried and elected council officers failed in their stewardship of wealth development. Such introspective management results in stagnant towns - lack of direction, poor access, empty shops and diminishing income. Check out Norwich, Harrogate York, Staines, Whitby, they are buzzing. Few empty shops, vehicle access, attractive parking charges, tourist management and commercial development of historic structures. Harrogate boasts Victorian spa baths - no longer in use but transformed into attractive vibrant restaurants retail centres. Wake up Colchestrians! kick out stagnation, think outside the box - don't King Bob and the other carpet baggers build a bigger box![/p][/quote]I never understood the rationale for "preserving" a derelict water tower. It has no use unless it is redeveloped for uses which generate profit to cover maintenance. As for Bob Russell, I'd understood that MPs shouldn't get involved in individual planning applications.[/p][/quote]Frank, you have hit the nail on the head - shame it wasn't king bobs head, might woken him up to his actual duty to represent the people of Colchester. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: 1

10:53am Sat 31 May 14

Ritchie_Hicks says...

Jess Jephcott wrote:
Listen to you lot. Who do you think owns Jumbo and how many of you put your hands in your pockets to help the Balkerne Trust buy it? If you didn't contribute then mind your own business. The present owner will be the only one deciding on its future, not you lot. What a load of self-righteous twaddle I am reading here. If 100,000 Colcestrians had put a fiver towards buying it, it would be ours now and the proper squabbling could begin. As it is, those who didn't contribute, your views are irrelevant so go find another bandwagon to vent your collective spleens on.
This is quite a rich comment coming from someone who, just 2 days ago, accused George Braithwaite and Paul Flatman of some kind of dodgy handshake. For you to then criticise people discussing it's future after you made such a spurious claim - on an open forum - makes you nothing less than a hypocrite.

You really aren't in the best position to lecture people on whether they are entitled to an opinion.
[quote][p][bold]Jess Jephcott[/bold] wrote: Listen to you lot. Who do you think owns Jumbo and how many of you put your hands in your pockets to help the Balkerne Trust buy it? If you didn't contribute then mind your own business. The present owner will be the only one deciding on its future, not you lot. What a load of self-righteous twaddle I am reading here. If 100,000 Colcestrians had put a fiver towards buying it, it would be ours now and the proper squabbling could begin. As it is, those who didn't contribute, your views are irrelevant so go find another bandwagon to vent your collective spleens on.[/p][/quote]This is quite a rich comment coming from someone who, just 2 days ago, accused George Braithwaite and Paul Flatman of some kind of dodgy handshake. For you to then criticise people discussing it's future after you made such a spurious claim - on an open forum - makes you nothing less than a hypocrite. You really aren't in the best position to lecture people on whether they are entitled to an opinion. Ritchie_Hicks
  • Score: 8

10:57am Sat 31 May 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Jess Jephcott wrote:
Listen to you lot. Who do you think owns Jumbo and how many of you put your hands in your pockets to help the Balkerne Trust buy it? If you didn't contribute then mind your own business. The present owner will be the only one deciding on its future, not you lot. What a load of self-righteous twaddle I am reading here. If 100,000 Colcestrians had put a fiver towards buying it, it would be ours now and the proper squabbling could begin. As it is, those who didn't contribute, your views are irrelevant so go find another bandwagon to vent your collective spleens on.
But Jess it is the business of all Colchester folk to get the very best result for the town. Your interest is biased and therefore potentially weak in the long term.
[quote][p][bold]Jess Jephcott[/bold] wrote: Listen to you lot. Who do you think owns Jumbo and how many of you put your hands in your pockets to help the Balkerne Trust buy it? If you didn't contribute then mind your own business. The present owner will be the only one deciding on its future, not you lot. What a load of self-righteous twaddle I am reading here. If 100,000 Colcestrians had put a fiver towards buying it, it would be ours now and the proper squabbling could begin. As it is, those who didn't contribute, your views are irrelevant so go find another bandwagon to vent your collective spleens on.[/p][/quote]But Jess it is the business of all Colchester folk to get the very best result for the town. Your interest is biased and therefore potentially weak in the long term. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: 2

11:27am Sat 31 May 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
Jess Jephcott wrote: Listen to you lot. Who do you think owns Jumbo and how many of you put your hands in your pockets to help the Balkerne Trust buy it? If you didn't contribute then mind your own business. The present owner will be the only one deciding on its future, not you lot. What a load of self-righteous twaddle I am reading here. If 100,000 Colcestrians had put a fiver towards buying it, it would be ours now and the proper squabbling could begin. As it is, those who didn't contribute, your views are irrelevant so go find another bandwagon to vent your collective spleens on.
But Jess it is the business of all Colchester folk to get the very best result for the town. Your interest is biased and therefore potentially weak in the long term.
Also Jess, perhaps you were being a tad optimistic expecting 60 percent, children and adults, of of Colchester to to pay a fiver for a risky minority interest.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jess Jephcott[/bold] wrote: Listen to you lot. Who do you think owns Jumbo and how many of you put your hands in your pockets to help the Balkerne Trust buy it? If you didn't contribute then mind your own business. The present owner will be the only one deciding on its future, not you lot. What a load of self-righteous twaddle I am reading here. If 100,000 Colcestrians had put a fiver towards buying it, it would be ours now and the proper squabbling could begin. As it is, those who didn't contribute, your views are irrelevant so go find another bandwagon to vent your collective spleens on.[/p][/quote]But Jess it is the business of all Colchester folk to get the very best result for the town. Your interest is biased and therefore potentially weak in the long term.[/p][/quote]Also Jess, perhaps you were being a tad optimistic expecting 60 percent, children and adults, of of Colchester to to pay a fiver for a risky minority interest. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -3

11:37am Sat 31 May 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
roger bacon wrote: Unless the Jumbo is developed into a restaurant with flats or offices it will still look like a wreck in another 20 years. With a 100 seater restaurant at the top what an attraction this would be for Colchester. It would draw people in from many miles away which would benefit many other businesses in the area. Councillor Tim Young said Mr Flatman would have to compromise with what he wants to do with the Jumbo tower. Surely the council should have to compromise and get rid of this eyesore.as it stands at the moment
I agree with you Roger, Colchester Borough Council should know when to manage compromise for the good of the whole Colchester community. I believe Jumbo should be allowed evolve into a useful commercial development. That would be a win win - employment, rates income, and just possibly an iconic building to attract visitors. I have been involved in town centre maintenance and development work for retail chains over a long period the length and breadth. I have worked in other towns like Colchester where the salaried and elected council officers failed in their stewardship of wealth development. Such introspective management results in stagnant towns - lack of direction, poor access, empty shops and diminishing income. Check out Norwich, Harrogate York, Staines, Whitby, they are buzzing. Few empty shops, vehicle access, attractive parking charges, tourist management and commercial development of historic structures. Harrogate boasts Victorian spa baths - no longer in use but transformed into attractive vibrant restaurants retail centres. Wake up Colchestrians! kick out stagnation, think outside the box - don't King Bob and the other carpet baggers build a bigger box!
That's all well and good, but planning laws and regulations have to be obeyed, regardless of what the planning committee might otherwise think. What I don't quite understand is that the tower in Wivenhoe has a penthouse at the very top and if bricked in from top to bottom. Why then can't Jumbo be redesigned on the same basis? That way you could have the penthouse/restaurant at the top and flats from ground level up. If it's OK for the tower in Wivenhoe, why not Jumbo? A similar tower in Kennington, South London, had a huge glass box added to it. That wasn't in keeping with the area and was damned ugly but still went ahead. If the town plannes aren't going to be at least a little flexible then Jumbo is doomed to remain and empty shell.
Good morning Ritchie, what an absolutely fantastic day. Re your comment on planning rules. In my experience everything is negotiable. The problem we have in Colchester is that a certain yellow brested King Bob of Bobtown has made camp with the minority BTT interest of preserving Jumbo strictly as a water tower no matter what. "The no matter what" being their plans are fatally flawed - because: 1. It is a minority interest and 2. Their projected costs are miles out. I suggest king bobs real duty is to use his persuasive skills on behalf of the best option for Colchester, that being to let Jumbo evolve into an asset for the town. King Bob should be aggressively applying pressure the salaried planning officers and "professional " (check out Timbo's family takings from the pot) elected councillors to come up with a strong argument in favour of commercial development of Jumbo and the surrounding area. Planning is negotiable, even with a grade 2, but not if the local mp has his boots firmly planted in no where land.
To be completely honest I didn't know that Bob Russell is supporting keeping Jumbo as a water tower. Seems a bit daft IMO opinion but each to their own I guess. Shame though as it could be a fantastic building with multiple uses.
I was given to understand King Bob was a patron of the BTT and by implication support the BTT objective to preserve it in aspic. If he didn't support this objective, he had a duty to say so - wouldnt stop him being patron, just doing the right thing by Colchester.
[quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]roger bacon[/bold] wrote: Unless the Jumbo is developed into a restaurant with flats or offices it will still look like a wreck in another 20 years. With a 100 seater restaurant at the top what an attraction this would be for Colchester. It would draw people in from many miles away which would benefit many other businesses in the area. Councillor Tim Young said Mr Flatman would have to compromise with what he wants to do with the Jumbo tower. Surely the council should have to compromise and get rid of this eyesore.as it stands at the moment[/p][/quote]I agree with you Roger, Colchester Borough Council should know when to manage compromise for the good of the whole Colchester community. I believe Jumbo should be allowed evolve into a useful commercial development. That would be a win win - employment, rates income, and just possibly an iconic building to attract visitors. I have been involved in town centre maintenance and development work for retail chains over a long period the length and breadth. I have worked in other towns like Colchester where the salaried and elected council officers failed in their stewardship of wealth development. Such introspective management results in stagnant towns - lack of direction, poor access, empty shops and diminishing income. Check out Norwich, Harrogate York, Staines, Whitby, they are buzzing. Few empty shops, vehicle access, attractive parking charges, tourist management and commercial development of historic structures. Harrogate boasts Victorian spa baths - no longer in use but transformed into attractive vibrant restaurants retail centres. Wake up Colchestrians! kick out stagnation, think outside the box - don't King Bob and the other carpet baggers build a bigger box![/p][/quote]That's all well and good, but planning laws and regulations have to be obeyed, regardless of what the planning committee might otherwise think. What I don't quite understand is that the tower in Wivenhoe has a penthouse at the very top and if bricked in from top to bottom. Why then can't Jumbo be redesigned on the same basis? That way you could have the penthouse/restaurant at the top and flats from ground level up. If it's OK for the tower in Wivenhoe, why not Jumbo? A similar tower in Kennington, South London, had a huge glass box added to it. That wasn't in keeping with the area and was damned ugly but still went ahead. If the town plannes aren't going to be at least a little flexible then Jumbo is doomed to remain and empty shell.[/p][/quote]Good morning Ritchie, what an absolutely fantastic day. Re your comment on planning rules. In my experience everything is negotiable. The problem we have in Colchester is that a certain yellow brested King Bob of Bobtown has made camp with the minority BTT interest of preserving Jumbo strictly as a water tower no matter what. "The no matter what" being their plans are fatally flawed - because: 1. It is a minority interest and 2. Their projected costs are miles out. I suggest king bobs real duty is to use his persuasive skills on behalf of the best option for Colchester, that being to let Jumbo evolve into an asset for the town. King Bob should be aggressively applying pressure the salaried planning officers and "professional " (check out Timbo's family takings from the pot) elected councillors to come up with a strong argument in favour of commercial development of Jumbo and the surrounding area. Planning is negotiable, even with a grade 2, but not if the local mp has his boots firmly planted in no where land.[/p][/quote]To be completely honest I didn't know that Bob Russell is supporting keeping Jumbo as a water tower. Seems a bit daft IMO opinion but each to their own I guess. Shame though as it could be a fantastic building with multiple uses.[/p][/quote]I was given to understand King Bob was a patron of the BTT and by implication support the BTT objective to preserve it in aspic. If he didn't support this objective, he had a duty to say so - wouldnt stop him being patron, just doing the right thing by Colchester. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: 0

11:47am Sat 31 May 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
Jess Jephcott wrote: Listen to you lot. Who do you think owns Jumbo and how many of you put your hands in your pockets to help the Balkerne Trust buy it? If you didn't contribute then mind your own business. The present owner will be the only one deciding on its future, not you lot. What a load of self-righteous twaddle I am reading here. If 100,000 Colcestrians had put a fiver towards buying it, it would be ours now and the proper squabbling could begin. As it is, those who didn't contribute, your views are irrelevant so go find another bandwagon to vent your collective spleens on.
But Jess it is the business of all Colchester folk to get the very best result for the town. Your interest is biased and therefore potentially weak in the long term.
Also Jess, perhaps you were being a tad optimistic expecting 60 percent, children and adults, of of Colchester to to pay a fiver for a risky minority interest.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jess Jephcott[/bold] wrote: Listen to you lot. Who do you think owns Jumbo and how many of you put your hands in your pockets to help the Balkerne Trust buy it? If you didn't contribute then mind your own business. The present owner will be the only one deciding on its future, not you lot. What a load of self-righteous twaddle I am reading here. If 100,000 Colcestrians had put a fiver towards buying it, it would be ours now and the proper squabbling could begin. As it is, those who didn't contribute, your views are irrelevant so go find another bandwagon to vent your collective spleens on.[/p][/quote]But Jess it is the business of all Colchester folk to get the very best result for the town. Your interest is biased and therefore potentially weak in the long term.[/p][/quote]Also Jess, perhaps you were being a tad optimistic expecting 60 percent, children and adults, of of Colchester to to pay a fiver for a risky minority interest. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -1

1:04pm Sat 31 May 14

Shrubendlad says...

Having read page 3 of this weeks Standard,it would appear that the "fowl" mouthed Colchester MP should speak to Chicken Paul before this goes any further.
Im astonished that on page 2 he claims "I am a historian"
That explains why hes never been a politician then.
Having read page 3 of this weeks Standard,it would appear that the "fowl" mouthed Colchester MP should speak to Chicken Paul before this goes any further. Im astonished that on page 2 he claims "I am a historian" That explains why hes never been a politician then. Shrubendlad
  • Score: 5

1:14pm Sat 31 May 14

William George says...

Jess Jephcott wrote:
Listen to you lot. Who do you think owns Jumbo and how many of you put your hands in your pockets to help the Balkerne Trust buy it? If you didn't contribute then mind your own business. The present owner will be the only one deciding on its future, not you lot. What a load of self-righteous twaddle I am reading here. If 100,000 Colcestrians had put a fiver towards buying it, it would be ours now and the proper squabbling could begin. As it is, those who didn't contribute, your views are irrelevant so go find another bandwagon to vent your collective spleens on.
Jess,
Your points of views are considerably better in sense than these other irrelevant self-righteous twaddle writers.
But we must give the twaddle writers a chance and for them to see what they enjoy and achieve in their unstable fallible results. We must be understanding all for them with their obsessions that they have to cope with perhaps.
[quote][p][bold]Jess Jephcott[/bold] wrote: Listen to you lot. Who do you think owns Jumbo and how many of you put your hands in your pockets to help the Balkerne Trust buy it? If you didn't contribute then mind your own business. The present owner will be the only one deciding on its future, not you lot. What a load of self-righteous twaddle I am reading here. If 100,000 Colcestrians had put a fiver towards buying it, it would be ours now and the proper squabbling could begin. As it is, those who didn't contribute, your views are irrelevant so go find another bandwagon to vent your collective spleens on.[/p][/quote]Jess, Your points of views are considerably better in sense than these other irrelevant self-righteous twaddle writers. But we must give the twaddle writers a chance and for them to see what they enjoy and achieve in their unstable fallible results. We must be understanding all for them with their obsessions that they have to cope with perhaps. William George
  • Score: 2

1:48pm Sat 31 May 14

Angry of Lexden says...

William George wrote:
Jess Jephcott wrote: Listen to you lot. Who do you think owns Jumbo and how many of you put your hands in your pockets to help the Balkerne Trust buy it? If you didn't contribute then mind your own business. The present owner will be the only one deciding on its future, not you lot. What a load of self-righteous twaddle I am reading here. If 100,000 Colcestrians had put a fiver towards buying it, it would be ours now and the proper squabbling could begin. As it is, those who didn't contribute, your views are irrelevant so go find another bandwagon to vent your collective spleens on.
Jess, Your points of views are considerably better in sense than these other irrelevant self-righteous twaddle writers. But we must give the twaddle writers a chance and for them to see what they enjoy and achieve in their unstable fallible results. We must be understanding all for them with their obsessions that they have to cope with perhaps.
William, I'm not convinced you are helping Jess.
It is my personal opinion that there is more logic to introducing a level of commercial backing to the future of Jumbo, if it means the visual impact it's Victorian form of is preserved.
The aim of the BTT to preserve Jumbo exactly as a water tower is illogical. The costs of making it safe and then ongoing maintenance would have to be greatly subsidised. Visitor fees are unlikely to cover little more than the running costs of energy, insurance and legal fees.

Far better to make Jumbo a functioning part of the towns future development - in that format the structure could generate more support, interest and admiration of what the Victorian's did for Colchester than a minority historical interest. And, I bet if the Victorian engineers concerned could have a say, they would want jumbo at the end of its long life as a water tower, to evolve with a new lease of life and functionality.
[quote][p][bold]William George[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jess Jephcott[/bold] wrote: Listen to you lot. Who do you think owns Jumbo and how many of you put your hands in your pockets to help the Balkerne Trust buy it? If you didn't contribute then mind your own business. The present owner will be the only one deciding on its future, not you lot. What a load of self-righteous twaddle I am reading here. If 100,000 Colcestrians had put a fiver towards buying it, it would be ours now and the proper squabbling could begin. As it is, those who didn't contribute, your views are irrelevant so go find another bandwagon to vent your collective spleens on.[/p][/quote]Jess, Your points of views are considerably better in sense than these other irrelevant self-righteous twaddle writers. But we must give the twaddle writers a chance and for them to see what they enjoy and achieve in their unstable fallible results. We must be understanding all for them with their obsessions that they have to cope with perhaps.[/p][/quote]William, I'm not convinced you are helping Jess. It is my personal opinion that there is more logic to introducing a level of commercial backing to the future of Jumbo, if it means the visual impact it's Victorian form of is preserved. The aim of the BTT to preserve Jumbo exactly as a water tower is illogical. The costs of making it safe and then ongoing maintenance would have to be greatly subsidised. Visitor fees are unlikely to cover little more than the running costs of energy, insurance and legal fees. Far better to make Jumbo a functioning part of the towns future development - in that format the structure could generate more support, interest and admiration of what the Victorian's did for Colchester than a minority historical interest. And, I bet if the Victorian engineers concerned could have a say, they would want jumbo at the end of its long life as a water tower, to evolve with a new lease of life and functionality. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -6

9:29pm Sat 31 May 14

Nom De Plume says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
William George wrote:
Jess Jephcott wrote: Listen to you lot. Who do you think owns Jumbo and how many of you put your hands in your pockets to help the Balkerne Trust buy it? If you didn't contribute then mind your own business. The present owner will be the only one deciding on its future, not you lot. What a load of self-righteous twaddle I am reading here. If 100,000 Colcestrians had put a fiver towards buying it, it would be ours now and the proper squabbling could begin. As it is, those who didn't contribute, your views are irrelevant so go find another bandwagon to vent your collective spleens on.
Jess, Your points of views are considerably better in sense than these other irrelevant self-righteous twaddle writers. But we must give the twaddle writers a chance and for them to see what they enjoy and achieve in their unstable fallible results. We must be understanding all for them with their obsessions that they have to cope with perhaps.
William, I'm not convinced you are helping Jess.
It is my personal opinion that there is more logic to introducing a level of commercial backing to the future of Jumbo, if it means the visual impact it's Victorian form of is preserved.
The aim of the BTT to preserve Jumbo exactly as a water tower is illogical. The costs of making it safe and then ongoing maintenance would have to be greatly subsidised. Visitor fees are unlikely to cover little more than the running costs of energy, insurance and legal fees.

Far better to make Jumbo a functioning part of the towns future development - in that format the structure could generate more support, interest and admiration of what the Victorian's did for Colchester than a minority historical interest. And, I bet if the Victorian engineers concerned could have a say, they would want jumbo at the end of its long life as a water tower, to evolve with a new lease of life and functionality.
is there any possibility you can open up a gazette web name Happy Of Lexden so that at various times we can tell when you are happy than biting our hands off at all old chummy?
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]William George[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jess Jephcott[/bold] wrote: Listen to you lot. Who do you think owns Jumbo and how many of you put your hands in your pockets to help the Balkerne Trust buy it? If you didn't contribute then mind your own business. The present owner will be the only one deciding on its future, not you lot. What a load of self-righteous twaddle I am reading here. If 100,000 Colcestrians had put a fiver towards buying it, it would be ours now and the proper squabbling could begin. As it is, those who didn't contribute, your views are irrelevant so go find another bandwagon to vent your collective spleens on.[/p][/quote]Jess, Your points of views are considerably better in sense than these other irrelevant self-righteous twaddle writers. But we must give the twaddle writers a chance and for them to see what they enjoy and achieve in their unstable fallible results. We must be understanding all for them with their obsessions that they have to cope with perhaps.[/p][/quote]William, I'm not convinced you are helping Jess. It is my personal opinion that there is more logic to introducing a level of commercial backing to the future of Jumbo, if it means the visual impact it's Victorian form of is preserved. The aim of the BTT to preserve Jumbo exactly as a water tower is illogical. The costs of making it safe and then ongoing maintenance would have to be greatly subsidised. Visitor fees are unlikely to cover little more than the running costs of energy, insurance and legal fees. Far better to make Jumbo a functioning part of the towns future development - in that format the structure could generate more support, interest and admiration of what the Victorian's did for Colchester than a minority historical interest. And, I bet if the Victorian engineers concerned could have a say, they would want jumbo at the end of its long life as a water tower, to evolve with a new lease of life and functionality.[/p][/quote]is there any possibility you can open up a gazette web name Happy Of Lexden so that at various times we can tell when you are happy than biting our hands off at all old chummy? Nom De Plume
  • Score: 4

10:11pm Sat 31 May 14

IpsumDelor says...

seikothrill wrote:
IpsumDelor wrote:
Which part of 'two previous failed planning applications for development' does this new owner not understand?
I understand your comment but lets hope the new owners revised plans are better than previous ones and accepted by Colchester Council Planning Committee who seem to approve every other planning application within the borough with no thought to locals, infrastructure etc
If you understood my comment you'd realise that I don't want Jumbo developed into apartments, offices or anything else. Not even the 'restaurant in the sky' that a certain political wannabe so longs to take his dear old grandma up to visit. I want it restored and maintained as a monument to, and towering over, our town.
[quote][p][bold]seikothrill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: Which part of 'two previous failed planning applications for development' does this new owner not understand?[/p][/quote]I understand your comment but lets hope the new owners revised plans are better than previous ones and accepted by Colchester Council Planning Committee who seem to approve every other planning application within the borough with no thought to locals, infrastructure etc[/p][/quote]If you understood my comment you'd realise that I don't want Jumbo developed into apartments, offices or anything else. Not even the 'restaurant in the sky' that a certain political wannabe so longs to take his dear old grandma up to visit. I want it restored and maintained as a monument to, and towering over, our town. IpsumDelor
  • Score: 4

10:42pm Sat 31 May 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Nom De Plume wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
William George wrote:
Jess Jephcott wrote: Listen to you lot. Who do you think owns Jumbo and how many of you put your hands in your pockets to help the Balkerne Trust buy it? If you didn't contribute then mind your own business. The present owner will be the only one deciding on its future, not you lot. What a load of self-righteous twaddle I am reading here. If 100,000 Colcestrians had put a fiver towards buying it, it would be ours now and the proper squabbling could begin. As it is, those who didn't contribute, your views are irrelevant so go find another bandwagon to vent your collective spleens on.
Jess, Your points of views are considerably better in sense than these other irrelevant self-righteous twaddle writers. But we must give the twaddle writers a chance and for them to see what they enjoy and achieve in their unstable fallible results. We must be understanding all for them with their obsessions that they have to cope with perhaps.
William, I'm not convinced you are helping Jess.
It is my personal opinion that there is more logic to introducing a level of commercial backing to the future of Jumbo, if it means the visual impact it's Victorian form of is preserved.
The aim of the BTT to preserve Jumbo exactly as a water tower is illogical. The costs of making it safe and then ongoing maintenance would have to be greatly subsidised. Visitor fees are unlikely to cover little more than the running costs of energy, insurance and legal fees.

Far better to make Jumbo a functioning part of the towns future development - in that format the structure could generate more support, interest and admiration of what the Victorian's did for Colchester than a minority historical interest. And, I bet if the Victorian engineers concerned could have a say, they would want jumbo at the end of its long life as a water tower, to evolve with a new lease of life and functionality.
is there any possibility you can open up a gazette web name Happy Of Lexden so that at various times we can tell when you are happy than biting our hands off at all old chummy?
No problem Non, I can be happy, or even slightly confused, up to you....

But my comments would be the same. I really find it very difficult to believe Colchester's future wealth development should be disabled by a minority besotted by a water tank, when we could convert the finer points of its architecture to a new lease of practical life, contributing to the benefit of all Colchesterians.

I say again, I bet the Victorian's engineers would prefer the outline of their achievements were transferred to a new use, to be admired and used by more Colchester folk than just a few introverts.
[quote][p][bold]Nom De Plume[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]William George[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jess Jephcott[/bold] wrote: Listen to you lot. Who do you think owns Jumbo and how many of you put your hands in your pockets to help the Balkerne Trust buy it? If you didn't contribute then mind your own business. The present owner will be the only one deciding on its future, not you lot. What a load of self-righteous twaddle I am reading here. If 100,000 Colcestrians had put a fiver towards buying it, it would be ours now and the proper squabbling could begin. As it is, those who didn't contribute, your views are irrelevant so go find another bandwagon to vent your collective spleens on.[/p][/quote]Jess, Your points of views are considerably better in sense than these other irrelevant self-righteous twaddle writers. But we must give the twaddle writers a chance and for them to see what they enjoy and achieve in their unstable fallible results. We must be understanding all for them with their obsessions that they have to cope with perhaps.[/p][/quote]William, I'm not convinced you are helping Jess. It is my personal opinion that there is more logic to introducing a level of commercial backing to the future of Jumbo, if it means the visual impact it's Victorian form of is preserved. The aim of the BTT to preserve Jumbo exactly as a water tower is illogical. The costs of making it safe and then ongoing maintenance would have to be greatly subsidised. Visitor fees are unlikely to cover little more than the running costs of energy, insurance and legal fees. Far better to make Jumbo a functioning part of the towns future development - in that format the structure could generate more support, interest and admiration of what the Victorian's did for Colchester than a minority historical interest. And, I bet if the Victorian engineers concerned could have a say, they would want jumbo at the end of its long life as a water tower, to evolve with a new lease of life and functionality.[/p][/quote]is there any possibility you can open up a gazette web name Happy Of Lexden so that at various times we can tell when you are happy than biting our hands off at all old chummy?[/p][/quote]No problem Non, I can be happy, or even slightly confused, up to you.... But my comments would be the same. I really find it very difficult to believe Colchester's future wealth development should be disabled by a minority besotted by a water tank, when we could convert the finer points of its architecture to a new lease of practical life, contributing to the benefit of all Colchesterians. I say again, I bet the Victorian's engineers would prefer the outline of their achievements were transferred to a new use, to be admired and used by more Colchester folk than just a few introverts. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -2

11:06pm Sat 31 May 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
Nom De Plume wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
William George wrote:
Jess Jephcott wrote: Listen to you lot. Who do you think owns Jumbo and how many of you put your hands in your pockets to help the Balkerne Trust buy it? If you didn't contribute then mind your own business. The present owner will be the only one deciding on its future, not you lot. What a load of self-righteous twaddle I am reading here. If 100,000 Colcestrians had put a fiver towards buying it, it would be ours now and the proper squabbling could begin. As it is, those who didn't contribute, your views are irrelevant so go find another bandwagon to vent your collective spleens on.
Jess, Your points of views are considerably better in sense than these other irrelevant self-righteous twaddle writers. But we must give the twaddle writers a chance and for them to see what they enjoy and achieve in their unstable fallible results. We must be understanding all for them with their obsessions that they have to cope with perhaps.
William, I'm not convinced you are helping Jess.
It is my personal opinion that there is more logic to introducing a level of commercial backing to the future of Jumbo, if it means the visual impact it's Victorian form of is preserved.
The aim of the BTT to preserve Jumbo exactly as a water tower is illogical. The costs of making it safe and then ongoing maintenance would have to be greatly subsidised. Visitor fees are unlikely to cover little more than the running costs of energy, insurance and legal fees.

Far better to make Jumbo a functioning part of the towns future development - in that format the structure could generate more support, interest and admiration of what the Victorian's did for Colchester than a minority historical interest. And, I bet if the Victorian engineers concerned could have a say, they would want jumbo at the end of its long life as a water tower, to evolve with a new lease of life and functionality.
is there any possibility you can open up a gazette web name Happy Of Lexden so that at various times we can tell when you are happy than biting our hands off at all old chummy?
No problem Non, I can be happy, or even slightly confused, up to you....

But my comments would be the same. I really find it very difficult to believe Colchester's future wealth development should be disabled by a minority besotted by a water tank, when we could convert the finer points of its architecture to a new lease of practical life, contributing to the benefit of all Colchesterians.

I say again, I bet the Victorian's engineers would prefer the outline of their achievements were transferred to a new use, to be admired and used by more Colchester folk than just a few introverts.
Sorry Non, you are right to make the comment suggesting I'm a winger, but I do get pretty fed up with the way our town has slid toward decay when we have such a wealth of history and potential - a winning combination which other towns I work in, convert to dynamic and vibrant development. I promise in future I will find, and high light a nugget of Colchester gold before I vent my frustration.

Have a good Sunday, I'm off to do the washing up - and a glass of red.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nom De Plume[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]William George[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jess Jephcott[/bold] wrote: Listen to you lot. Who do you think owns Jumbo and how many of you put your hands in your pockets to help the Balkerne Trust buy it? If you didn't contribute then mind your own business. The present owner will be the only one deciding on its future, not you lot. What a load of self-righteous twaddle I am reading here. If 100,000 Colcestrians had put a fiver towards buying it, it would be ours now and the proper squabbling could begin. As it is, those who didn't contribute, your views are irrelevant so go find another bandwagon to vent your collective spleens on.[/p][/quote]Jess, Your points of views are considerably better in sense than these other irrelevant self-righteous twaddle writers. But we must give the twaddle writers a chance and for them to see what they enjoy and achieve in their unstable fallible results. We must be understanding all for them with their obsessions that they have to cope with perhaps.[/p][/quote]William, I'm not convinced you are helping Jess. It is my personal opinion that there is more logic to introducing a level of commercial backing to the future of Jumbo, if it means the visual impact it's Victorian form of is preserved. The aim of the BTT to preserve Jumbo exactly as a water tower is illogical. The costs of making it safe and then ongoing maintenance would have to be greatly subsidised. Visitor fees are unlikely to cover little more than the running costs of energy, insurance and legal fees. Far better to make Jumbo a functioning part of the towns future development - in that format the structure could generate more support, interest and admiration of what the Victorian's did for Colchester than a minority historical interest. And, I bet if the Victorian engineers concerned could have a say, they would want jumbo at the end of its long life as a water tower, to evolve with a new lease of life and functionality.[/p][/quote]is there any possibility you can open up a gazette web name Happy Of Lexden so that at various times we can tell when you are happy than biting our hands off at all old chummy?[/p][/quote]No problem Non, I can be happy, or even slightly confused, up to you.... But my comments would be the same. I really find it very difficult to believe Colchester's future wealth development should be disabled by a minority besotted by a water tank, when we could convert the finer points of its architecture to a new lease of practical life, contributing to the benefit of all Colchesterians. I say again, I bet the Victorian's engineers would prefer the outline of their achievements were transferred to a new use, to be admired and used by more Colchester folk than just a few introverts.[/p][/quote]Sorry Non, you are right to make the comment suggesting I'm a winger, but I do get pretty fed up with the way our town has slid toward decay when we have such a wealth of history and potential - a winning combination which other towns I work in, convert to dynamic and vibrant development. I promise in future I will find, and high light a nugget of Colchester gold before I vent my frustration. Have a good Sunday, I'm off to do the washing up - and a glass of red. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: 0

11:16pm Sat 31 May 14

Angry of Lexden says...

IpsumDelor wrote:
seikothrill wrote:
IpsumDelor wrote:
Which part of 'two previous failed planning applications for development' does this new owner not understand?
I understand your comment but lets hope the new owners revised plans are better than previous ones and accepted by Colchester Council Planning Committee who seem to approve every other planning application within the borough with no thought to locals, infrastructure etc
If you understood my comment you'd realise that I don't want Jumbo developed into apartments, offices or anything else. Not even the 'restaurant in the sky' that a certain political wannabe so longs to take his dear old grandma up to visit. I want it restored and maintained as a monument to, and towering over, our town.
Ipsum, you do seem to use "I want" and "I Don't want" quite a bit. There are others in the town......
Pretty sure you don't share King Bobs party politics.

Mind you, I don't think KB shares his party's politics.
[quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]seikothrill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: Which part of 'two previous failed planning applications for development' does this new owner not understand?[/p][/quote]I understand your comment but lets hope the new owners revised plans are better than previous ones and accepted by Colchester Council Planning Committee who seem to approve every other planning application within the borough with no thought to locals, infrastructure etc[/p][/quote]If you understood my comment you'd realise that I don't want Jumbo developed into apartments, offices or anything else. Not even the 'restaurant in the sky' that a certain political wannabe so longs to take his dear old grandma up to visit. I want it restored and maintained as a monument to, and towering over, our town.[/p][/quote]Ipsum, you do seem to use "I want" and "I Don't want" quite a bit. There are others in the town...... Pretty sure you don't share King Bobs party politics. Mind you, I don't think KB shares his party's politics. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -1

12:32am Sun 1 Jun 14

Hamiltonandy says...

The previous owner claimed to have spent £1.5million on Jumbo but would sell it at auction without reserve. Very odd as it seemed unlikely he would just write off the resulting £1.3million loss unless it could be set against profits elsewhere. It seems the present owner has connections with the past owner and possibly cooperating over the proposed development.
.
I do not understand how the present owner has spare cash available for the proposed development when the Gazette reported his business went into liquidation in May 2013 owing £1.5million.
.
I was suspicious about the auction when checking the legal information. One file was incorrect as it referred to another property. The auction house and selling solicitor failed to respond.
.
A huge concern is that any development may be only partly completed. The unique building could lose its unique features and end up being delisted. Then the developer would convert it into flats as originally intended.
.
I warned the BT trust that Jumbo could sell for £200,000 and it seems was only £10,000 out. Therefore the donations would be insufficient. Regretfully the trust refused to have public meetings to encourage support and would not consider accepting non-interest bearing loans.
.
So it seems we are in for a re-run of repeated impractical planning applications over the next five years before reality dawns on the present owner. I have been up Jumbo and cannot see how any commercial development would be viable. However under charitable ownership it would be a great tourist attraction. A lift or stair lift is essential as the stairs seem unending.
..
The previous owner claimed to have spent £1.5million on Jumbo but would sell it at auction without reserve. Very odd as it seemed unlikely he would just write off the resulting £1.3million loss unless it could be set against profits elsewhere. It seems the present owner has connections with the past owner and possibly cooperating over the proposed development. . I do not understand how the present owner has spare cash available for the proposed development when the Gazette reported his business went into liquidation in May 2013 owing £1.5million. . I was suspicious about the auction when checking the legal information. One file was incorrect as it referred to another property. The auction house and selling solicitor failed to respond. . A huge concern is that any development may be only partly completed. The unique building could lose its unique features and end up being delisted. Then the developer would convert it into flats as originally intended. . I warned the BT trust that Jumbo could sell for £200,000 and it seems was only £10,000 out. Therefore the donations would be insufficient. Regretfully the trust refused to have public meetings to encourage support and would not consider accepting non-interest bearing loans. . So it seems we are in for a re-run of repeated impractical planning applications over the next five years before reality dawns on the present owner. I have been up Jumbo and cannot see how any commercial development would be viable. However under charitable ownership it would be a great tourist attraction. A lift or stair lift is essential as the stairs seem unending. .. Hamiltonandy
  • Score: 5

12:53am Sun 1 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Good morning Andy,
Just read your note. Hope you give time tomorrow to respond. I think I know your best hope for Jumbo. But you may well have consider compromise.

Yours, not so Angry, slightly happy, but at the same time extremely confused - not really!
Good morning Andy, Just read your note. Hope you give time tomorrow to respond. I think I know your best hope for Jumbo. But you may well have consider compromise. Yours, not so Angry, slightly happy, but at the same time extremely confused - not really! Angry of Lexden
  • Score: 0

1:00am Sun 1 Jun 14

Boris says...

Hamiltonandy wrote:
The previous owner claimed to have spent £1.5million on Jumbo but would sell it at auction without reserve. Very odd as it seemed unlikely he would just write off the resulting £1.3million loss unless it could be set against profits elsewhere. It seems the present owner has connections with the past owner and possibly cooperating over the proposed development.
.
I do not understand how the present owner has spare cash available for the proposed development when the Gazette reported his business went into liquidation in May 2013 owing £1.5million.
.
I was suspicious about the auction when checking the legal information. One file was incorrect as it referred to another property. The auction house and selling solicitor failed to respond.
.
A huge concern is that any development may be only partly completed. The unique building could lose its unique features and end up being delisted. Then the developer would convert it into flats as originally intended.
.
I warned the BT trust that Jumbo could sell for £200,000 and it seems was only £10,000 out. Therefore the donations would be insufficient. Regretfully the trust refused to have public meetings to encourage support and would not consider accepting non-interest bearing loans.
.
So it seems we are in for a re-run of repeated impractical planning applications over the next five years before reality dawns on the present owner. I have been up Jumbo and cannot see how any commercial development would be viable. However under charitable ownership it would be a great tourist attraction. A lift or stair lift is essential as the stairs seem unending.
..
The auctioneers published grossly misleading information for prospective purchasers, mentioning a successful but lapsed planning application in 2001, but not mentioning the applicatioons refused in 2011 and 2013. They suggested that Jumbo could be converted subject to planning consent, but failed to mention that no planning committee would be so foolish as to approve an application which would damage the integrity of a Grade II* listed building. I telephoned the auctioneers and got them to insert an addendum mentioning this, but some prospective purchasers may not have noticed this.
Not that that applied to Mr Flatman, an old friend of the vendor, who will have known about the difficulties he might face in seeking planning consent. But itseems clear from his declarations to the E A D T that he hopes to bulldoze his application through anyway. Time will tell.
[quote][p][bold]Hamiltonandy[/bold] wrote: The previous owner claimed to have spent £1.5million on Jumbo but would sell it at auction without reserve. Very odd as it seemed unlikely he would just write off the resulting £1.3million loss unless it could be set against profits elsewhere. It seems the present owner has connections with the past owner and possibly cooperating over the proposed development. . I do not understand how the present owner has spare cash available for the proposed development when the Gazette reported his business went into liquidation in May 2013 owing £1.5million. . I was suspicious about the auction when checking the legal information. One file was incorrect as it referred to another property. The auction house and selling solicitor failed to respond. . A huge concern is that any development may be only partly completed. The unique building could lose its unique features and end up being delisted. Then the developer would convert it into flats as originally intended. . I warned the BT trust that Jumbo could sell for £200,000 and it seems was only £10,000 out. Therefore the donations would be insufficient. Regretfully the trust refused to have public meetings to encourage support and would not consider accepting non-interest bearing loans. . So it seems we are in for a re-run of repeated impractical planning applications over the next five years before reality dawns on the present owner. I have been up Jumbo and cannot see how any commercial development would be viable. However under charitable ownership it would be a great tourist attraction. A lift or stair lift is essential as the stairs seem unending. ..[/p][/quote]The auctioneers published grossly misleading information for prospective purchasers, mentioning a successful but lapsed planning application in 2001, but not mentioning the applicatioons refused in 2011 and 2013. They suggested that Jumbo could be converted subject to planning consent, but failed to mention that no planning committee would be so foolish as to approve an application which would damage the integrity of a Grade II* listed building. I telephoned the auctioneers and got them to insert an addendum mentioning this, but some prospective purchasers may not have noticed this. Not that that applied to Mr Flatman, an old friend of the vendor, who will have known about the difficulties he might face in seeking planning consent. But itseems clear from his declarations to the E A D T that he hopes to bulldoze his application through anyway. Time will tell. Boris
  • Score: 9

1:10am Sun 1 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Hamiltonandy wrote:
The previous owner claimed to have spent £1.5million on Jumbo but would sell it at auction without reserve. Very odd as it seemed unlikely he would just write off the resulting £1.3million loss unless it could be set against profits elsewhere. It seems the present owner has connections with the past owner and possibly cooperating over the proposed development. . I do not understand how the present owner has spare cash available for the proposed development when the Gazette reported his business went into liquidation in May 2013 owing £1.5million. . I was suspicious about the auction when checking the legal information. One file was incorrect as it referred to another property. The auction house and selling solicitor failed to respond. . A huge concern is that any development may be only partly completed. The unique building could lose its unique features and end up being delisted. Then the developer would convert it into flats as originally intended. . I warned the BT trust that Jumbo could sell for £200,000 and it seems was only £10,000 out. Therefore the donations would be insufficient. Regretfully the trust refused to have public meetings to encourage support and would not consider accepting non-interest bearing loans. . So it seems we are in for a re-run of repeated impractical planning applications over the next five years before reality dawns on the present owner. I have been up Jumbo and cannot see how any commercial development would be viable. However under charitable ownership it would be a great tourist attraction. A lift or stair lift is essential as the stairs seem unending. ..
Just revisiting this. Jumbo presents a structural format that should support development within the existing building of a restaurant, flats, studios etc . Dont forget the tank was built to support over 1000 tonnes of water - provided there are no defects/ weaknesses. In the event there are structural problems, all bets are off and we need to demolish. It's not viable as a tribute to Victorian engineering if it fails it's original performance requirements.
[quote][p][bold]Hamiltonandy[/bold] wrote: The previous owner claimed to have spent £1.5million on Jumbo but would sell it at auction without reserve. Very odd as it seemed unlikely he would just write off the resulting £1.3million loss unless it could be set against profits elsewhere. It seems the present owner has connections with the past owner and possibly cooperating over the proposed development. . I do not understand how the present owner has spare cash available for the proposed development when the Gazette reported his business went into liquidation in May 2013 owing £1.5million. . I was suspicious about the auction when checking the legal information. One file was incorrect as it referred to another property. The auction house and selling solicitor failed to respond. . A huge concern is that any development may be only partly completed. The unique building could lose its unique features and end up being delisted. Then the developer would convert it into flats as originally intended. . I warned the BT trust that Jumbo could sell for £200,000 and it seems was only £10,000 out. Therefore the donations would be insufficient. Regretfully the trust refused to have public meetings to encourage support and would not consider accepting non-interest bearing loans. . So it seems we are in for a re-run of repeated impractical planning applications over the next five years before reality dawns on the present owner. I have been up Jumbo and cannot see how any commercial development would be viable. However under charitable ownership it would be a great tourist attraction. A lift or stair lift is essential as the stairs seem unending. ..[/p][/quote]Just revisiting this. Jumbo presents a structural format that should support development within the existing building of a restaurant, flats, studios etc . Dont forget the tank was built to support over 1000 tonnes of water - provided there are no defects/ weaknesses. In the event there are structural problems, all bets are off and we need to demolish. It's not viable as a tribute to Victorian engineering if it fails it's original performance requirements. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -1

4:28am Sun 1 Jun 14

Shrubendlad says...

I have to point out that English Heritage have always said that the preferred conservation of this building in its current form might be overrdden by economic necessity.
Although conversion to apartments and offices may be inappropriate, a glass
observation platform served by lifts suitable for disabled access is far more acceptable to the Colchester public.
I have to point out that English Heritage have always said that the preferred conservation of this building in its current form might be overrdden by economic necessity. Although conversion to apartments and offices may be inappropriate, a glass observation platform served by lifts suitable for disabled access is far more acceptable to the Colchester public. Shrubendlad
  • Score: -1

4:51am Sun 1 Jun 14

Shrubendlad says...

If Boris had treated the Jumbo issue as a sympathetic town project from the outset rather than political propaganda-all of this mess could have been avoided .Recession or no recession funding was always there with cross party agreement.
With the LibDems now trailing behind the Greens on the national stage etc etc.
If Boris had treated the Jumbo issue as a sympathetic town project from the outset rather than political propaganda-all of this mess could have been avoided .Recession or no recession funding was always there with cross party agreement. With the LibDems now trailing behind the Greens on the national stage etc etc. Shrubendlad
  • Score: -2

10:53am Sun 1 Jun 14

driver4108 says...

Thought he didn't have any money left,owed my company thousands when he allegedly went bankrupt same as a lot of other people!
Absolute crook and what goes around comes around!!
Thought he didn't have any money left,owed my company thousands when he allegedly went bankrupt same as a lot of other people! Absolute crook and what goes around comes around!! driver4108
  • Score: 10

11:35am Sun 1 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
Hamiltonandy wrote:
The previous owner claimed to have spent £1.5million on Jumbo but would sell it at auction without reserve. Very odd as it seemed unlikely he would just write off the resulting £1.3million loss unless it could be set against profits elsewhere. It seems the present owner has connections with the past owner and possibly cooperating over the proposed development. . I do not understand how the present owner has spare cash available for the proposed development when the Gazette reported his business went into liquidation in May 2013 owing £1.5million. . I was suspicious about the auction when checking the legal information. One file was incorrect as it referred to another property. The auction house and selling solicitor failed to respond. . A huge concern is that any development may be only partly completed. The unique building could lose its unique features and end up being delisted. Then the developer would convert it into flats as originally intended. . I warned the BT trust that Jumbo could sell for £200,000 and it seems was only £10,000 out. Therefore the donations would be insufficient. Regretfully the trust refused to have public meetings to encourage support and would not consider accepting non-interest bearing loans. . So it seems we are in for a re-run of repeated impractical planning applications over the next five years before reality dawns on the present owner. I have been up Jumbo and cannot see how any commercial development would be viable. However under charitable ownership it would be a great tourist attraction. A lift or stair lift is essential as the stairs seem unending. ..
Just revisiting this. Jumbo presents a structural format that should support development within the existing building of a restaurant, flats, studios etc . Dont forget the tank was built to support over 1000 tonnes of water - provided there are no defects/ weaknesses. In the event there are structural problems, all bets are off and we need to demolish. It's not viable as a tribute to Victorian engineering if it fails it's original performance requirements.
Good morning all, another great day! Is there anyone who can explain Andyhamilton's suggestion that the BTT refused public meetings, and why?

On another point, I walked to Jumbo with my youngest son yesterday. He, as ever, was full of questions. Although I had been aware the safety hoarding had been removed, my work head rang a few alarm bells. I'm guessing a close up survey of the total external surfaces was made with any loose material removed or made good?
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hamiltonandy[/bold] wrote: The previous owner claimed to have spent £1.5million on Jumbo but would sell it at auction without reserve. Very odd as it seemed unlikely he would just write off the resulting £1.3million loss unless it could be set against profits elsewhere. It seems the present owner has connections with the past owner and possibly cooperating over the proposed development. . I do not understand how the present owner has spare cash available for the proposed development when the Gazette reported his business went into liquidation in May 2013 owing £1.5million. . I was suspicious about the auction when checking the legal information. One file was incorrect as it referred to another property. The auction house and selling solicitor failed to respond. . A huge concern is that any development may be only partly completed. The unique building could lose its unique features and end up being delisted. Then the developer would convert it into flats as originally intended. . I warned the BT trust that Jumbo could sell for £200,000 and it seems was only £10,000 out. Therefore the donations would be insufficient. Regretfully the trust refused to have public meetings to encourage support and would not consider accepting non-interest bearing loans. . So it seems we are in for a re-run of repeated impractical planning applications over the next five years before reality dawns on the present owner. I have been up Jumbo and cannot see how any commercial development would be viable. However under charitable ownership it would be a great tourist attraction. A lift or stair lift is essential as the stairs seem unending. ..[/p][/quote]Just revisiting this. Jumbo presents a structural format that should support development within the existing building of a restaurant, flats, studios etc . Dont forget the tank was built to support over 1000 tonnes of water - provided there are no defects/ weaknesses. In the event there are structural problems, all bets are off and we need to demolish. It's not viable as a tribute to Victorian engineering if it fails it's original performance requirements.[/p][/quote]Good morning all, another great day! Is there anyone who can explain Andyhamilton's suggestion that the BTT refused public meetings, and why? On another point, I walked to Jumbo with my youngest son yesterday. He, as ever, was full of questions. Although I had been aware the safety hoarding had been removed, my work head rang a few alarm bells. I'm guessing a close up survey of the total external surfaces was made with any loose material removed or made good? Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -2

2:21pm Sun 1 Jun 14

Jess Jephcott says...

It is worthy of mention that, whilst I and perhaps 100 other people, donated money to the Balkerne Trust in our desire to buy Jumbo for the reasons as detailed in their plea for financial assistance, the vast majority of Colcestrians did not support us. A fiver each from the majority of Colcestrians would have clinched it. As it is, Mr Flatman made the winning bid, and now Jumbo's future is in his hands. Whilst my preference was the Balkerne Trust way, I had no problems with Mr Braithwaite's plans either (subject to planning scrutiny). I am just sick and tired of all the nastiness, envy, prejudice, stubbornness, petty politicking and the decay of a wonderful building. Please, please, can we move forward with the new owner's plans. The Balkerne Trust clearly does not have the support of the people of Colchester, sadly.
It is worthy of mention that, whilst I and perhaps 100 other people, donated money to the Balkerne Trust in our desire to buy Jumbo for the reasons as detailed in their plea for financial assistance, the vast majority of Colcestrians did not support us. A fiver each from the majority of Colcestrians would have clinched it. As it is, Mr Flatman made the winning bid, and now Jumbo's future is in his hands. Whilst my preference was the Balkerne Trust way, I had no problems with Mr Braithwaite's plans either (subject to planning scrutiny). I am just sick and tired of all the nastiness, envy, prejudice, stubbornness, petty politicking and the decay of a wonderful building. Please, please, can we move forward with the new owner's plans. The Balkerne Trust clearly does not have the support of the people of Colchester, sadly. Jess Jephcott
  • Score: -4

2:57pm Sun 1 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Jess Jephcott wrote:
It is worthy of mention that, whilst I and perhaps 100 other people, donated money to the Balkerne Trust in our desire to buy Jumbo for the reasons as detailed in their plea for financial assistance, the vast majority of Colcestrians did not support us. A fiver each from the majority of Colcestrians would have clinched it. As it is, Mr Flatman made the winning bid, and now Jumbo's future is in his hands. Whilst my preference was the Balkerne Trust way, I had no problems with Mr Braithwaite's plans either (subject to planning scrutiny). I am just sick and tired of all the nastiness, envy, prejudice, stubbornness, petty politicking and the decay of a wonderful building. Please, please, can we move forward with the new owner's plans. The Balkerne Trust clearly does not have the support of the people of Colchester, sadly.
Jess, I'm not sure it's fair to say the people of Colchester don't support the BTT. It's gone on and on for too many years to hold a majority interest. I think your hope was a fiver from 60% of the adult/ child population - the BTT just didn't attract the level of interest required, and there's other stuff going on in people's lives.

Perhaps if the BTT did it again they would appoint an effective fund raiser and event manager. I have lived in the town for over forty years and my residual impression of Jumbo news is on going rows between the interested parties but no positive or attractive invitation to get involved. Sorry but as an engineering geek of a certain age I would have opened my wallet if........
[quote][p][bold]Jess Jephcott[/bold] wrote: It is worthy of mention that, whilst I and perhaps 100 other people, donated money to the Balkerne Trust in our desire to buy Jumbo for the reasons as detailed in their plea for financial assistance, the vast majority of Colcestrians did not support us. A fiver each from the majority of Colcestrians would have clinched it. As it is, Mr Flatman made the winning bid, and now Jumbo's future is in his hands. Whilst my preference was the Balkerne Trust way, I had no problems with Mr Braithwaite's plans either (subject to planning scrutiny). I am just sick and tired of all the nastiness, envy, prejudice, stubbornness, petty politicking and the decay of a wonderful building. Please, please, can we move forward with the new owner's plans. The Balkerne Trust clearly does not have the support of the people of Colchester, sadly.[/p][/quote]Jess, I'm not sure it's fair to say the people of Colchester don't support the BTT. It's gone on and on for too many years to hold a majority interest. I think your hope was a fiver from 60% of the adult/ child population - the BTT just didn't attract the level of interest required, and there's other stuff going on in people's lives. Perhaps if the BTT did it again they would appoint an effective fund raiser and event manager. I have lived in the town for over forty years and my residual impression of Jumbo news is on going rows between the interested parties but no positive or attractive invitation to get involved. Sorry but as an engineering geek of a certain age I would have opened my wallet if........ Angry of Lexden
  • Score: 3

5:15pm Sun 1 Jun 14

Shrubendlad says...

Jess Jephcott wrote:
It is worthy of mention that, whilst I and perhaps 100 other people, donated money to the Balkerne Trust in our desire to buy Jumbo for the reasons as detailed in their plea for financial assistance, the vast majority of Colcestrians did not support us. A fiver each from the majority of Colcestrians would have clinched it. As it is, Mr Flatman made the winning bid, and now Jumbo's future is in his hands. Whilst my preference was the Balkerne Trust way, I had no problems with Mr Braithwaite's plans either (subject to planning scrutiny). I am just sick and tired of all the nastiness, envy, prejudice, stubbornness, petty politicking and the decay of a wonderful building. Please, please, can we move forward with the new owner's plans. The Balkerne Trust clearly does not have the support of the people of Colchester, sadly.
You don't seem to get this do you?
BTT IS A LIBDEM ANIMAL.
If the plans for Jumbo were attractive enough, the 180,000 people of Colchester, Companies and friends of Colchester would support a public subscription to buy and transform it. They wont support a bunch of LibDem oaps who want to own a redundant metal tank hanging over the town.
The thing was on the market at 11.59 on Thursday.
No one-no one believes that Chicken Paul wants this millstone-so don't keep banging on about it being private.
[quote][p][bold]Jess Jephcott[/bold] wrote: It is worthy of mention that, whilst I and perhaps 100 other people, donated money to the Balkerne Trust in our desire to buy Jumbo for the reasons as detailed in their plea for financial assistance, the vast majority of Colcestrians did not support us. A fiver each from the majority of Colcestrians would have clinched it. As it is, Mr Flatman made the winning bid, and now Jumbo's future is in his hands. Whilst my preference was the Balkerne Trust way, I had no problems with Mr Braithwaite's plans either (subject to planning scrutiny). I am just sick and tired of all the nastiness, envy, prejudice, stubbornness, petty politicking and the decay of a wonderful building. Please, please, can we move forward with the new owner's plans. The Balkerne Trust clearly does not have the support of the people of Colchester, sadly.[/p][/quote]You don't seem to get this do you? BTT IS A LIBDEM ANIMAL. If the plans for Jumbo were attractive enough, the 180,000 people of Colchester, Companies and friends of Colchester would support a public subscription to buy and transform it. They wont support a bunch of LibDem oaps who want to own a redundant metal tank hanging over the town. The thing was on the market at 11.59 on Thursday. No one-no one believes that Chicken Paul wants this millstone-so don't keep banging on about it being private. Shrubendlad
  • Score: -3

5:57pm Sun 1 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Shrubendlad wrote:
Jess Jephcott wrote:
It is worthy of mention that, whilst I and perhaps 100 other people, donated money to the Balkerne Trust in our desire to buy Jumbo for the reasons as detailed in their plea for financial assistance, the vast majority of Colcestrians did not support us. A fiver each from the majority of Colcestrians would have clinched it. As it is, Mr Flatman made the winning bid, and now Jumbo's future is in his hands. Whilst my preference was the Balkerne Trust way, I had no problems with Mr Braithwaite's plans either (subject to planning scrutiny). I am just sick and tired of all the nastiness, envy, prejudice, stubbornness, petty politicking and the decay of a wonderful building. Please, please, can we move forward with the new owner's plans. The Balkerne Trust clearly does not have the support of the people of Colchester, sadly.
You don't seem to get this do you?
BTT IS A LIBDEM ANIMAL.
If the plans for Jumbo were attractive enough, the 180,000 people of Colchester, Companies and friends of Colchester would support a public subscription to buy and transform it. They wont support a bunch of LibDem oaps who want to own a redundant metal tank hanging over the town.
The thing was on the market at 11.59 on Thursday.
No one-no one believes that Chicken Paul wants this millstone-so don't keep banging on about it being private.
Hang on Shruby, are you saying the BTT is a lib dem thing? I know king Bob was involved but I just thought he was doing the usual hijack Publicity thing.
[quote][p][bold]Shrubendlad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jess Jephcott[/bold] wrote: It is worthy of mention that, whilst I and perhaps 100 other people, donated money to the Balkerne Trust in our desire to buy Jumbo for the reasons as detailed in their plea for financial assistance, the vast majority of Colcestrians did not support us. A fiver each from the majority of Colcestrians would have clinched it. As it is, Mr Flatman made the winning bid, and now Jumbo's future is in his hands. Whilst my preference was the Balkerne Trust way, I had no problems with Mr Braithwaite's plans either (subject to planning scrutiny). I am just sick and tired of all the nastiness, envy, prejudice, stubbornness, petty politicking and the decay of a wonderful building. Please, please, can we move forward with the new owner's plans. The Balkerne Trust clearly does not have the support of the people of Colchester, sadly.[/p][/quote]You don't seem to get this do you? BTT IS A LIBDEM ANIMAL. If the plans for Jumbo were attractive enough, the 180,000 people of Colchester, Companies and friends of Colchester would support a public subscription to buy and transform it. They wont support a bunch of LibDem oaps who want to own a redundant metal tank hanging over the town. The thing was on the market at 11.59 on Thursday. No one-no one believes that Chicken Paul wants this millstone-so don't keep banging on about it being private.[/p][/quote]Hang on Shruby, are you saying the BTT is a lib dem thing? I know king Bob was involved but I just thought he was doing the usual hijack Publicity thing. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: 4

6:04pm Sun 1 Jun 14

Shrubendlad says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
Shrubendlad wrote:
Jess Jephcott wrote:
It is worthy of mention that, whilst I and perhaps 100 other people, donated money to the Balkerne Trust in our desire to buy Jumbo for the reasons as detailed in their plea for financial assistance, the vast majority of Colcestrians did not support us. A fiver each from the majority of Colcestrians would have clinched it. As it is, Mr Flatman made the winning bid, and now Jumbo's future is in his hands. Whilst my preference was the Balkerne Trust way, I had no problems with Mr Braithwaite's plans either (subject to planning scrutiny). I am just sick and tired of all the nastiness, envy, prejudice, stubbornness, petty politicking and the decay of a wonderful building. Please, please, can we move forward with the new owner's plans. The Balkerne Trust clearly does not have the support of the people of Colchester, sadly.
You don't seem to get this do you?
BTT IS A LIBDEM ANIMAL.
If the plans for Jumbo were attractive enough, the 180,000 people of Colchester, Companies and friends of Colchester would support a public subscription to buy and transform it. They wont support a bunch of LibDem oaps who want to own a redundant metal tank hanging over the town.
The thing was on the market at 11.59 on Thursday.
No one-no one believes that Chicken Paul wants this millstone-so don't keep banging on about it being private.
Hang on Shruby, are you saying the BTT is a lib dem thing? I know king Bob was involved but I just thought he was doing the usual hijack Publicity thing.
Yes
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shrubendlad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jess Jephcott[/bold] wrote: It is worthy of mention that, whilst I and perhaps 100 other people, donated money to the Balkerne Trust in our desire to buy Jumbo for the reasons as detailed in their plea for financial assistance, the vast majority of Colcestrians did not support us. A fiver each from the majority of Colcestrians would have clinched it. As it is, Mr Flatman made the winning bid, and now Jumbo's future is in his hands. Whilst my preference was the Balkerne Trust way, I had no problems with Mr Braithwaite's plans either (subject to planning scrutiny). I am just sick and tired of all the nastiness, envy, prejudice, stubbornness, petty politicking and the decay of a wonderful building. Please, please, can we move forward with the new owner's plans. The Balkerne Trust clearly does not have the support of the people of Colchester, sadly.[/p][/quote]You don't seem to get this do you? BTT IS A LIBDEM ANIMAL. If the plans for Jumbo were attractive enough, the 180,000 people of Colchester, Companies and friends of Colchester would support a public subscription to buy and transform it. They wont support a bunch of LibDem oaps who want to own a redundant metal tank hanging over the town. The thing was on the market at 11.59 on Thursday. No one-no one believes that Chicken Paul wants this millstone-so don't keep banging on about it being private.[/p][/quote]Hang on Shruby, are you saying the BTT is a lib dem thing? I know king Bob was involved but I just thought he was doing the usual hijack Publicity thing.[/p][/quote]Yes Shrubendlad
  • Score: 2

7:04pm Sun 1 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Well that's a shame. If it really is a political beast I'm not surprised it's lost its momentum and effectiveness. Doesn't matter whether it's tory, labour or lib dem, once it becomes a party thing, objectives get blurred in favour of party ownership. Bit like the way Colchester has lost its way, lurching from one unfinished project to the next with no sign of coordinated wealth development. Way up this stream I mentioned towns like Harrogate that are buzzing with success. There's a feeling everyone involved is pulling in the same direction and they do whatever it takes - encouraging access to all however they travel.
Then compare and contrast with Colchester's recent attempts to force cars out with no alternative in place!
Jumbo should be part of a coordinate development to enhance the town making it a must be tourist and retail attraction. Colchester has just as much history to offer as York, Harrogate etc but we don't join it together. There I go again....
Well that's a shame. If it really is a political beast I'm not surprised it's lost its momentum and effectiveness. Doesn't matter whether it's tory, labour or lib dem, once it becomes a party thing, objectives get blurred in favour of party ownership. Bit like the way Colchester has lost its way, lurching from one unfinished project to the next with no sign of coordinated wealth development. Way up this stream I mentioned towns like Harrogate that are buzzing with success. There's a feeling everyone involved is pulling in the same direction and they do whatever it takes - encouraging access to all however they travel. Then compare and contrast with Colchester's recent attempts to force cars out with no alternative in place! Jumbo should be part of a coordinate development to enhance the town making it a must be tourist and retail attraction. Colchester has just as much history to offer as York, Harrogate etc but we don't join it together. There I go again.... Angry of Lexden
  • Score: 2

7:29pm Sun 1 Jun 14

IpsumDelor says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
IpsumDelor wrote:
seikothrill wrote:
IpsumDelor wrote:
Which part of 'two previous failed planning applications for development' does this new owner not understand?
I understand your comment but lets hope the new owners revised plans are better than previous ones and accepted by Colchester Council Planning Committee who seem to approve every other planning application within the borough with no thought to locals, infrastructure etc
If you understood my comment you'd realise that I don't want Jumbo developed into apartments, offices or anything else. Not even the 'restaurant in the sky' that a certain political wannabe so longs to take his dear old grandma up to visit. I want it restored and maintained as a monument to, and towering over, our town.
Ipsum, you do seem to use "I want" and "I Don't want" quite a bit. There are others in the town......
Pretty sure you don't share King Bobs party politics.

Mind you, I don't think KB shares his party's politics.
So sorry, I didn't realise I wasn't allowed to have an opinion about what I want to see for the future of this building. Oops, there's that 'want' word again. I thought the discussion here was about Jumbo, not use of language.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]seikothrill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: Which part of 'two previous failed planning applications for development' does this new owner not understand?[/p][/quote]I understand your comment but lets hope the new owners revised plans are better than previous ones and accepted by Colchester Council Planning Committee who seem to approve every other planning application within the borough with no thought to locals, infrastructure etc[/p][/quote]If you understood my comment you'd realise that I don't want Jumbo developed into apartments, offices or anything else. Not even the 'restaurant in the sky' that a certain political wannabe so longs to take his dear old grandma up to visit. I want it restored and maintained as a monument to, and towering over, our town.[/p][/quote]Ipsum, you do seem to use "I want" and "I Don't want" quite a bit. There are others in the town...... Pretty sure you don't share King Bobs party politics. Mind you, I don't think KB shares his party's politics.[/p][/quote]So sorry, I didn't realise I wasn't allowed to have an opinion about what I want to see for the future of this building. Oops, there's that 'want' word again. I thought the discussion here was about Jumbo, not use of language. IpsumDelor
  • Score: 7

7:40pm Sun 1 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

IpsumDelor wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
IpsumDelor wrote:
seikothrill wrote:
IpsumDelor wrote:
Which part of 'two previous failed planning applications for development' does this new owner not understand?
I understand your comment but lets hope the new owners revised plans are better than previous ones and accepted by Colchester Council Planning Committee who seem to approve every other planning application within the borough with no thought to locals, infrastructure etc
If you understood my comment you'd realise that I don't want Jumbo developed into apartments, offices or anything else. Not even the 'restaurant in the sky' that a certain political wannabe so longs to take his dear old grandma up to visit. I want it restored and maintained as a monument to, and towering over, our town.
Ipsum, you do seem to use "I want" and "I Don't want" quite a bit. There are others in the town......
Pretty sure you don't share King Bobs party politics.

Mind you, I don't think KB shares his party's politics.
So sorry, I didn't realise I wasn't allowed to have an opinion about what I want to see for the future of this building. Oops, there's that 'want' word again. I thought the discussion here was about Jumbo, not use of language.
Sorry Ipsum, I interpreted your fairly strong "wants" as being there is no other way.
[quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]seikothrill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: Which part of 'two previous failed planning applications for development' does this new owner not understand?[/p][/quote]I understand your comment but lets hope the new owners revised plans are better than previous ones and accepted by Colchester Council Planning Committee who seem to approve every other planning application within the borough with no thought to locals, infrastructure etc[/p][/quote]If you understood my comment you'd realise that I don't want Jumbo developed into apartments, offices or anything else. Not even the 'restaurant in the sky' that a certain political wannabe so longs to take his dear old grandma up to visit. I want it restored and maintained as a monument to, and towering over, our town.[/p][/quote]Ipsum, you do seem to use "I want" and "I Don't want" quite a bit. There are others in the town...... Pretty sure you don't share King Bobs party politics. Mind you, I don't think KB shares his party's politics.[/p][/quote]So sorry, I didn't realise I wasn't allowed to have an opinion about what I want to see for the future of this building. Oops, there's that 'want' word again. I thought the discussion here was about Jumbo, not use of language.[/p][/quote]Sorry Ipsum, I interpreted your fairly strong "wants" as being there is no other way. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -4

11:01pm Sun 1 Jun 14

stevedawson says...

As per usual with threads on here it is the same few people who contribute and generally just talk to each other with endless repetition. Gets quite boring, vote ukip and support the redevelopment of the old victorian eyesore.
As per usual with threads on here it is the same few people who contribute and generally just talk to each other with endless repetition. Gets quite boring, vote ukip and support the redevelopment of the old victorian eyesore. stevedawson
  • Score: -5

11:50pm Sun 1 Jun 14

IpsumDelor says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
IpsumDelor wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
IpsumDelor wrote:
seikothrill wrote:
IpsumDelor wrote:
Which part of 'two previous failed planning applications for development' does this new owner not understand?
I understand your comment but lets hope the new owners revised plans are better than previous ones and accepted by Colchester Council Planning Committee who seem to approve every other planning application within the borough with no thought to locals, infrastructure etc
If you understood my comment you'd realise that I don't want Jumbo developed into apartments, offices or anything else. Not even the 'restaurant in the sky' that a certain political wannabe so longs to take his dear old grandma up to visit. I want it restored and maintained as a monument to, and towering over, our town.
Ipsum, you do seem to use "I want" and "I Don't want" quite a bit. There are others in the town......
Pretty sure you don't share King Bobs party politics.

Mind you, I don't think KB shares his party's politics.
So sorry, I didn't realise I wasn't allowed to have an opinion about what I want to see for the future of this building. Oops, there's that 'want' word again. I thought the discussion here was about Jumbo, not use of language.
Sorry Ipsum, I interpreted your fairly strong "wants" as being there is no other way.
Apology accepted.

My wants are fairly simple. In an ideal world Jumbo would be owned by the town, for the town. It does not need to be re-purposed as apartments, offices, or a museum... it is what it is, a Victorian water tower that stands as a tribute to a bygone era. All this talk of lifts and viewing galleries, I couldn't care less if I never get to see the view from the top just so long as this amazing building is not desecrated by developers. Nobody tried to fill in the legs of the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, so why should Colchester's Jumbo be any different? If it wasn't for another businessman (whose previous business bankruptcy left local businesses out of pocket) thinking he can turn a profit from it the BTT could have bought this magnificent building, sought lottery funding, and restored it to its former glory as a monument befitting the history and heritage of our town.

Sadly, instead, it looks like all we are going to get is a repeat of the Braithwaite debacle.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]seikothrill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: Which part of 'two previous failed planning applications for development' does this new owner not understand?[/p][/quote]I understand your comment but lets hope the new owners revised plans are better than previous ones and accepted by Colchester Council Planning Committee who seem to approve every other planning application within the borough with no thought to locals, infrastructure etc[/p][/quote]If you understood my comment you'd realise that I don't want Jumbo developed into apartments, offices or anything else. Not even the 'restaurant in the sky' that a certain political wannabe so longs to take his dear old grandma up to visit. I want it restored and maintained as a monument to, and towering over, our town.[/p][/quote]Ipsum, you do seem to use "I want" and "I Don't want" quite a bit. There are others in the town...... Pretty sure you don't share King Bobs party politics. Mind you, I don't think KB shares his party's politics.[/p][/quote]So sorry, I didn't realise I wasn't allowed to have an opinion about what I want to see for the future of this building. Oops, there's that 'want' word again. I thought the discussion here was about Jumbo, not use of language.[/p][/quote]Sorry Ipsum, I interpreted your fairly strong "wants" as being there is no other way.[/p][/quote]Apology accepted. My wants are fairly simple. In an ideal world Jumbo would be owned by the town, for the town. It does not need to be re-purposed as apartments, offices, or a museum... it is what it is, a Victorian water tower that stands as a tribute to a bygone era. All this talk of lifts and viewing galleries, I couldn't care less if I never get to see the view from the top just so long as this amazing building is not desecrated by developers. Nobody tried to fill in the legs of the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, so why should Colchester's Jumbo be any different? If it wasn't for another businessman (whose previous business bankruptcy left local businesses out of pocket) thinking he can turn a profit from it the BTT could have bought this magnificent building, sought lottery funding, and restored it to its former glory as a monument befitting the history and heritage of our town. Sadly, instead, it looks like all we are going to get is a repeat of the Braithwaite debacle. IpsumDelor
  • Score: 4

12:06am Mon 2 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

IpsumDelor wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
IpsumDelor wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
IpsumDelor wrote:
seikothrill wrote:
IpsumDelor wrote:
Which part of 'two previous failed planning applications for development' does this new owner not understand?
I understand your comment but lets hope the new owners revised plans are better than previous ones and accepted by Colchester Council Planning Committee who seem to approve every other planning application within the borough with no thought to locals, infrastructure etc
If you understood my comment you'd realise that I don't want Jumbo developed into apartments, offices or anything else. Not even the 'restaurant in the sky' that a certain political wannabe so longs to take his dear old grandma up to visit. I want it restored and maintained as a monument to, and towering over, our town.
Ipsum, you do seem to use "I want" and "I Don't want" quite a bit. There are others in the town......
Pretty sure you don't share King Bobs party politics.

Mind you, I don't think KB shares his party's politics.
So sorry, I didn't realise I wasn't allowed to have an opinion about what I want to see for the future of this building. Oops, there's that 'want' word again. I thought the discussion here was about Jumbo, not use of language.
Sorry Ipsum, I interpreted your fairly strong "wants" as being there is no other way.
Apology accepted.

My wants are fairly simple. In an ideal world Jumbo would be owned by the town, for the town. It does not need to be re-purposed as apartments, offices, or a museum... it is what it is, a Victorian water tower that stands as a tribute to a bygone era. All this talk of lifts and viewing galleries, I couldn't care less if I never get to see the view from the top just so long as this amazing building is not desecrated by developers. Nobody tried to fill in the legs of the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, so why should Colchester's Jumbo be any different? If it wasn't for another businessman (whose previous business bankruptcy left local businesses out of pocket) thinking he can turn a profit from it the BTT could have bought this magnificent building, sought lottery funding, and restored it to its former glory as a monument befitting the history and heritage of our town.

Sadly, instead, it looks like all we are going to get is a repeat of the Braithwaite debacle.
Thanks Ipsum, just seen yours at 00.05. Promise I will read it properly tomorrow. Will it be another sunny day? Or am I going to get washed out. Dont care - it's work and a quid or two. Night.
[quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]seikothrill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: Which part of 'two previous failed planning applications for development' does this new owner not understand?[/p][/quote]I understand your comment but lets hope the new owners revised plans are better than previous ones and accepted by Colchester Council Planning Committee who seem to approve every other planning application within the borough with no thought to locals, infrastructure etc[/p][/quote]If you understood my comment you'd realise that I don't want Jumbo developed into apartments, offices or anything else. Not even the 'restaurant in the sky' that a certain political wannabe so longs to take his dear old grandma up to visit. I want it restored and maintained as a monument to, and towering over, our town.[/p][/quote]Ipsum, you do seem to use "I want" and "I Don't want" quite a bit. There are others in the town...... Pretty sure you don't share King Bobs party politics. Mind you, I don't think KB shares his party's politics.[/p][/quote]So sorry, I didn't realise I wasn't allowed to have an opinion about what I want to see for the future of this building. Oops, there's that 'want' word again. I thought the discussion here was about Jumbo, not use of language.[/p][/quote]Sorry Ipsum, I interpreted your fairly strong "wants" as being there is no other way.[/p][/quote]Apology accepted. My wants are fairly simple. In an ideal world Jumbo would be owned by the town, for the town. It does not need to be re-purposed as apartments, offices, or a museum... it is what it is, a Victorian water tower that stands as a tribute to a bygone era. All this talk of lifts and viewing galleries, I couldn't care less if I never get to see the view from the top just so long as this amazing building is not desecrated by developers. Nobody tried to fill in the legs of the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, so why should Colchester's Jumbo be any different? If it wasn't for another businessman (whose previous business bankruptcy left local businesses out of pocket) thinking he can turn a profit from it the BTT could have bought this magnificent building, sought lottery funding, and restored it to its former glory as a monument befitting the history and heritage of our town. Sadly, instead, it looks like all we are going to get is a repeat of the Braithwaite debacle.[/p][/quote]Thanks Ipsum, just seen yours at 00.05. Promise I will read it properly tomorrow. Will it be another sunny day? Or am I going to get washed out. Dont care - it's work and a quid or two. Night. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -4

12:07am Mon 2 Jun 14

Boris says...

IpsumDelor wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
IpsumDelor wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
IpsumDelor wrote:
seikothrill wrote:
IpsumDelor wrote:
Which part of 'two previous failed planning applications for development' does this new owner not understand?
I understand your comment but lets hope the new owners revised plans are better than previous ones and accepted by Colchester Council Planning Committee who seem to approve every other planning application within the borough with no thought to locals, infrastructure etc
If you understood my comment you'd realise that I don't want Jumbo developed into apartments, offices or anything else. Not even the 'restaurant in the sky' that a certain political wannabe so longs to take his dear old grandma up to visit. I want it restored and maintained as a monument to, and towering over, our town.
Ipsum, you do seem to use "I want" and "I Don't want" quite a bit. There are others in the town......
Pretty sure you don't share King Bobs party politics.

Mind you, I don't think KB shares his party's politics.
So sorry, I didn't realise I wasn't allowed to have an opinion about what I want to see for the future of this building. Oops, there's that 'want' word again. I thought the discussion here was about Jumbo, not use of language.
Sorry Ipsum, I interpreted your fairly strong "wants" as being there is no other way.
Apology accepted.

My wants are fairly simple. In an ideal world Jumbo would be owned by the town, for the town. It does not need to be re-purposed as apartments, offices, or a museum... it is what it is, a Victorian water tower that stands as a tribute to a bygone era. All this talk of lifts and viewing galleries, I couldn't care less if I never get to see the view from the top just so long as this amazing building is not desecrated by developers. Nobody tried to fill in the legs of the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, so why should Colchester's Jumbo be any different? If it wasn't for another businessman (whose previous business bankruptcy left local businesses out of pocket) thinking he can turn a profit from it the BTT could have bought this magnificent building, sought lottery funding, and restored it to its former glory as a monument befitting the history and heritage of our town.

Sadly, instead, it looks like all we are going to get is a repeat of the Braithwaite debacle.
Ipsum, cheer up. Braithwaite's schemes bit the dust, and so will the dodgy chicken farmer's. The requirements of Grade II* listing are rigorous, and they have to be respected. Join us in BTT and help defend Jumbo.
[quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]seikothrill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: Which part of 'two previous failed planning applications for development' does this new owner not understand?[/p][/quote]I understand your comment but lets hope the new owners revised plans are better than previous ones and accepted by Colchester Council Planning Committee who seem to approve every other planning application within the borough with no thought to locals, infrastructure etc[/p][/quote]If you understood my comment you'd realise that I don't want Jumbo developed into apartments, offices or anything else. Not even the 'restaurant in the sky' that a certain political wannabe so longs to take his dear old grandma up to visit. I want it restored and maintained as a monument to, and towering over, our town.[/p][/quote]Ipsum, you do seem to use "I want" and "I Don't want" quite a bit. There are others in the town...... Pretty sure you don't share King Bobs party politics. Mind you, I don't think KB shares his party's politics.[/p][/quote]So sorry, I didn't realise I wasn't allowed to have an opinion about what I want to see for the future of this building. Oops, there's that 'want' word again. I thought the discussion here was about Jumbo, not use of language.[/p][/quote]Sorry Ipsum, I interpreted your fairly strong "wants" as being there is no other way.[/p][/quote]Apology accepted. My wants are fairly simple. In an ideal world Jumbo would be owned by the town, for the town. It does not need to be re-purposed as apartments, offices, or a museum... it is what it is, a Victorian water tower that stands as a tribute to a bygone era. All this talk of lifts and viewing galleries, I couldn't care less if I never get to see the view from the top just so long as this amazing building is not desecrated by developers. Nobody tried to fill in the legs of the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, so why should Colchester's Jumbo be any different? If it wasn't for another businessman (whose previous business bankruptcy left local businesses out of pocket) thinking he can turn a profit from it the BTT could have bought this magnificent building, sought lottery funding, and restored it to its former glory as a monument befitting the history and heritage of our town. Sadly, instead, it looks like all we are going to get is a repeat of the Braithwaite debacle.[/p][/quote]Ipsum, cheer up. Braithwaite's schemes bit the dust, and so will the dodgy chicken farmer's. The requirements of Grade II* listing are rigorous, and they have to be respected. Join us in BTT and help defend Jumbo. Boris
  • Score: 5

12:13am Mon 2 Jun 14

Boris says...

stevedawson wrote:
As per usual with threads on here it is the same few people who contribute and generally just talk to each other with endless repetition. Gets quite boring, vote ukip and support the redevelopment of the old victorian eyesore.
Steve, you are one of the same few people, and while on some topics you talk sense, your views on Jumbo are well off beam. And please stop your repetitive bleating about Ukip. There are no elections for another year, your party failed to get anyone elected in Colchester, so nobody is interested.
[quote][p][bold]stevedawson[/bold] wrote: As per usual with threads on here it is the same few people who contribute and generally just talk to each other with endless repetition. Gets quite boring, vote ukip and support the redevelopment of the old victorian eyesore.[/p][/quote]Steve, you are one of the same few people, and while on some topics you talk sense, your views on Jumbo are well off beam. And please stop your repetitive bleating about Ukip. There are no elections for another year, your party failed to get anyone elected in Colchester, so nobody is interested. Boris
  • Score: 2

12:15am Mon 2 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Boris, who are we to upset one another at this time of night? Perhaps it's time to think outside the boxes we have built. My youngest son was in awe of the bulk of Jumbo on Saturday when I diverted him there to remind myself of what it is. Compromise may have to be the brave way forward for everyone concerned. Night
Boris, who are we to upset one another at this time of night? Perhaps it's time to think outside the boxes we have built. My youngest son was in awe of the bulk of Jumbo on Saturday when I diverted him there to remind myself of what it is. Compromise may have to be the brave way forward for everyone concerned. Night Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -1

12:18am Mon 2 Jun 14

Hamiltonandy says...

I wonder how many of those commenting have actually gone up Jumbo, looked at the structure in detail and then evaluated the development plans of the past owner.
.
Jumbo is structurally safe and no danger to adult visitors once the lighting is sorted and the glass needs replacing in the various windows. So visitors could go up after a minimal expenditure. So I can see its attraction for tourists.
.
Unfortunately the development proposals will spoil some of the historic features and there is no way they would be financially viable. Even the £300,000 the BT trust wants to spend to make it "accessible" would take a lot of effort to get funded.
.
Charitable ownership means volunteers would do some of the work. Firms might be willing to help knowing the good publicity for them. Unfortunately it will be some time before the speculative owners face financial reality. Hopefully by then there will still be a charitable trust ready to rescue Jumbo having learned from the present unfortunate situation.
I wonder how many of those commenting have actually gone up Jumbo, looked at the structure in detail and then evaluated the development plans of the past owner. . Jumbo is structurally safe and no danger to adult visitors once the lighting is sorted and the glass needs replacing in the various windows. So visitors could go up after a minimal expenditure. So I can see its attraction for tourists. . Unfortunately the development proposals will spoil some of the historic features and there is no way they would be financially viable. Even the £300,000 the BT trust wants to spend to make it "accessible" would take a lot of effort to get funded. . Charitable ownership means volunteers would do some of the work. Firms might be willing to help knowing the good publicity for them. Unfortunately it will be some time before the speculative owners face financial reality. Hopefully by then there will still be a charitable trust ready to rescue Jumbo having learned from the present unfortunate situation. Hamiltonandy
  • Score: 2

12:20am Mon 2 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Hi all, just noticed there are 90 plus this chats about Jumbo! Wow - must be important or what. As my kids would say - I think - " well sick".
Hi all, just noticed there are 90 plus this chats about Jumbo! Wow - must be important or what. As my kids would say - I think - " well sick". Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -4

12:23am Mon 2 Jun 14

Boris says...

driver4108 wrote:
Thought he didn't have any money left,owed my company thousands when he allegedly went bankrupt same as a lot of other people!
Absolute crook and what goes around comes around!!
Driver4108, yours is easily the most important comment by anyone so far on this thread. People who support this person need to have their heads examined. If by some freak of the planning system he was allowed to develop Jumbo as he says he would like, he would probably run out of money with Jumbo shrouded in scaffolding, and it would remain in that paralysed condition for years. The fools who support him should reflect on this.
[quote][p][bold]driver4108[/bold] wrote: Thought he didn't have any money left,owed my company thousands when he allegedly went bankrupt same as a lot of other people! Absolute crook and what goes around comes around!![/p][/quote]Driver4108, yours is easily the most important comment by anyone so far on this thread. People who support this person need to have their heads examined. If by some freak of the planning system he was allowed to develop Jumbo as he says he would like, he would probably run out of money with Jumbo shrouded in scaffolding, and it would remain in that paralysed condition for years. The fools who support him should reflect on this. Boris
  • Score: 10

12:44am Mon 2 Jun 14

Hamiltonandy says...

Just found the BBC news article on the Jumbo sale.
.
"The intention was not to buy, but it seemed such a reasonable price for such a large property I ended up purchasing it," said Mr Flatman.
"I'd dearly like to have a restaurant on the top of the tower and some flats to fill in the sides. "Something needs to be done about Jumbo, it eventually will fall down."

Tim Young, portfolio holder for planning, community safety and culture at Colchester Borough Council, said a restaurant in the sky would be a "great deal" for Colchester, but the council welcomed any ideas that would "save this great building".
Just found the BBC news article on the Jumbo sale. . "The intention was not to buy, but it seemed such a reasonable price for such a large property I ended up purchasing it," said Mr Flatman. "I'd dearly like to have a restaurant on the top of the tower and some flats to fill in the sides. "Something needs to be done about Jumbo, it eventually will fall down." Tim Young, portfolio holder for planning, community safety and culture at Colchester Borough Council, said a restaurant in the sky would be a "great deal" for Colchester, but the council welcomed any ideas that would "save this great building". Hamiltonandy
  • Score: 2

12:53am Mon 2 Jun 14

Boris says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
Boris, who are we to upset one another at this time of night? Perhaps it's time to think outside the boxes we have built. My youngest son was in awe of the bulk of Jumbo on Saturday when I diverted him there to remind myself of what it is. Compromise may have to be the brave way forward for everyone concerned. Night
I don't want to upset anyone. Nor do i want anyone else to divert this thread off course with irrelevant drivel. As for compromise, that is fine, provided there is no infilling of the space between the legs, no interference with the pipework, and no cutting of windows in the tank. In other words, the integrity of this Grade II* listed building must be respected, just as the integrity of Colchester Castle must be respected.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: Boris, who are we to upset one another at this time of night? Perhaps it's time to think outside the boxes we have built. My youngest son was in awe of the bulk of Jumbo on Saturday when I diverted him there to remind myself of what it is. Compromise may have to be the brave way forward for everyone concerned. Night[/p][/quote]I don't want to upset anyone. Nor do i want anyone else to divert this thread off course with irrelevant drivel. As for compromise, that is fine, provided there is no infilling of the space between the legs, no interference with the pipework, and no cutting of windows in the tank. In other words, the integrity of this Grade II* listed building must be respected, just as the integrity of Colchester Castle must be respected. Boris
  • Score: 5

12:53am Mon 2 Jun 14

Hamiltonandy says...

The EADT adds the following.

The new owner of the Jumbo water tower in Colchester said he was shocked to get the landmark building for such a bargain.

“It is a question of sitting down with CBC to iron out any problems with the previous application. I will always talk to the BTT but whether I agree is another matter.

Great two minute video on
http://www.itv.com/n
ews/anglia/update/20
14-05-29/new-owner-f
or-jumbo-water-tower
/
The EADT adds the following. The new owner of the Jumbo water tower in Colchester said he was shocked to get the landmark building for such a bargain. “It is a question of sitting down with CBC to iron out any problems with the previous application. I will always talk to the BTT but whether I agree is another matter. Great two minute video on http://www.itv.com/n ews/anglia/update/20 14-05-29/new-owner-f or-jumbo-water-tower / Hamiltonandy
  • Score: 1

12:58am Mon 2 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Hamiltonandy wrote:
I wonder how many of those commenting have actually gone up Jumbo, looked at the structure in detail and then evaluated the development plans of the past owner.
.
Jumbo is structurally safe and no danger to adult visitors once the lighting is sorted and the glass needs replacing in the various windows. So visitors could go up after a minimal expenditure. So I can see its attraction for tourists.
.
Unfortunately the development proposals will spoil some of the historic features and there is no way they would be financially viable. Even the £300,000 the BT trust wants to spend to make it "accessible" would take a lot of effort to get funded.
.
Charitable ownership means volunteers would do some of the work. Firms might be willing to help knowing the good publicity for them. Unfortunately it will be some time before the speculative owners face financial reality. Hopefully by then there will still be a charitable trust ready to rescue Jumbo having learned from the present unfortunate situation.
Dear me Andy, read back a few. Yesterday I diverted my walk out of town with my youngest son b to look at Jumbo close up, and as usual he was pretty impressed by the bulk, shape and height of it. Meanwhile I was fairly worried about the loss of the safety barrier. In my own professional experience in large structures - Colchester high street included - recent winter freeze/thaw cycles have resulted in not just surface spalling but loss of integrity of bulk masonry. Unless you know of a recent and specific risk assessment report on Jumbo which states it's safe for members of the public walking within its footprint, I suggest urgent assessment is given to whether a safety barrier needs to he re- erected. It will only need one chunk of half brick hitting the ground at 80 mph close to pedestrians to move the old girl a pace nearer to demolition.
[quote][p][bold]Hamiltonandy[/bold] wrote: I wonder how many of those commenting have actually gone up Jumbo, looked at the structure in detail and then evaluated the development plans of the past owner. . Jumbo is structurally safe and no danger to adult visitors once the lighting is sorted and the glass needs replacing in the various windows. So visitors could go up after a minimal expenditure. So I can see its attraction for tourists. . Unfortunately the development proposals will spoil some of the historic features and there is no way they would be financially viable. Even the £300,000 the BT trust wants to spend to make it "accessible" would take a lot of effort to get funded. . Charitable ownership means volunteers would do some of the work. Firms might be willing to help knowing the good publicity for them. Unfortunately it will be some time before the speculative owners face financial reality. Hopefully by then there will still be a charitable trust ready to rescue Jumbo having learned from the present unfortunate situation.[/p][/quote]Dear me Andy, read back a few. Yesterday I diverted my walk out of town with my youngest son b to look at Jumbo close up, and as usual he was pretty impressed by the bulk, shape and height of it. Meanwhile I was fairly worried about the loss of the safety barrier. In my own professional experience in large structures - Colchester high street included - recent winter freeze/thaw cycles have resulted in not just surface spalling but loss of integrity of bulk masonry. Unless you know of a recent and specific risk assessment report on Jumbo which states it's safe for members of the public walking within its footprint, I suggest urgent assessment is given to whether a safety barrier needs to he re- erected. It will only need one chunk of half brick hitting the ground at 80 mph close to pedestrians to move the old girl a pace nearer to demolition. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -5

1:28am Mon 2 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Boris wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
Boris, who are we to upset one another at this time of night? Perhaps it's time to think outside the boxes we have built. My youngest son was in awe of the bulk of Jumbo on Saturday when I diverted him there to remind myself of what it is. Compromise may have to be the brave way forward for everyone concerned. Night
I don't want to upset anyone. Nor do i want anyone else to divert this thread off course with irrelevant drivel. As for compromise, that is fine, provided there is no infilling of the space between the legs, no interference with the pipework, and no cutting of windows in the tank. In other words, the integrity of this Grade II* listed building must be respected, just as the integrity of Colchester Castle must be respected.
That's the very point Boris, Colchester castle isn't original! Despite my years, and my kids insistence I'm a dinosaur, as I recall it's built on the wreck of a roman temple. Further, it wasn't that long ago the the good folk of Colchester were digging underneath it for gold treasure, which I understand created the "vaults". The point is, if we surrounded every "old building" in a do not touch zone every town in the land would be in cobwebs and no go areas. Life moves on, and hopefully it incorporates a useful part of our history. Otherwise Colchester castle would not exist - it would at best be a low level heap of wrecked masonry. If Colchester's city fathers, and I'm guessing you are one, or have influence over them, are honest, the real target of developing the wealth of the town for all must include jumbo even in modified formi to be part of the future- same as the roman temple which forms the foundation of Colchester Castle. Meet you for a chat??
[quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: Boris, who are we to upset one another at this time of night? Perhaps it's time to think outside the boxes we have built. My youngest son was in awe of the bulk of Jumbo on Saturday when I diverted him there to remind myself of what it is. Compromise may have to be the brave way forward for everyone concerned. Night[/p][/quote]I don't want to upset anyone. Nor do i want anyone else to divert this thread off course with irrelevant drivel. As for compromise, that is fine, provided there is no infilling of the space between the legs, no interference with the pipework, and no cutting of windows in the tank. In other words, the integrity of this Grade II* listed building must be respected, just as the integrity of Colchester Castle must be respected.[/p][/quote]That's the very point Boris, Colchester castle isn't original! Despite my years, and my kids insistence I'm a dinosaur, as I recall it's built on the wreck of a roman temple. Further, it wasn't that long ago the the good folk of Colchester were digging underneath it for gold treasure, which I understand created the "vaults". The point is, if we surrounded every "old building" in a do not touch zone every town in the land would be in cobwebs and no go areas. Life moves on, and hopefully it incorporates a useful part of our history. Otherwise Colchester castle would not exist - it would at best be a low level heap of wrecked masonry. If Colchester's city fathers, and I'm guessing you are one, or have influence over them, are honest, the real target of developing the wealth of the town for all must include jumbo even in modified formi to be part of the future- same as the roman temple which forms the foundation of Colchester Castle. Meet you for a chat?? Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -3

1:37am Mon 2 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Boris wrote:
driver4108 wrote:
Thought he didn't have any money left,owed my company thousands when he allegedly went bankrupt same as a lot of other people!
Absolute crook and what goes around comes around!!
Driver4108, yours is easily the most important comment by anyone so far on this thread. People who support this person need to have their heads examined. If by some freak of the planning system he was allowed to develop Jumbo as he says he would like, he would probably run out of money with Jumbo shrouded in scaffolding, and it would remain in that paralysed condition for years. The fools who support him should reflect on this.
Boris, be honest, has your determination to preserve Jumbo as is, lost the town opportunity to develop?
[quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]driver4108[/bold] wrote: Thought he didn't have any money left,owed my company thousands when he allegedly went bankrupt same as a lot of other people! Absolute crook and what goes around comes around!![/p][/quote]Driver4108, yours is easily the most important comment by anyone so far on this thread. People who support this person need to have their heads examined. If by some freak of the planning system he was allowed to develop Jumbo as he says he would like, he would probably run out of money with Jumbo shrouded in scaffolding, and it would remain in that paralysed condition for years. The fools who support him should reflect on this.[/p][/quote]Boris, be honest, has your determination to preserve Jumbo as is, lost the town opportunity to develop? Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -6

1:47am Mon 2 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Hamiltonandy wrote:
Just found the BBC news article on the Jumbo sale.
.
"The intention was not to buy, but it seemed such a reasonable price for such a large property I ended up purchasing it," said Mr Flatman.
"I'd dearly like to have a restaurant on the top of the tower and some flats to fill in the sides. "Something needs to be done about Jumbo, it eventually will fall down."

Tim Young, portfolio holder for planning, community safety and culture at Colchester Borough Council, said a restaurant in the sky would be a "great deal" for Colchester, but the council welcomed any ideas that would "save this great building".
This is, I repeat, the only time I have agreed with Timbo's chat. Doesn't mean I trust his motives. as ever he is only in it for the family take from the pot we all contribute to. Some £60 k plus pa. Tell you what I'll do it for half that and promise no silly pics.
[quote][p][bold]Hamiltonandy[/bold] wrote: Just found the BBC news article on the Jumbo sale. . "The intention was not to buy, but it seemed such a reasonable price for such a large property I ended up purchasing it," said Mr Flatman. "I'd dearly like to have a restaurant on the top of the tower and some flats to fill in the sides. "Something needs to be done about Jumbo, it eventually will fall down." Tim Young, portfolio holder for planning, community safety and culture at Colchester Borough Council, said a restaurant in the sky would be a "great deal" for Colchester, but the council welcomed any ideas that would "save this great building".[/p][/quote]This is, I repeat, the only time I have agreed with Timbo's chat. Doesn't mean I trust his motives. as ever he is only in it for the family take from the pot we all contribute to. Some £60 k plus pa. Tell you what I'll do it for half that and promise no silly pics. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -8

9:03am Mon 2 Jun 14

Ritchie_Hicks says...

stevedawson wrote:
As per usual with threads on here it is the same few people who contribute and generally just talk to each other with endless repetition. Gets quite boring, vote ukip and support the redevelopment of the old victorian eyesore.
If you find it so boring, stop coming back.
[quote][p][bold]stevedawson[/bold] wrote: As per usual with threads on here it is the same few people who contribute and generally just talk to each other with endless repetition. Gets quite boring, vote ukip and support the redevelopment of the old victorian eyesore.[/p][/quote]If you find it so boring, stop coming back. Ritchie_Hicks
  • Score: 16

12:20pm Mon 2 Jun 14

William George says...

stevedawson wrote:
As per usual with threads on here it is the same few people who contribute and generally just talk to each other with endless repetition. Gets quite boring, vote ukip and support the redevelopment of the old victorian eyesore.
Why do you continue to give your semi-outburst of words in favour for Ukip.

What does Ukip have to do with these matters in concern with the Jumbo Water Tower?
Don't you find that a bit boring for more than a few people in your endless repetition too.
[quote][p][bold]stevedawson[/bold] wrote: As per usual with threads on here it is the same few people who contribute and generally just talk to each other with endless repetition. Gets quite boring, vote ukip and support the redevelopment of the old victorian eyesore.[/p][/quote]Why do you continue to give your semi-outburst of words in favour for Ukip. What does Ukip have to do with these matters in concern with the Jumbo Water Tower? Don't you find that a bit boring for more than a few people in your endless repetition too. William George
  • Score: 14

5:00pm Mon 2 Jun 14

Ourdogtess says...

What a lot of millionaire worshippers patting each other on the back and smirking how BTT raised 'only' £40,000. You think rich owners should do exactly what they like with listed buildings they own? What a nightmare world that would be. Go away and do a bit of actual work - read the summary and business plan on savejumbo.org.uk, then come back and make some thoughtful comments on what Eric Pickles said about Jumbo on his recent visit: 'An enormously attractive building ... a beautiful example of a Victorian water tower'. Spot on, Mr Pickles.
What a lot of millionaire worshippers patting each other on the back and smirking how BTT raised 'only' £40,000. You think rich owners should do exactly what they like with listed buildings they own? What a nightmare world that would be. Go away and do a bit of actual work - read the summary and business plan on savejumbo.org.uk, then come back and make some thoughtful comments on what Eric Pickles said about Jumbo on his recent visit: 'An enormously attractive building ... a beautiful example of a Victorian water tower'. Spot on, Mr Pickles. Ourdogtess
  • Score: 12

9:34pm Mon 2 Jun 14

DL1970 says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
Hamiltonandy wrote:
I wonder how many of those commenting have actually gone up Jumbo, looked at the structure in detail and then evaluated the development plans of the past owner.
.
Jumbo is structurally safe and no danger to adult visitors once the lighting is sorted and the glass needs replacing in the various windows. So visitors could go up after a minimal expenditure. So I can see its attraction for tourists.
.
Unfortunately the development proposals will spoil some of the historic features and there is no way they would be financially viable. Even the £300,000 the BT trust wants to spend to make it "accessible" would take a lot of effort to get funded.
.
Charitable ownership means volunteers would do some of the work. Firms might be willing to help knowing the good publicity for them. Unfortunately it will be some time before the speculative owners face financial reality. Hopefully by then there will still be a charitable trust ready to rescue Jumbo having learned from the present unfortunate situation.
Dear me Andy, read back a few. Yesterday I diverted my walk out of town with my youngest son b to look at Jumbo close up, and as usual he was pretty impressed by the bulk, shape and height of it. Meanwhile I was fairly worried about the loss of the safety barrier. In my own professional experience in large structures - Colchester high street included - recent winter freeze/thaw cycles have resulted in not just surface spalling but loss of integrity of bulk masonry. Unless you know of a recent and specific risk assessment report on Jumbo which states it's safe for members of the public walking within its footprint, I suggest urgent assessment is given to whether a safety barrier needs to he re- erected. It will only need one chunk of half brick hitting the ground at 80 mph close to pedestrians to move the old girl a pace nearer to demolition.
If masonry starts falling off of Jumbo, the council will need to serve further Urgent Works Notices on the owner to make good the repairs.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hamiltonandy[/bold] wrote: I wonder how many of those commenting have actually gone up Jumbo, looked at the structure in detail and then evaluated the development plans of the past owner. . Jumbo is structurally safe and no danger to adult visitors once the lighting is sorted and the glass needs replacing in the various windows. So visitors could go up after a minimal expenditure. So I can see its attraction for tourists. . Unfortunately the development proposals will spoil some of the historic features and there is no way they would be financially viable. Even the £300,000 the BT trust wants to spend to make it "accessible" would take a lot of effort to get funded. . Charitable ownership means volunteers would do some of the work. Firms might be willing to help knowing the good publicity for them. Unfortunately it will be some time before the speculative owners face financial reality. Hopefully by then there will still be a charitable trust ready to rescue Jumbo having learned from the present unfortunate situation.[/p][/quote]Dear me Andy, read back a few. Yesterday I diverted my walk out of town with my youngest son b to look at Jumbo close up, and as usual he was pretty impressed by the bulk, shape and height of it. Meanwhile I was fairly worried about the loss of the safety barrier. In my own professional experience in large structures - Colchester high street included - recent winter freeze/thaw cycles have resulted in not just surface spalling but loss of integrity of bulk masonry. Unless you know of a recent and specific risk assessment report on Jumbo which states it's safe for members of the public walking within its footprint, I suggest urgent assessment is given to whether a safety barrier needs to he re- erected. It will only need one chunk of half brick hitting the ground at 80 mph close to pedestrians to move the old girl a pace nearer to demolition.[/p][/quote]If masonry starts falling off of Jumbo, the council will need to serve further Urgent Works Notices on the owner to make good the repairs. DL1970
  • Score: 10

9:39pm Mon 2 Jun 14

DL1970 says...

I've read all the comments thus far attacking BTT, the council and Bob Russell. Well, this is how I think things will probably play out, and I have run through many scenarios. I reckon the owner(s) will try and get planning permission by constantly resubmitting similar schemes to the last one. The provision of a restaurant, cafe, museum etc will be used as a pretext to win public favour, turn the people of Colchester against those who seek to truly preserve Jumbo and use it as leverage against the planning committee. Once they have a foot in the door, i.e. planning permission, they will carry out a scheme very similar to the last one at a massive initial loss, because restaurants, cafe's, museums and viewing platforms won't make the kind of returns/profits a developer is after, not now, nor in the long term. Once its been running a year or two, maybe a bit longer, the museum, restaurant and cafe will fold, because the rents will be too high and the conditions too draconian (and anyone who believes differently is welcome to go to the planning pages and look at the business plan submitted for the previous scheme). Once the building has been suitably ruined by the conversion, I think its highly likely an attempt will be made to get it de-listed from grade 2* to grade 2 or even totally de-listed, and a planning application for change of use will be submitted to convert the entire building to luxury private apartments and close it to the public completely - after all it would have been proved by then that the restaurant, museum et al were a non goer and there will be empty space that will need a new 'use'. Lets be honest, if the building has already been ruined, what difference is more destruction going to make? To understand a property developer you have to start thinking like one and follow the money. We'd all like to think there is some sort of public spirited sentiment about all of this and there will be all these wonderful things for the good of the people of Colchester, such as restaurants, etc. I don't for one instant think that either of these things or the future of Jumbo matter one iota to a developer. I think the motive is purely speculative and the raison d'etre of these schemes is to get a foot in the door based on the pretext of a 'community' area being provided in the scheme, then once that foot is in the door, and the scheme has been carried out, kicking the door down and going for maximum profit. The only certainty of the schemes submitted thus far is that there will be three private apartments within the tower. The restaurant was not a certainty and neither was the museum and cafe. They were only an offer to a 'third party' for the space. No-one in their right mind was going to take up the offer for the museum given the terms and conditions laid out in the previous scheme's business plan. No developer is going to give up the biggest, most profitable and exclusive part of the tower; the roof and tank for a museum and viewing platform in the long term. A luxury apartment up there with private viewing platform would make a killing on its own, let alone another eight or so floors of luxury private apartments below it. You want to buy into these schemes? Fine. Caveat Emptor
I've read all the comments thus far attacking BTT, the council and Bob Russell. Well, this is how I think things will probably play out, and I have run through many scenarios. I reckon the owner(s) will try and get planning permission by constantly resubmitting similar schemes to the last one. The provision of a restaurant, cafe, museum etc will be used as a pretext to win public favour, turn the people of Colchester against those who seek to truly preserve Jumbo and use it as leverage against the planning committee. Once they have a foot in the door, i.e. planning permission, they will carry out a scheme very similar to the last one at a massive initial loss, because restaurants, cafe's, museums and viewing platforms won't make the kind of returns/profits a developer is after, not now, nor in the long term. Once its been running a year or two, maybe a bit longer, the museum, restaurant and cafe will fold, because the rents will be too high and the conditions too draconian (and anyone who believes differently is welcome to go to the planning pages and look at the business plan submitted for the previous scheme). Once the building has been suitably ruined by the conversion, I think its highly likely an attempt will be made to get it de-listed from grade 2* to grade 2 or even totally de-listed, and a planning application for change of use will be submitted to convert the entire building to luxury private apartments and close it to the public completely - after all it would have been proved by then that the restaurant, museum et al were a non goer and there will be empty space that will need a new 'use'. Lets be honest, if the building has already been ruined, what difference is more destruction going to make? To understand a property developer you have to start thinking like one and follow the money. We'd all like to think there is some sort of public spirited sentiment about all of this and there will be all these wonderful things for the good of the people of Colchester, such as restaurants, etc. I don't for one instant think that either of these things or the future of Jumbo matter one iota to a developer. I think the motive is purely speculative and the raison d'etre of these schemes is to get a foot in the door based on the pretext of a 'community' area being provided in the scheme, then once that foot is in the door, and the scheme has been carried out, kicking the door down and going for maximum profit. The only certainty of the schemes submitted thus far is that there will be three private apartments within the tower. The restaurant was not a certainty and neither was the museum and cafe. They were only an offer to a 'third party' for the space. No-one in their right mind was going to take up the offer for the museum given the terms and conditions laid out in the previous scheme's business plan. No developer is going to give up the biggest, most profitable and exclusive part of the tower; the roof and tank for a museum and viewing platform in the long term. A luxury apartment up there with private viewing platform would make a killing on its own, let alone another eight or so floors of luxury private apartments below it. You want to buy into these schemes? Fine. Caveat Emptor DL1970
  • Score: 8

12:04am Tue 3 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

DL1970 wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
Hamiltonandy wrote:
I wonder how many of those commenting have actually gone up Jumbo, looked at the structure in detail and then evaluated the development plans of the past owner.
.
Jumbo is structurally safe and no danger to adult visitors once the lighting is sorted and the glass needs replacing in the various windows. So visitors could go up after a minimal expenditure. So I can see its attraction for tourists.
.
Unfortunately the development proposals will spoil some of the historic features and there is no way they would be financially viable. Even the £300,000 the BT trust wants to spend to make it "accessible" would take a lot of effort to get funded.
.
Charitable ownership means volunteers would do some of the work. Firms might be willing to help knowing the good publicity for them. Unfortunately it will be some time before the speculative owners face financial reality. Hopefully by then there will still be a charitable trust ready to rescue Jumbo having learned from the present unfortunate situation.
Dear me Andy, read back a few. Yesterday I diverted my walk out of town with my youngest son b to look at Jumbo close up, and as usual he was pretty impressed by the bulk, shape and height of it. Meanwhile I was fairly worried about the loss of the safety barrier. In my own professional experience in large structures - Colchester high street included - recent winter freeze/thaw cycles have resulted in not just surface spalling but loss of integrity of bulk masonry. Unless you know of a recent and specific risk assessment report on Jumbo which states it's safe for members of the public walking within its footprint, I suggest urgent assessment is given to whether a safety barrier needs to he re- erected. It will only need one chunk of half brick hitting the ground at 80 mph close to pedestrians to move the old girl a pace nearer to demolition.
If masonry starts falling off of Jumbo, the council will need to serve further Urgent Works Notices on the owner to make good the repairs.
I will draw the notice on Wednesday and serve it registered to C.B.C. There is no choice, I was confident that the BTT had taken the responsibility to protect the public and served the appropriate notice prior and the risk was zero.
[quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hamiltonandy[/bold] wrote: I wonder how many of those commenting have actually gone up Jumbo, looked at the structure in detail and then evaluated the development plans of the past owner. . Jumbo is structurally safe and no danger to adult visitors once the lighting is sorted and the glass needs replacing in the various windows. So visitors could go up after a minimal expenditure. So I can see its attraction for tourists. . Unfortunately the development proposals will spoil some of the historic features and there is no way they would be financially viable. Even the £300,000 the BT trust wants to spend to make it "accessible" would take a lot of effort to get funded. . Charitable ownership means volunteers would do some of the work. Firms might be willing to help knowing the good publicity for them. Unfortunately it will be some time before the speculative owners face financial reality. Hopefully by then there will still be a charitable trust ready to rescue Jumbo having learned from the present unfortunate situation.[/p][/quote]Dear me Andy, read back a few. Yesterday I diverted my walk out of town with my youngest son b to look at Jumbo close up, and as usual he was pretty impressed by the bulk, shape and height of it. Meanwhile I was fairly worried about the loss of the safety barrier. In my own professional experience in large structures - Colchester high street included - recent winter freeze/thaw cycles have resulted in not just surface spalling but loss of integrity of bulk masonry. Unless you know of a recent and specific risk assessment report on Jumbo which states it's safe for members of the public walking within its footprint, I suggest urgent assessment is given to whether a safety barrier needs to he re- erected. It will only need one chunk of half brick hitting the ground at 80 mph close to pedestrians to move the old girl a pace nearer to demolition.[/p][/quote]If masonry starts falling off of Jumbo, the council will need to serve further Urgent Works Notices on the owner to make good the repairs.[/p][/quote]I will draw the notice on Wednesday and serve it registered to C.B.C. There is no choice, I was confident that the BTT had taken the responsibility to protect the public and served the appropriate notice prior and the risk was zero. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -6

12:10am Tue 3 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

DL1970 wrote:
I've read all the comments thus far attacking BTT, the council and Bob Russell. Well, this is how I think things will probably play out, and I have run through many scenarios. I reckon the owner(s) will try and get planning permission by constantly resubmitting similar schemes to the last one. The provision of a restaurant, cafe, museum etc will be used as a pretext to win public favour, turn the people of Colchester against those who seek to truly preserve Jumbo and use it as leverage against the planning committee. Once they have a foot in the door, i.e. planning permission, they will carry out a scheme very similar to the last one at a massive initial loss, because restaurants, cafe's, museums and viewing platforms won't make the kind of returns/profits a developer is after, not now, nor in the long term. Once its been running a year or two, maybe a bit longer, the museum, restaurant and cafe will fold, because the rents will be too high and the conditions too draconian (and anyone who believes differently is welcome to go to the planning pages and look at the business plan submitted for the previous scheme). Once the building has been suitably ruined by the conversion, I think its highly likely an attempt will be made to get it de-listed from grade 2* to grade 2 or even totally de-listed, and a planning application for change of use will be submitted to convert the entire building to luxury private apartments and close it to the public completely - after all it would have been proved by then that the restaurant, museum et al were a non goer and there will be empty space that will need a new 'use'. Lets be honest, if the building has already been ruined, what difference is more destruction going to make? To understand a property developer you have to start thinking like one and follow the money. We'd all like to think there is some sort of public spirited sentiment about all of this and there will be all these wonderful things for the good of the people of Colchester, such as restaurants, etc. I don't for one instant think that either of these things or the future of Jumbo matter one iota to a developer. I think the motive is purely speculative and the raison d'etre of these schemes is to get a foot in the door based on the pretext of a 'community' area being provided in the scheme, then once that foot is in the door, and the scheme has been carried out, kicking the door down and going for maximum profit. The only certainty of the schemes submitted thus far is that there will be three private apartments within the tower. The restaurant was not a certainty and neither was the museum and cafe. They were only an offer to a 'third party' for the space. No-one in their right mind was going to take up the offer for the museum given the terms and conditions laid out in the previous scheme's business plan. No developer is going to give up the biggest, most profitable and exclusive part of the tower; the roof and tank for a museum and viewing platform in the long term. A luxury apartment up there with private viewing platform would make a killing on its own, let alone another eight or so floors of luxury private apartments below it. You want to buy into these schemes? Fine. Caveat Emptor
Number of words? - inverse proportion applies - message probably honest but lost. Suggest you preci now or loose your intent.
[quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: I've read all the comments thus far attacking BTT, the council and Bob Russell. Well, this is how I think things will probably play out, and I have run through many scenarios. I reckon the owner(s) will try and get planning permission by constantly resubmitting similar schemes to the last one. The provision of a restaurant, cafe, museum etc will be used as a pretext to win public favour, turn the people of Colchester against those who seek to truly preserve Jumbo and use it as leverage against the planning committee. Once they have a foot in the door, i.e. planning permission, they will carry out a scheme very similar to the last one at a massive initial loss, because restaurants, cafe's, museums and viewing platforms won't make the kind of returns/profits a developer is after, not now, nor in the long term. Once its been running a year or two, maybe a bit longer, the museum, restaurant and cafe will fold, because the rents will be too high and the conditions too draconian (and anyone who believes differently is welcome to go to the planning pages and look at the business plan submitted for the previous scheme). Once the building has been suitably ruined by the conversion, I think its highly likely an attempt will be made to get it de-listed from grade 2* to grade 2 or even totally de-listed, and a planning application for change of use will be submitted to convert the entire building to luxury private apartments and close it to the public completely - after all it would have been proved by then that the restaurant, museum et al were a non goer and there will be empty space that will need a new 'use'. Lets be honest, if the building has already been ruined, what difference is more destruction going to make? To understand a property developer you have to start thinking like one and follow the money. We'd all like to think there is some sort of public spirited sentiment about all of this and there will be all these wonderful things for the good of the people of Colchester, such as restaurants, etc. I don't for one instant think that either of these things or the future of Jumbo matter one iota to a developer. I think the motive is purely speculative and the raison d'etre of these schemes is to get a foot in the door based on the pretext of a 'community' area being provided in the scheme, then once that foot is in the door, and the scheme has been carried out, kicking the door down and going for maximum profit. The only certainty of the schemes submitted thus far is that there will be three private apartments within the tower. The restaurant was not a certainty and neither was the museum and cafe. They were only an offer to a 'third party' for the space. No-one in their right mind was going to take up the offer for the museum given the terms and conditions laid out in the previous scheme's business plan. No developer is going to give up the biggest, most profitable and exclusive part of the tower; the roof and tank for a museum and viewing platform in the long term. A luxury apartment up there with private viewing platform would make a killing on its own, let alone another eight or so floors of luxury private apartments below it. You want to buy into these schemes? Fine. Caveat Emptor[/p][/quote]Number of words? - inverse proportion applies - message probably honest but lost. Suggest you preci now or loose your intent. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -8

12:25am Tue 3 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

IpsumDelor wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
IpsumDelor wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
IpsumDelor wrote:
seikothrill wrote:
IpsumDelor wrote:
Which part of 'two previous failed planning applications for development' does this new owner not understand?
I understand your comment but lets hope the new owners revised plans are better than previous ones and accepted by Colchester Council Planning Committee who seem to approve every other planning application within the borough with no thought to locals, infrastructure etc
If you understood my comment you'd realise that I don't want Jumbo developed into apartments, offices or anything else. Not even the 'restaurant in the sky' that a certain political wannabe so longs to take his dear old grandma up to visit. I want it restored and maintained as a monument to, and towering over, our town.
Ipsum, you do seem to use "I want" and "I Don't want" quite a bit. There are others in the town......
Pretty sure you don't share King Bobs party politics.

Mind you, I don't think KB shares his party's politics.
So sorry, I didn't realise I wasn't allowed to have an opinion about what I want to see for the future of this building. Oops, there's that 'want' word again. I thought the discussion here was about Jumbo, not use of language.
Sorry Ipsum, I interpreted your fairly strong "wants" as being there is no other way.
Apology accepted.

My wants are fairly simple. In an ideal world Jumbo would be owned by the town, for the town. It does not need to be re-purposed as apartments, offices, or a museum... it is what it is, a Victorian water tower that stands as a tribute to a bygone era. All this talk of lifts and viewing galleries, I couldn't care less if I never get to see the view from the top just so long as this amazing building is not desecrated by developers. Nobody tried to fill in the legs of the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, so why should Colchester's Jumbo be any different? If it wasn't for another businessman (whose previous business bankruptcy left local businesses out of pocket) thinking he can turn a profit from it the BTT could have bought this magnificent building, sought lottery funding, and restored it to its former glory as a monument befitting the history and heritage of our town.

Sadly, instead, it looks like all we are going to get is a repeat of the Braithwaite debacle.
The Paris thing? .... is there really a comparison? I consider, in my personal opinion, that the people of Colchester would be more likely to call their relatives from where ever, and say: le
[quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]seikothrill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: Which part of 'two previous failed planning applications for development' does this new owner not understand?[/p][/quote]I understand your comment but lets hope the new owners revised plans are better than previous ones and accepted by Colchester Council Planning Committee who seem to approve every other planning application within the borough with no thought to locals, infrastructure etc[/p][/quote]If you understood my comment you'd realise that I don't want Jumbo developed into apartments, offices or anything else. Not even the 'restaurant in the sky' that a certain political wannabe so longs to take his dear old grandma up to visit. I want it restored and maintained as a monument to, and towering over, our town.[/p][/quote]Ipsum, you do seem to use "I want" and "I Don't want" quite a bit. There are others in the town...... Pretty sure you don't share King Bobs party politics. Mind you, I don't think KB shares his party's politics.[/p][/quote]So sorry, I didn't realise I wasn't allowed to have an opinion about what I want to see for the future of this building. Oops, there's that 'want' word again. I thought the discussion here was about Jumbo, not use of language.[/p][/quote]Sorry Ipsum, I interpreted your fairly strong "wants" as being there is no other way.[/p][/quote]Apology accepted. My wants are fairly simple. In an ideal world Jumbo would be owned by the town, for the town. It does not need to be re-purposed as apartments, offices, or a museum... it is what it is, a Victorian water tower that stands as a tribute to a bygone era. All this talk of lifts and viewing galleries, I couldn't care less if I never get to see the view from the top just so long as this amazing building is not desecrated by developers. Nobody tried to fill in the legs of the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, so why should Colchester's Jumbo be any different? If it wasn't for another businessman (whose previous business bankruptcy left local businesses out of pocket) thinking he can turn a profit from it the BTT could have bought this magnificent building, sought lottery funding, and restored it to its former glory as a monument befitting the history and heritage of our town. Sadly, instead, it looks like all we are going to get is a repeat of the Braithwaite debacle.[/p][/quote]The Paris thing? .... is there really a comparison? I consider, in my personal opinion, that the people of Colchester would be more likely to call their relatives from where ever, and say: le Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -7

12:32am Tue 3 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
IpsumDelor wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
IpsumDelor wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
IpsumDelor wrote:
seikothrill wrote:
IpsumDelor wrote:
Which part of 'two previous failed planning applications for development' does this new owner not understand?
I understand your comment but lets hope the new owners revised plans are better than previous ones and accepted by Colchester Council Planning Committee who seem to approve every other planning application within the borough with no thought to locals, infrastructure etc
If you understood my comment you'd realise that I don't want Jumbo developed into apartments, offices or anything else. Not even the 'restaurant in the sky' that a certain political wannabe so longs to take his dear old grandma up to visit. I want it restored and maintained as a monument to, and towering over, our town.
Ipsum, you do seem to use "I want" and "I Don't want" quite a bit. There are others in the town......
Pretty sure you don't share King Bobs party politics.

Mind you, I don't think KB shares his party's politics.
So sorry, I didn't realise I wasn't allowed to have an opinion about what I want to see for the future of this building. Oops, there's that 'want' word again. I thought the discussion here was about Jumbo, not use of language.
Sorry Ipsum, I interpreted your fairly strong "wants" as being there is no other way.
Apology accepted.

My wants are fairly simple. In an ideal world Jumbo would be owned by the town, for the town. It does not need to be re-purposed as apartments, offices, or a museum... it is what it is, a Victorian water tower that stands as a tribute to a bygone era. All this talk of lifts and viewing galleries, I couldn't care less if I never get to see the view from the top just so long as this amazing building is not desecrated by developers. Nobody tried to fill in the legs of the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, so why should Colchester's Jumbo be any different? If it wasn't for another businessman (whose previous business bankruptcy left local businesses out of pocket) thinking he can turn a profit from it the BTT could have bought this magnificent building, sought lottery funding, and restored it to its former glory as a monument befitting the history and heritage of our town.

Sadly, instead, it looks like all we are going to get is a repeat of the Braithwaite debacle.
The Paris thing? .... is there really a comparison? I consider, in my personal opinion, that the people of Colchester would be more likely to call their relatives from where ever, and say: le
Oops! Sorry, fat engineers fingers! I was going on to say, Colchester folk might say to their friends etc, hey come down and we take the views from jumbo and the kids will enjoy the victorian experience studio on the ground floor while we have a coffee,... But then there is the barrier of the BTT.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]seikothrill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: Which part of 'two previous failed planning applications for development' does this new owner not understand?[/p][/quote]I understand your comment but lets hope the new owners revised plans are better than previous ones and accepted by Colchester Council Planning Committee who seem to approve every other planning application within the borough with no thought to locals, infrastructure etc[/p][/quote]If you understood my comment you'd realise that I don't want Jumbo developed into apartments, offices or anything else. Not even the 'restaurant in the sky' that a certain political wannabe so longs to take his dear old grandma up to visit. I want it restored and maintained as a monument to, and towering over, our town.[/p][/quote]Ipsum, you do seem to use "I want" and "I Don't want" quite a bit. There are others in the town...... Pretty sure you don't share King Bobs party politics. Mind you, I don't think KB shares his party's politics.[/p][/quote]So sorry, I didn't realise I wasn't allowed to have an opinion about what I want to see for the future of this building. Oops, there's that 'want' word again. I thought the discussion here was about Jumbo, not use of language.[/p][/quote]Sorry Ipsum, I interpreted your fairly strong "wants" as being there is no other way.[/p][/quote]Apology accepted. My wants are fairly simple. In an ideal world Jumbo would be owned by the town, for the town. It does not need to be re-purposed as apartments, offices, or a museum... it is what it is, a Victorian water tower that stands as a tribute to a bygone era. All this talk of lifts and viewing galleries, I couldn't care less if I never get to see the view from the top just so long as this amazing building is not desecrated by developers. Nobody tried to fill in the legs of the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, so why should Colchester's Jumbo be any different? If it wasn't for another businessman (whose previous business bankruptcy left local businesses out of pocket) thinking he can turn a profit from it the BTT could have bought this magnificent building, sought lottery funding, and restored it to its former glory as a monument befitting the history and heritage of our town. Sadly, instead, it looks like all we are going to get is a repeat of the Braithwaite debacle.[/p][/quote]The Paris thing? .... is there really a comparison? I consider, in my personal opinion, that the people of Colchester would be more likely to call their relatives from where ever, and say: le[/p][/quote]Oops! Sorry, fat engineers fingers! I was going on to say, Colchester folk might say to their friends etc, hey come down and we take the views from jumbo and the kids will enjoy the victorian experience studio on the ground floor while we have a coffee,... But then there is the barrier of the BTT. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -6

12:37am Tue 3 Jun 14

DL1970 says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL1970 wrote:
I've read all the comments thus far attacking BTT, the council and Bob Russell. Well, this is how I think things will probably play out, and I have run through many scenarios. I reckon the owner(s) will try and get planning permission by constantly resubmitting similar schemes to the last one. The provision of a restaurant, cafe, museum etc will be used as a pretext to win public favour, turn the people of Colchester against those who seek to truly preserve Jumbo and use it as leverage against the planning committee. Once they have a foot in the door, i.e. planning permission, they will carry out a scheme very similar to the last one at a massive initial loss, because restaurants, cafe's, museums and viewing platforms won't make the kind of returns/profits a developer is after, not now, nor in the long term. Once its been running a year or two, maybe a bit longer, the museum, restaurant and cafe will fold, because the rents will be too high and the conditions too draconian (and anyone who believes differently is welcome to go to the planning pages and look at the business plan submitted for the previous scheme). Once the building has been suitably ruined by the conversion, I think its highly likely an attempt will be made to get it de-listed from grade 2* to grade 2 or even totally de-listed, and a planning application for change of use will be submitted to convert the entire building to luxury private apartments and close it to the public completely - after all it would have been proved by then that the restaurant, museum et al were a non goer and there will be empty space that will need a new 'use'. Lets be honest, if the building has already been ruined, what difference is more destruction going to make? To understand a property developer you have to start thinking like one and follow the money. We'd all like to think there is some sort of public spirited sentiment about all of this and there will be all these wonderful things for the good of the people of Colchester, such as restaurants, etc. I don't for one instant think that either of these things or the future of Jumbo matter one iota to a developer. I think the motive is purely speculative and the raison d'etre of these schemes is to get a foot in the door based on the pretext of a 'community' area being provided in the scheme, then once that foot is in the door, and the scheme has been carried out, kicking the door down and going for maximum profit. The only certainty of the schemes submitted thus far is that there will be three private apartments within the tower. The restaurant was not a certainty and neither was the museum and cafe. They were only an offer to a 'third party' for the space. No-one in their right mind was going to take up the offer for the museum given the terms and conditions laid out in the previous scheme's business plan. No developer is going to give up the biggest, most profitable and exclusive part of the tower; the roof and tank for a museum and viewing platform in the long term. A luxury apartment up there with private viewing platform would make a killing on its own, let alone another eight or so floors of luxury private apartments below it. You want to buy into these schemes? Fine. Caveat Emptor
Number of words? - inverse proportion applies - message probably honest but lost. Suggest you preci now or loose your intent.
Some of your posts have been pretty lengthy in the past though, A Of L.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: I've read all the comments thus far attacking BTT, the council and Bob Russell. Well, this is how I think things will probably play out, and I have run through many scenarios. I reckon the owner(s) will try and get planning permission by constantly resubmitting similar schemes to the last one. The provision of a restaurant, cafe, museum etc will be used as a pretext to win public favour, turn the people of Colchester against those who seek to truly preserve Jumbo and use it as leverage against the planning committee. Once they have a foot in the door, i.e. planning permission, they will carry out a scheme very similar to the last one at a massive initial loss, because restaurants, cafe's, museums and viewing platforms won't make the kind of returns/profits a developer is after, not now, nor in the long term. Once its been running a year or two, maybe a bit longer, the museum, restaurant and cafe will fold, because the rents will be too high and the conditions too draconian (and anyone who believes differently is welcome to go to the planning pages and look at the business plan submitted for the previous scheme). Once the building has been suitably ruined by the conversion, I think its highly likely an attempt will be made to get it de-listed from grade 2* to grade 2 or even totally de-listed, and a planning application for change of use will be submitted to convert the entire building to luxury private apartments and close it to the public completely - after all it would have been proved by then that the restaurant, museum et al were a non goer and there will be empty space that will need a new 'use'. Lets be honest, if the building has already been ruined, what difference is more destruction going to make? To understand a property developer you have to start thinking like one and follow the money. We'd all like to think there is some sort of public spirited sentiment about all of this and there will be all these wonderful things for the good of the people of Colchester, such as restaurants, etc. I don't for one instant think that either of these things or the future of Jumbo matter one iota to a developer. I think the motive is purely speculative and the raison d'etre of these schemes is to get a foot in the door based on the pretext of a 'community' area being provided in the scheme, then once that foot is in the door, and the scheme has been carried out, kicking the door down and going for maximum profit. The only certainty of the schemes submitted thus far is that there will be three private apartments within the tower. The restaurant was not a certainty and neither was the museum and cafe. They were only an offer to a 'third party' for the space. No-one in their right mind was going to take up the offer for the museum given the terms and conditions laid out in the previous scheme's business plan. No developer is going to give up the biggest, most profitable and exclusive part of the tower; the roof and tank for a museum and viewing platform in the long term. A luxury apartment up there with private viewing platform would make a killing on its own, let alone another eight or so floors of luxury private apartments below it. You want to buy into these schemes? Fine. Caveat Emptor[/p][/quote]Number of words? - inverse proportion applies - message probably honest but lost. Suggest you preci now or loose your intent.[/p][/quote]Some of your posts have been pretty lengthy in the past though, A Of L. DL1970
  • Score: 7

12:40am Tue 3 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Ourdogtess wrote:
What a lot of millionaire worshippers patting each other on the back and smirking how BTT raised 'only' £40,000. You think rich owners should do exactly what they like with listed buildings they own? What a nightmare world that would be. Go away and do a bit of actual work - read the summary and business plan on savejumbo.org.uk, then come back and make some thoughtful comments on what Eric Pickles said about Jumbo on his recent visit: 'An enormously attractive building ... a beautiful example of a Victorian water tower'. Spot on, Mr Pickles.
Ourdogtess, by accident of design you could be accused of being disingenuous! I will take time tomorrow to exppain.
[quote][p][bold]Ourdogtess[/bold] wrote: What a lot of millionaire worshippers patting each other on the back and smirking how BTT raised 'only' £40,000. You think rich owners should do exactly what they like with listed buildings they own? What a nightmare world that would be. Go away and do a bit of actual work - read the summary and business plan on savejumbo.org.uk, then come back and make some thoughtful comments on what Eric Pickles said about Jumbo on his recent visit: 'An enormously attractive building ... a beautiful example of a Victorian water tower'. Spot on, Mr Pickles.[/p][/quote]Ourdogtess, by accident of design you could be accused of being disingenuous! I will take time tomorrow to exppain. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -8

12:44am Tue 3 Jun 14

DL1970 says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
IpsumDelor wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
IpsumDelor wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
IpsumDelor wrote:
seikothrill wrote:
IpsumDelor wrote:
Which part of 'two previous failed planning applications for development' does this new owner not understand?
I understand your comment but lets hope the new owners revised plans are better than previous ones and accepted by Colchester Council Planning Committee who seem to approve every other planning application within the borough with no thought to locals, infrastructure etc
If you understood my comment you'd realise that I don't want Jumbo developed into apartments, offices or anything else. Not even the 'restaurant in the sky' that a certain political wannabe so longs to take his dear old grandma up to visit. I want it restored and maintained as a monument to, and towering over, our town.
Ipsum, you do seem to use "I want" and "I Don't want" quite a bit. There are others in the town......
Pretty sure you don't share King Bobs party politics.

Mind you, I don't think KB shares his party's politics.
So sorry, I didn't realise I wasn't allowed to have an opinion about what I want to see for the future of this building. Oops, there's that 'want' word again. I thought the discussion here was about Jumbo, not use of language.
Sorry Ipsum, I interpreted your fairly strong "wants" as being there is no other way.
Apology accepted.

My wants are fairly simple. In an ideal world Jumbo would be owned by the town, for the town. It does not need to be re-purposed as apartments, offices, or a museum... it is what it is, a Victorian water tower that stands as a tribute to a bygone era. All this talk of lifts and viewing galleries, I couldn't care less if I never get to see the view from the top just so long as this amazing building is not desecrated by developers. Nobody tried to fill in the legs of the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, so why should Colchester's Jumbo be any different? If it wasn't for another businessman (whose previous business bankruptcy left local businesses out of pocket) thinking he can turn a profit from it the BTT could have bought this magnificent building, sought lottery funding, and restored it to its former glory as a monument befitting the history and heritage of our town.

Sadly, instead, it looks like all we are going to get is a repeat of the Braithwaite debacle.
The Paris thing? .... is there really a comparison? I consider, in my personal opinion, that the people of Colchester would be more likely to call their relatives from where ever, and say: le
Oops! Sorry, fat engineers fingers! I was going on to say, Colchester folk might say to their friends etc, hey come down and we take the views from jumbo and the kids will enjoy the victorian experience studio on the ground floor while we have a coffee,... But then there is the barrier of the BTT.
There's the barrier of The Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990, English Heritage and the Victorian Society, not BTT. BTT were allowed to make the standard three minute speech at the planning meeting, as were the applicants.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]seikothrill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: Which part of 'two previous failed planning applications for development' does this new owner not understand?[/p][/quote]I understand your comment but lets hope the new owners revised plans are better than previous ones and accepted by Colchester Council Planning Committee who seem to approve every other planning application within the borough with no thought to locals, infrastructure etc[/p][/quote]If you understood my comment you'd realise that I don't want Jumbo developed into apartments, offices or anything else. Not even the 'restaurant in the sky' that a certain political wannabe so longs to take his dear old grandma up to visit. I want it restored and maintained as a monument to, and towering over, our town.[/p][/quote]Ipsum, you do seem to use "I want" and "I Don't want" quite a bit. There are others in the town...... Pretty sure you don't share King Bobs party politics. Mind you, I don't think KB shares his party's politics.[/p][/quote]So sorry, I didn't realise I wasn't allowed to have an opinion about what I want to see for the future of this building. Oops, there's that 'want' word again. I thought the discussion here was about Jumbo, not use of language.[/p][/quote]Sorry Ipsum, I interpreted your fairly strong "wants" as being there is no other way.[/p][/quote]Apology accepted. My wants are fairly simple. In an ideal world Jumbo would be owned by the town, for the town. It does not need to be re-purposed as apartments, offices, or a museum... it is what it is, a Victorian water tower that stands as a tribute to a bygone era. All this talk of lifts and viewing galleries, I couldn't care less if I never get to see the view from the top just so long as this amazing building is not desecrated by developers. Nobody tried to fill in the legs of the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, so why should Colchester's Jumbo be any different? If it wasn't for another businessman (whose previous business bankruptcy left local businesses out of pocket) thinking he can turn a profit from it the BTT could have bought this magnificent building, sought lottery funding, and restored it to its former glory as a monument befitting the history and heritage of our town. Sadly, instead, it looks like all we are going to get is a repeat of the Braithwaite debacle.[/p][/quote]The Paris thing? .... is there really a comparison? I consider, in my personal opinion, that the people of Colchester would be more likely to call their relatives from where ever, and say: le[/p][/quote]Oops! Sorry, fat engineers fingers! I was going on to say, Colchester folk might say to their friends etc, hey come down and we take the views from jumbo and the kids will enjoy the victorian experience studio on the ground floor while we have a coffee,... But then there is the barrier of the BTT.[/p][/quote]There's the barrier of The Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990, English Heritage and the Victorian Society, not BTT. BTT were allowed to make the standard three minute speech at the planning meeting, as were the applicants. DL1970
  • Score: 8

1:01am Tue 3 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

DL1970 wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
IpsumDelor wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
IpsumDelor wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
IpsumDelor wrote:
seikothrill wrote:
IpsumDelor wrote:
Which part of 'two previous failed planning applications for development' does this new owner not understand?
I understand your comment but lets hope the new owners revised plans are better than previous ones and accepted by Colchester Council Planning Committee who seem to approve every other planning application within the borough with no thought to locals, infrastructure etc
If you understood my comment you'd realise that I don't want Jumbo developed into apartments, offices or anything else. Not even the 'restaurant in the sky' that a certain political wannabe so longs to take his dear old grandma up to visit. I want it restored and maintained as a monument to, and towering over, our town.
Ipsum, you do seem to use "I want" and "I Don't want" quite a bit. There are others in the town......
Pretty sure you don't share King Bobs party politics.

Mind you, I don't think KB shares his party's politics.
So sorry, I didn't realise I wasn't allowed to have an opinion about what I want to see for the future of this building. Oops, there's that 'want' word again. I thought the discussion here was about Jumbo, not use of language.
Sorry Ipsum, I interpreted your fairly strong "wants" as being there is no other way.
Apology accepted.

My wants are fairly simple. In an ideal world Jumbo would be owned by the town, for the town. It does not need to be re-purposed as apartments, offices, or a museum... it is what it is, a Victorian water tower that stands as a tribute to a bygone era. All this talk of lifts and viewing galleries, I couldn't care less if I never get to see the view from the top just so long as this amazing building is not desecrated by developers. Nobody tried to fill in the legs of the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, so why should Colchester's Jumbo be any different? If it wasn't for another businessman (whose previous business bankruptcy left local businesses out of pocket) thinking he can turn a profit from it the BTT could have bought this magnificent building, sought lottery funding, and restored it to its former glory as a monument befitting the history and heritage of our town.

Sadly, instead, it looks like all we are going to get is a repeat of the Braithwaite debacle.
The Paris thing? .... is there really a comparison? I consider, in my personal opinion, that the people of Colchester would be more likely to call their relatives from where ever, and say: le
Oops! Sorry, fat engineers fingers! I was going on to say, Colchester folk might say to their friends etc, hey come down and we take the views from jumbo and the kids will enjoy the victorian experience studio on the ground floor while we have a coffee,... But then there is the barrier of the BTT.
There's the barrier of The Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990, English Heritage and the Victorian Society, not BTT. BTT were allowed to make the standard three minute speech at the planning meeting, as were the applicants.
What are you saying? Did the BTT fail to make a coherent point? Or was the format unfair?
[quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]seikothrill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: Which part of 'two previous failed planning applications for development' does this new owner not understand?[/p][/quote]I understand your comment but lets hope the new owners revised plans are better than previous ones and accepted by Colchester Council Planning Committee who seem to approve every other planning application within the borough with no thought to locals, infrastructure etc[/p][/quote]If you understood my comment you'd realise that I don't want Jumbo developed into apartments, offices or anything else. Not even the 'restaurant in the sky' that a certain political wannabe so longs to take his dear old grandma up to visit. I want it restored and maintained as a monument to, and towering over, our town.[/p][/quote]Ipsum, you do seem to use "I want" and "I Don't want" quite a bit. There are others in the town...... Pretty sure you don't share King Bobs party politics. Mind you, I don't think KB shares his party's politics.[/p][/quote]So sorry, I didn't realise I wasn't allowed to have an opinion about what I want to see for the future of this building. Oops, there's that 'want' word again. I thought the discussion here was about Jumbo, not use of language.[/p][/quote]Sorry Ipsum, I interpreted your fairly strong "wants" as being there is no other way.[/p][/quote]Apology accepted. My wants are fairly simple. In an ideal world Jumbo would be owned by the town, for the town. It does not need to be re-purposed as apartments, offices, or a museum... it is what it is, a Victorian water tower that stands as a tribute to a bygone era. All this talk of lifts and viewing galleries, I couldn't care less if I never get to see the view from the top just so long as this amazing building is not desecrated by developers. Nobody tried to fill in the legs of the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, so why should Colchester's Jumbo be any different? If it wasn't for another businessman (whose previous business bankruptcy left local businesses out of pocket) thinking he can turn a profit from it the BTT could have bought this magnificent building, sought lottery funding, and restored it to its former glory as a monument befitting the history and heritage of our town. Sadly, instead, it looks like all we are going to get is a repeat of the Braithwaite debacle.[/p][/quote]The Paris thing? .... is there really a comparison? I consider, in my personal opinion, that the people of Colchester would be more likely to call their relatives from where ever, and say: le[/p][/quote]Oops! Sorry, fat engineers fingers! I was going on to say, Colchester folk might say to their friends etc, hey come down and we take the views from jumbo and the kids will enjoy the victorian experience studio on the ground floor while we have a coffee,... But then there is the barrier of the BTT.[/p][/quote]There's the barrier of The Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990, English Heritage and the Victorian Society, not BTT. BTT were allowed to make the standard three minute speech at the planning meeting, as were the applicants.[/p][/quote]What are you saying? Did the BTT fail to make a coherent point? Or was the format unfair? Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -7

12:39pm Tue 3 Jun 14

Shrubendlad says...

Its now September 19th.
The Scots have voted for independence-Hooray!
!
and the EU have ordered the removal of all redundant water towers-Hooray!!
Its now September 19th. The Scots have voted for independence-Hooray! ! and the EU have ordered the removal of all redundant water towers-Hooray!! Shrubendlad
  • Score: -10

2:13pm Tue 3 Jun 14

William George says...

William George wrote:
Jess Jephcott wrote:
Listen to you lot. Who do you think owns Jumbo and how many of you put your hands in your pockets to help the Balkerne Trust buy it? If you didn't contribute then mind your own business. The present owner will be the only one deciding on its future, not you lot. What a load of self-righteous twaddle I am reading here. If 100,000 Colcestrians had put a fiver towards buying it, it would be ours now and the proper squabbling could begin. As it is, those who didn't contribute, your views are irrelevant so go find another bandwagon to vent your collective spleens on.
Jess,
Your points of views are considerably better in sense than these other irrelevant self-righteous twaddle writers.
But we must give the twaddle writers a chance and for them to see what they enjoy and achieve in their unstable fallible results. We must be understanding all for them with their obsessions that they have to cope with perhaps.
Jess,

I now see what you mean because Angry of Lexden has gone too far in his lengths of words. Because my mouse that I have on my desk using to swing round and avoid his comments.
It has caused the mouse to get a rupture in its exhaustion by doing that..
Do you think that he might be using a bandicoot instead of a mouse to make things easier for him? Let me know if you can so I can refer to the right subject here sooner.
[quote][p][bold]William George[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jess Jephcott[/bold] wrote: Listen to you lot. Who do you think owns Jumbo and how many of you put your hands in your pockets to help the Balkerne Trust buy it? If you didn't contribute then mind your own business. The present owner will be the only one deciding on its future, not you lot. What a load of self-righteous twaddle I am reading here. If 100,000 Colcestrians had put a fiver towards buying it, it would be ours now and the proper squabbling could begin. As it is, those who didn't contribute, your views are irrelevant so go find another bandwagon to vent your collective spleens on.[/p][/quote]Jess, Your points of views are considerably better in sense than these other irrelevant self-righteous twaddle writers. But we must give the twaddle writers a chance and for them to see what they enjoy and achieve in their unstable fallible results. We must be understanding all for them with their obsessions that they have to cope with perhaps.[/p][/quote]Jess, I now see what you mean because Angry of Lexden has gone too far in his lengths of words. Because my mouse that I have on my desk using to swing round and avoid his comments. It has caused the mouse to get a rupture in its exhaustion by doing that.. Do you think that he might be using a bandicoot instead of a mouse to make things easier for him? Let me know if you can so I can refer to the right subject here sooner. William George
  • Score: 9

5:25pm Tue 3 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL1970 wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
IpsumDelor wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
IpsumDelor wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
IpsumDelor wrote:
seikothrill wrote:
IpsumDelor wrote:
Which part of 'two previous failed planning applications for development' does this new owner not understand?
I understand your comment but lets hope the new owners revised plans are better than previous ones and accepted by Colchester Council Planning Committee who seem to approve every other planning application within the borough with no thought to locals, infrastructure etc
If you understood my comment you'd realise that I don't want Jumbo developed into apartments, offices or anything else. Not even the 'restaurant in the sky' that a certain political wannabe so longs to take his dear old grandma up to visit. I want it restored and maintained as a monument to, and towering over, our town.
Ipsum, you do seem to use "I want" and "I Don't want" quite a bit. There are others in the town......
Pretty sure you don't share King Bobs party politics.

Mind you, I don't think KB shares his party's politics.
So sorry, I didn't realise I wasn't allowed to have an opinion about what I want to see for the future of this building. Oops, there's that 'want' word again. I thought the discussion here was about Jumbo, not use of language.
Sorry Ipsum, I interpreted your fairly strong "wants" as being there is no other way.
Apology accepted.

My wants are fairly simple. In an ideal world Jumbo would be owned by the town, for the town. It does not need to be re-purposed as apartments, offices, or a museum... it is what it is, a Victorian water tower that stands as a tribute to a bygone era. All this talk of lifts and viewing galleries, I couldn't care less if I never get to see the view from the top just so long as this amazing building is not desecrated by developers. Nobody tried to fill in the legs of the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, so why should Colchester's Jumbo be any different? If it wasn't for another businessman (whose previous business bankruptcy left local businesses out of pocket) thinking he can turn a profit from it the BTT could have bought this magnificent building, sought lottery funding, and restored it to its former glory as a monument befitting the history and heritage of our town.

Sadly, instead, it looks like all we are going to get is a repeat of the Braithwaite debacle.
The Paris thing? .... is there really a comparison? I consider, in my personal opinion, that the people of Colchester would be more likely to call their relatives from where ever, and say: le
Oops! Sorry, fat engineers fingers! I was going on to say, Colchester folk might say to their friends etc, hey come down and we take the views from jumbo and the kids will enjoy the victorian experience studio on the ground floor while we have a coffee,... But then there is the barrier of the BTT.
There's the barrier of The Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990, English Heritage and the Victorian Society, not BTT. BTT were allowed to make the standard three minute speech at the planning meeting, as were the applicants.
What are you saying? Did the BTT fail to make a coherent point? Or was the format unfair?
I might be wrong, but but it does seem that the BTT's actions to date do appear to have resulted in failure to allow Jumbo to evolve and develop for the majority of the town to enjoy, and not just the interests of a minority. Really sorry about the mouse.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]seikothrill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IpsumDelor[/bold] wrote: Which part of 'two previous failed planning applications for development' does this new owner not understand?[/p][/quote]I understand your comment but lets hope the new owners revised plans are better than previous ones and accepted by Colchester Council Planning Committee who seem to approve every other planning application within the borough with no thought to locals, infrastructure etc[/p][/quote]If you understood my comment you'd realise that I don't want Jumbo developed into apartments, offices or anything else. Not even the 'restaurant in the sky' that a certain political wannabe so longs to take his dear old grandma up to visit. I want it restored and maintained as a monument to, and towering over, our town.[/p][/quote]Ipsum, you do seem to use "I want" and "I Don't want" quite a bit. There are others in the town...... Pretty sure you don't share King Bobs party politics. Mind you, I don't think KB shares his party's politics.[/p][/quote]So sorry, I didn't realise I wasn't allowed to have an opinion about what I want to see for the future of this building. Oops, there's that 'want' word again. I thought the discussion here was about Jumbo, not use of language.[/p][/quote]Sorry Ipsum, I interpreted your fairly strong "wants" as being there is no other way.[/p][/quote]Apology accepted. My wants are fairly simple. In an ideal world Jumbo would be owned by the town, for the town. It does not need to be re-purposed as apartments, offices, or a museum... it is what it is, a Victorian water tower that stands as a tribute to a bygone era. All this talk of lifts and viewing galleries, I couldn't care less if I never get to see the view from the top just so long as this amazing building is not desecrated by developers. Nobody tried to fill in the legs of the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, so why should Colchester's Jumbo be any different? If it wasn't for another businessman (whose previous business bankruptcy left local businesses out of pocket) thinking he can turn a profit from it the BTT could have bought this magnificent building, sought lottery funding, and restored it to its former glory as a monument befitting the history and heritage of our town. Sadly, instead, it looks like all we are going to get is a repeat of the Braithwaite debacle.[/p][/quote]The Paris thing? .... is there really a comparison? I consider, in my personal opinion, that the people of Colchester would be more likely to call their relatives from where ever, and say: le[/p][/quote]Oops! Sorry, fat engineers fingers! I was going on to say, Colchester folk might say to their friends etc, hey come down and we take the views from jumbo and the kids will enjoy the victorian experience studio on the ground floor while we have a coffee,... But then there is the barrier of the BTT.[/p][/quote]There's the barrier of The Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990, English Heritage and the Victorian Society, not BTT. BTT were allowed to make the standard three minute speech at the planning meeting, as were the applicants.[/p][/quote]What are you saying? Did the BTT fail to make a coherent point? Or was the format unfair?[/p][/quote]I might be wrong, but but it does seem that the BTT's actions to date do appear to have resulted in failure to allow Jumbo to evolve and develop for the majority of the town to enjoy, and not just the interests of a minority. Really sorry about the mouse. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -9

6:05pm Tue 3 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

DL1970 wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL1970 wrote:
I've read all the comments thus far attacking BTT, the council and Bob Russell. Well, this is how I think things will probably play out, and I have run through many scenarios. I reckon the owner(s) will try and get planning permission by constantly resubmitting similar schemes to the last one. The provision of a restaurant, cafe, museum etc will be used as a pretext to win public favour, turn the people of Colchester against those who seek to truly preserve Jumbo and use it as leverage against the planning committee. Once they have a foot in the door, i.e. planning permission, they will carry out a scheme very similar to the last one at a massive initial loss, because restaurants, cafe's, museums and viewing platforms won't make the kind of returns/profits a developer is after, not now, nor in the long term. Once its been running a year or two, maybe a bit longer, the museum, restaurant and cafe will fold, because the rents will be too high and the conditions too draconian (and anyone who believes differently is welcome to go to the planning pages and look at the business plan submitted for the previous scheme). Once the building has been suitably ruined by the conversion, I think its highly likely an attempt will be made to get it de-listed from grade 2* to grade 2 or even totally de-listed, and a planning application for change of use will be submitted to convert the entire building to luxury private apartments and close it to the public completely - after all it would have been proved by then that the restaurant, museum et al were a non goer and there will be empty space that will need a new 'use'. Lets be honest, if the building has already been ruined, what difference is more destruction going to make? To understand a property developer you have to start thinking like one and follow the money. We'd all like to think there is some sort of public spirited sentiment about all of this and there will be all these wonderful things for the good of the people of Colchester, such as restaurants, etc. I don't for one instant think that either of these things or the future of Jumbo matter one iota to a developer. I think the motive is purely speculative and the raison d'etre of these schemes is to get a foot in the door based on the pretext of a 'community' area being provided in the scheme, then once that foot is in the door, and the scheme has been carried out, kicking the door down and going for maximum profit. The only certainty of the schemes submitted thus far is that there will be three private apartments within the tower. The restaurant was not a certainty and neither was the museum and cafe. They were only an offer to a 'third party' for the space. No-one in their right mind was going to take up the offer for the museum given the terms and conditions laid out in the previous scheme's business plan. No developer is going to give up the biggest, most profitable and exclusive part of the tower; the roof and tank for a museum and viewing platform in the long term. A luxury apartment up there with private viewing platform would make a killing on its own, let alone another eight or so floors of luxury private apartments below it. You want to buy into these schemes? Fine. Caveat Emptor
Number of words? - inverse proportion applies - message probably honest but lost. Suggest you preci now or loose your intent.
Some of your posts have been pretty lengthy in the past though, A Of L.
True.
[quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: I've read all the comments thus far attacking BTT, the council and Bob Russell. Well, this is how I think things will probably play out, and I have run through many scenarios. I reckon the owner(s) will try and get planning permission by constantly resubmitting similar schemes to the last one. The provision of a restaurant, cafe, museum etc will be used as a pretext to win public favour, turn the people of Colchester against those who seek to truly preserve Jumbo and use it as leverage against the planning committee. Once they have a foot in the door, i.e. planning permission, they will carry out a scheme very similar to the last one at a massive initial loss, because restaurants, cafe's, museums and viewing platforms won't make the kind of returns/profits a developer is after, not now, nor in the long term. Once its been running a year or two, maybe a bit longer, the museum, restaurant and cafe will fold, because the rents will be too high and the conditions too draconian (and anyone who believes differently is welcome to go to the planning pages and look at the business plan submitted for the previous scheme). Once the building has been suitably ruined by the conversion, I think its highly likely an attempt will be made to get it de-listed from grade 2* to grade 2 or even totally de-listed, and a planning application for change of use will be submitted to convert the entire building to luxury private apartments and close it to the public completely - after all it would have been proved by then that the restaurant, museum et al were a non goer and there will be empty space that will need a new 'use'. Lets be honest, if the building has already been ruined, what difference is more destruction going to make? To understand a property developer you have to start thinking like one and follow the money. We'd all like to think there is some sort of public spirited sentiment about all of this and there will be all these wonderful things for the good of the people of Colchester, such as restaurants, etc. I don't for one instant think that either of these things or the future of Jumbo matter one iota to a developer. I think the motive is purely speculative and the raison d'etre of these schemes is to get a foot in the door based on the pretext of a 'community' area being provided in the scheme, then once that foot is in the door, and the scheme has been carried out, kicking the door down and going for maximum profit. The only certainty of the schemes submitted thus far is that there will be three private apartments within the tower. The restaurant was not a certainty and neither was the museum and cafe. They were only an offer to a 'third party' for the space. No-one in their right mind was going to take up the offer for the museum given the terms and conditions laid out in the previous scheme's business plan. No developer is going to give up the biggest, most profitable and exclusive part of the tower; the roof and tank for a museum and viewing platform in the long term. A luxury apartment up there with private viewing platform would make a killing on its own, let alone another eight or so floors of luxury private apartments below it. You want to buy into these schemes? Fine. Caveat Emptor[/p][/quote]Number of words? - inverse proportion applies - message probably honest but lost. Suggest you preci now or loose your intent.[/p][/quote]Some of your posts have been pretty lengthy in the past though, A Of L.[/p][/quote]True. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: 2

6:30pm Tue 3 Jun 14

stevedawson says...

My views are my own.l support ukip l also would support a commercial venture for the water tower.l don't think that makes me a bad person.people coming on this site calling views of others twaddle belittle themselves and the site It's getting a little along the lines of a well known satirical magazine, just waitng for bogsrush to contribute.
My views are my own.l support ukip l also would support a commercial venture for the water tower.l don't think that makes me a bad person.people coming on this site calling views of others twaddle belittle themselves and the site It's getting a little along the lines of a well known satirical magazine, just waitng for bogsrush to contribute. stevedawson
  • Score: -7

6:41pm Tue 3 Jun 14

Ourdogtess says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL1970 wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL1970 wrote:
I've read all the comments thus far attacking BTT, the council and Bob Russell. Well, this is how I think things will probably play out, and I have run through many scenarios. I reckon the owner(s) will try and get planning permission by constantly resubmitting similar schemes to the last one. The provision of a restaurant, cafe, museum etc will be used as a pretext to win public favour, turn the people of Colchester against those who seek to truly preserve Jumbo and use it as leverage against the planning committee. Once they have a foot in the door, i.e. planning permission, they will carry out a scheme very similar to the last one at a massive initial loss, because restaurants, cafe's, museums and viewing platforms won't make the kind of returns/profits a developer is after, not now, nor in the long term. Once its been running a year or two, maybe a bit longer, the museum, restaurant and cafe will fold, because the rents will be too high and the conditions too draconian (and anyone who believes differently is welcome to go to the planning pages and look at the business plan submitted for the previous scheme). Once the building has been suitably ruined by the conversion, I think its highly likely an attempt will be made to get it de-listed from grade 2* to grade 2 or even totally de-listed, and a planning application for change of use will be submitted to convert the entire building to luxury private apartments and close it to the public completely - after all it would have been proved by then that the restaurant, museum et al were a non goer and there will be empty space that will need a new 'use'. Lets be honest, if the building has already been ruined, what difference is more destruction going to make? To understand a property developer you have to start thinking like one and follow the money. We'd all like to think there is some sort of public spirited sentiment about all of this and there will be all these wonderful things for the good of the people of Colchester, such as restaurants, etc. I don't for one instant think that either of these things or the future of Jumbo matter one iota to a developer. I think the motive is purely speculative and the raison d'etre of these schemes is to get a foot in the door based on the pretext of a 'community' area being provided in the scheme, then once that foot is in the door, and the scheme has been carried out, kicking the door down and going for maximum profit. The only certainty of the schemes submitted thus far is that there will be three private apartments within the tower. The restaurant was not a certainty and neither was the museum and cafe. They were only an offer to a 'third party' for the space. No-one in their right mind was going to take up the offer for the museum given the terms and conditions laid out in the previous scheme's business plan. No developer is going to give up the biggest, most profitable and exclusive part of the tower; the roof and tank for a museum and viewing platform in the long term. A luxury apartment up there with private viewing platform would make a killing on its own, let alone another eight or so floors of luxury private apartments below it. You want to buy into these schemes? Fine. Caveat Emptor
Number of words? - inverse proportion applies - message probably honest but lost. Suggest you preci now or loose your intent.
Some of your posts have been pretty lengthy in the past though, A Of L.
True.
AoL said:

"I might be wrong, but but it does seem that the BTT's actions to date do appear to have resulted in failure to allow Jumbo to evolve and develop for the majority of the town to enjoy, and not just the interests of a minority. Really sorry about the mouse"

Evolve and Develop? Legs stuffed with offices and flats with a restaurant half way up?

You confuse us with English Heritage who said this scheme would damage the building's significance . . . Neither are we responsible for the National Planning Policy Framework and other planning guidance for listed buildings. Do your homework.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: I've read all the comments thus far attacking BTT, the council and Bob Russell. Well, this is how I think things will probably play out, and I have run through many scenarios. I reckon the owner(s) will try and get planning permission by constantly resubmitting similar schemes to the last one. The provision of a restaurant, cafe, museum etc will be used as a pretext to win public favour, turn the people of Colchester against those who seek to truly preserve Jumbo and use it as leverage against the planning committee. Once they have a foot in the door, i.e. planning permission, they will carry out a scheme very similar to the last one at a massive initial loss, because restaurants, cafe's, museums and viewing platforms won't make the kind of returns/profits a developer is after, not now, nor in the long term. Once its been running a year or two, maybe a bit longer, the museum, restaurant and cafe will fold, because the rents will be too high and the conditions too draconian (and anyone who believes differently is welcome to go to the planning pages and look at the business plan submitted for the previous scheme). Once the building has been suitably ruined by the conversion, I think its highly likely an attempt will be made to get it de-listed from grade 2* to grade 2 or even totally de-listed, and a planning application for change of use will be submitted to convert the entire building to luxury private apartments and close it to the public completely - after all it would have been proved by then that the restaurant, museum et al were a non goer and there will be empty space that will need a new 'use'. Lets be honest, if the building has already been ruined, what difference is more destruction going to make? To understand a property developer you have to start thinking like one and follow the money. We'd all like to think there is some sort of public spirited sentiment about all of this and there will be all these wonderful things for the good of the people of Colchester, such as restaurants, etc. I don't for one instant think that either of these things or the future of Jumbo matter one iota to a developer. I think the motive is purely speculative and the raison d'etre of these schemes is to get a foot in the door based on the pretext of a 'community' area being provided in the scheme, then once that foot is in the door, and the scheme has been carried out, kicking the door down and going for maximum profit. The only certainty of the schemes submitted thus far is that there will be three private apartments within the tower. The restaurant was not a certainty and neither was the museum and cafe. They were only an offer to a 'third party' for the space. No-one in their right mind was going to take up the offer for the museum given the terms and conditions laid out in the previous scheme's business plan. No developer is going to give up the biggest, most profitable and exclusive part of the tower; the roof and tank for a museum and viewing platform in the long term. A luxury apartment up there with private viewing platform would make a killing on its own, let alone another eight or so floors of luxury private apartments below it. You want to buy into these schemes? Fine. Caveat Emptor[/p][/quote]Number of words? - inverse proportion applies - message probably honest but lost. Suggest you preci now or loose your intent.[/p][/quote]Some of your posts have been pretty lengthy in the past though, A Of L.[/p][/quote]True.[/p][/quote]AoL said: "I might be wrong, but but it does seem that the BTT's actions to date do appear to have resulted in failure to allow Jumbo to evolve and develop for the majority of the town to enjoy, and not just the interests of a minority. Really sorry about the mouse" Evolve and Develop? Legs stuffed with offices and flats with a restaurant half way up? You confuse us with English Heritage who said this scheme would damage the building's significance . . . Neither are we responsible for the National Planning Policy Framework and other planning guidance for listed buildings. Do your homework. Ourdogtess
  • Score: 6

7:37pm Tue 3 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Ourdogtess wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL1970 wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL1970 wrote:
I've read all the comments thus far attacking BTT, the council and Bob Russell. Well, this is how I think things will probably play out, and I have run through many scenarios. I reckon the owner(s) will try and get planning permission by constantly resubmitting similar schemes to the last one. The provision of a restaurant, cafe, museum etc will be used as a pretext to win public favour, turn the people of Colchester against those who seek to truly preserve Jumbo and use it as leverage against the planning committee. Once they have a foot in the door, i.e. planning permission, they will carry out a scheme very similar to the last one at a massive initial loss, because restaurants, cafe's, museums and viewing platforms won't make the kind of returns/profits a developer is after, not now, nor in the long term. Once its been running a year or two, maybe a bit longer, the museum, restaurant and cafe will fold, because the rents will be too high and the conditions too draconian (and anyone who believes differently is welcome to go to the planning pages and look at the business plan submitted for the previous scheme). Once the building has been suitably ruined by the conversion, I think its highly likely an attempt will be made to get it de-listed from grade 2* to grade 2 or even totally de-listed, and a planning application for change of use will be submitted to convert the entire building to luxury private apartments and close it to the public completely - after all it would have been proved by then that the restaurant, museum et al were a non goer and there will be empty space that will need a new 'use'. Lets be honest, if the building has already been ruined, what difference is more destruction going to make? To understand a property developer you have to start thinking like one and follow the money. We'd all like to think there is some sort of public spirited sentiment about all of this and there will be all these wonderful things for the good of the people of Colchester, such as restaurants, etc. I don't for one instant think that either of these things or the future of Jumbo matter one iota to a developer. I think the motive is purely speculative and the raison d'etre of these schemes is to get a foot in the door based on the pretext of a 'community' area being provided in the scheme, then once that foot is in the door, and the scheme has been carried out, kicking the door down and going for maximum profit. The only certainty of the schemes submitted thus far is that there will be three private apartments within the tower. The restaurant was not a certainty and neither was the museum and cafe. They were only an offer to a 'third party' for the space. No-one in their right mind was going to take up the offer for the museum given the terms and conditions laid out in the previous scheme's business plan. No developer is going to give up the biggest, most profitable and exclusive part of the tower; the roof and tank for a museum and viewing platform in the long term. A luxury apartment up there with private viewing platform would make a killing on its own, let alone another eight or so floors of luxury private apartments below it. You want to buy into these schemes? Fine. Caveat Emptor
Number of words? - inverse proportion applies - message probably honest but lost. Suggest you preci now or loose your intent.
Some of your posts have been pretty lengthy in the past though, A Of L.
True.
AoL said:

"I might be wrong, but but it does seem that the BTT's actions to date do appear to have resulted in failure to allow Jumbo to evolve and develop for the majority of the town to enjoy, and not just the interests of a minority. Really sorry about the mouse"

Evolve and Develop? Legs stuffed with offices and flats with a restaurant half way up?

You confuse us with English Heritage who said this scheme would damage the building's significance . . . Neither are we responsible for the National Planning Policy Framework and other planning guidance for listed buildings. Do your homework.
Ok Ourdogtess, we are unlikely to agree. It would be great for the BTT if Jumbo could be kept in its original format and refurbished. I am not convinced it would attract huge numbers of paying visitors, and of course the town would loose a development space. Again, it's my opinion, but I believe the cost of preserving jumbo in aspic would be considerably more than the figures quoted in this thread to date. Who will pay? - ultimately and indirectly we who pay tax in one form or another. In my opinion this would be unfair as it is a minority interest with very little to offer. I work with buildings much older than jumbo that have evolved, are commercial and self sustaining. Just spent time in York, wall to wall ancient structures, but used commercially eg the shambles. I have mentioned a couple of the buildings we have looked after, two to three hundred years - they thrive and are a working useful structures. I don't disbelieve your interpretation of E.H. etc comments/guidance, but I will take to give them a call. Regards
[quote][p][bold]Ourdogtess[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: I've read all the comments thus far attacking BTT, the council and Bob Russell. Well, this is how I think things will probably play out, and I have run through many scenarios. I reckon the owner(s) will try and get planning permission by constantly resubmitting similar schemes to the last one. The provision of a restaurant, cafe, museum etc will be used as a pretext to win public favour, turn the people of Colchester against those who seek to truly preserve Jumbo and use it as leverage against the planning committee. Once they have a foot in the door, i.e. planning permission, they will carry out a scheme very similar to the last one at a massive initial loss, because restaurants, cafe's, museums and viewing platforms won't make the kind of returns/profits a developer is after, not now, nor in the long term. Once its been running a year or two, maybe a bit longer, the museum, restaurant and cafe will fold, because the rents will be too high and the conditions too draconian (and anyone who believes differently is welcome to go to the planning pages and look at the business plan submitted for the previous scheme). Once the building has been suitably ruined by the conversion, I think its highly likely an attempt will be made to get it de-listed from grade 2* to grade 2 or even totally de-listed, and a planning application for change of use will be submitted to convert the entire building to luxury private apartments and close it to the public completely - after all it would have been proved by then that the restaurant, museum et al were a non goer and there will be empty space that will need a new 'use'. Lets be honest, if the building has already been ruined, what difference is more destruction going to make? To understand a property developer you have to start thinking like one and follow the money. We'd all like to think there is some sort of public spirited sentiment about all of this and there will be all these wonderful things for the good of the people of Colchester, such as restaurants, etc. I don't for one instant think that either of these things or the future of Jumbo matter one iota to a developer. I think the motive is purely speculative and the raison d'etre of these schemes is to get a foot in the door based on the pretext of a 'community' area being provided in the scheme, then once that foot is in the door, and the scheme has been carried out, kicking the door down and going for maximum profit. The only certainty of the schemes submitted thus far is that there will be three private apartments within the tower. The restaurant was not a certainty and neither was the museum and cafe. They were only an offer to a 'third party' for the space. No-one in their right mind was going to take up the offer for the museum given the terms and conditions laid out in the previous scheme's business plan. No developer is going to give up the biggest, most profitable and exclusive part of the tower; the roof and tank for a museum and viewing platform in the long term. A luxury apartment up there with private viewing platform would make a killing on its own, let alone another eight or so floors of luxury private apartments below it. You want to buy into these schemes? Fine. Caveat Emptor[/p][/quote]Number of words? - inverse proportion applies - message probably honest but lost. Suggest you preci now or loose your intent.[/p][/quote]Some of your posts have been pretty lengthy in the past though, A Of L.[/p][/quote]True.[/p][/quote]AoL said: "I might be wrong, but but it does seem that the BTT's actions to date do appear to have resulted in failure to allow Jumbo to evolve and develop for the majority of the town to enjoy, and not just the interests of a minority. Really sorry about the mouse" Evolve and Develop? Legs stuffed with offices and flats with a restaurant half way up? You confuse us with English Heritage who said this scheme would damage the building's significance . . . Neither are we responsible for the National Planning Policy Framework and other planning guidance for listed buildings. Do your homework.[/p][/quote]Ok Ourdogtess, we are unlikely to agree. It would be great for the BTT if Jumbo could be kept in its original format and refurbished. I am not convinced it would attract huge numbers of paying visitors, and of course the town would loose a development space. Again, it's my opinion, but I believe the cost of preserving jumbo in aspic would be considerably more than the figures quoted in this thread to date. Who will pay? - ultimately and indirectly we who pay tax in one form or another. In my opinion this would be unfair as it is a minority interest with very little to offer. I work with buildings much older than jumbo that have evolved, are commercial and self sustaining. Just spent time in York, wall to wall ancient structures, but used commercially eg the shambles. I have mentioned a couple of the buildings we have looked after, two to three hundred years - they thrive and are a working useful structures. I don't disbelieve your interpretation of E.H. etc comments/guidance, but I will take to give them a call. Regards Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -8

9:25pm Tue 3 Jun 14

DL1970 says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
Ourdogtess wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL1970 wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL1970 wrote:
I've read all the comments thus far attacking BTT, the council and Bob Russell. Well, this is how I think things will probably play out, and I have run through many scenarios. I reckon the owner(s) will try and get planning permission by constantly resubmitting similar schemes to the last one. The provision of a restaurant, cafe, museum etc will be used as a pretext to win public favour, turn the people of Colchester against those who seek to truly preserve Jumbo and use it as leverage against the planning committee. Once they have a foot in the door, i.e. planning permission, they will carry out a scheme very similar to the last one at a massive initial loss, because restaurants, cafe's, museums and viewing platforms won't make the kind of returns/profits a developer is after, not now, nor in the long term. Once its been running a year or two, maybe a bit longer, the museum, restaurant and cafe will fold, because the rents will be too high and the conditions too draconian (and anyone who believes differently is welcome to go to the planning pages and look at the business plan submitted for the previous scheme). Once the building has been suitably ruined by the conversion, I think its highly likely an attempt will be made to get it de-listed from grade 2* to grade 2 or even totally de-listed, and a planning application for change of use will be submitted to convert the entire building to luxury private apartments and close it to the public completely - after all it would have been proved by then that the restaurant, museum et al were a non goer and there will be empty space that will need a new 'use'. Lets be honest, if the building has already been ruined, what difference is more destruction going to make? To understand a property developer you have to start thinking like one and follow the money. We'd all like to think there is some sort of public spirited sentiment about all of this and there will be all these wonderful things for the good of the people of Colchester, such as restaurants, etc. I don't for one instant think that either of these things or the future of Jumbo matter one iota to a developer. I think the motive is purely speculative and the raison d'etre of these schemes is to get a foot in the door based on the pretext of a 'community' area being provided in the scheme, then once that foot is in the door, and the scheme has been carried out, kicking the door down and going for maximum profit. The only certainty of the schemes submitted thus far is that there will be three private apartments within the tower. The restaurant was not a certainty and neither was the museum and cafe. They were only an offer to a 'third party' for the space. No-one in their right mind was going to take up the offer for the museum given the terms and conditions laid out in the previous scheme's business plan. No developer is going to give up the biggest, most profitable and exclusive part of the tower; the roof and tank for a museum and viewing platform in the long term. A luxury apartment up there with private viewing platform would make a killing on its own, let alone another eight or so floors of luxury private apartments below it. You want to buy into these schemes? Fine. Caveat Emptor
Number of words? - inverse proportion applies - message probably honest but lost. Suggest you preci now or loose your intent.
Some of your posts have been pretty lengthy in the past though, A Of L.
True.
AoL said:

"I might be wrong, but but it does seem that the BTT's actions to date do appear to have resulted in failure to allow Jumbo to evolve and develop for the majority of the town to enjoy, and not just the interests of a minority. Really sorry about the mouse"

Evolve and Develop? Legs stuffed with offices and flats with a restaurant half way up?

You confuse us with English Heritage who said this scheme would damage the building's significance . . . Neither are we responsible for the National Planning Policy Framework and other planning guidance for listed buildings. Do your homework.
Ok Ourdogtess, we are unlikely to agree. It would be great for the BTT if Jumbo could be kept in its original format and refurbished. I am not convinced it would attract huge numbers of paying visitors, and of course the town would loose a development space. Again, it's my opinion, but I believe the cost of preserving jumbo in aspic would be considerably more than the figures quoted in this thread to date. Who will pay? - ultimately and indirectly we who pay tax in one form or another. In my opinion this would be unfair as it is a minority interest with very little to offer. I work with buildings much older than jumbo that have evolved, are commercial and self sustaining. Just spent time in York, wall to wall ancient structures, but used commercially eg the shambles. I have mentioned a couple of the buildings we have looked after, two to three hundred years - they thrive and are a working useful structures. I don't disbelieve your interpretation of E.H. etc comments/guidance, but I will take to give them a call. Regards
People who think like you would let people crap all over their doorsteps for profit so long as it didn't cost them a penny. Jumbo is not a minority interest, it is one of the most prominent landmarks in this town, and furthermore, you won't get better views of Colchester anywhere unless you hire a helicopter. Colchester thrives on its tourist industry and I'm sure people visiting the town for the first time would love to go up and get some pictures and enjoy the views. There are many buildings in many towns and cities preserved for their own sakes. Take the Monument in London for example. Its got no commercial value, just like Jumbo, but people pay to climb up it and enjoy the views. Water towers are something few people ever get to see the inside of. In colchester we have the largest remaining Victorian water tower, undeveloped and unspoiled. The giant valves and pipes are still intact and tell a story. These are the same valves and pipes which will be ripped out when Jumbo is turned into a gutted out shell if these plans ever see the light of day.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ourdogtess[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: I've read all the comments thus far attacking BTT, the council and Bob Russell. Well, this is how I think things will probably play out, and I have run through many scenarios. I reckon the owner(s) will try and get planning permission by constantly resubmitting similar schemes to the last one. The provision of a restaurant, cafe, museum etc will be used as a pretext to win public favour, turn the people of Colchester against those who seek to truly preserve Jumbo and use it as leverage against the planning committee. Once they have a foot in the door, i.e. planning permission, they will carry out a scheme very similar to the last one at a massive initial loss, because restaurants, cafe's, museums and viewing platforms won't make the kind of returns/profits a developer is after, not now, nor in the long term. Once its been running a year or two, maybe a bit longer, the museum, restaurant and cafe will fold, because the rents will be too high and the conditions too draconian (and anyone who believes differently is welcome to go to the planning pages and look at the business plan submitted for the previous scheme). Once the building has been suitably ruined by the conversion, I think its highly likely an attempt will be made to get it de-listed from grade 2* to grade 2 or even totally de-listed, and a planning application for change of use will be submitted to convert the entire building to luxury private apartments and close it to the public completely - after all it would have been proved by then that the restaurant, museum et al were a non goer and there will be empty space that will need a new 'use'. Lets be honest, if the building has already been ruined, what difference is more destruction going to make? To understand a property developer you have to start thinking like one and follow the money. We'd all like to think there is some sort of public spirited sentiment about all of this and there will be all these wonderful things for the good of the people of Colchester, such as restaurants, etc. I don't for one instant think that either of these things or the future of Jumbo matter one iota to a developer. I think the motive is purely speculative and the raison d'etre of these schemes is to get a foot in the door based on the pretext of a 'community' area being provided in the scheme, then once that foot is in the door, and the scheme has been carried out, kicking the door down and going for maximum profit. The only certainty of the schemes submitted thus far is that there will be three private apartments within the tower. The restaurant was not a certainty and neither was the museum and cafe. They were only an offer to a 'third party' for the space. No-one in their right mind was going to take up the offer for the museum given the terms and conditions laid out in the previous scheme's business plan. No developer is going to give up the biggest, most profitable and exclusive part of the tower; the roof and tank for a museum and viewing platform in the long term. A luxury apartment up there with private viewing platform would make a killing on its own, let alone another eight or so floors of luxury private apartments below it. You want to buy into these schemes? Fine. Caveat Emptor[/p][/quote]Number of words? - inverse proportion applies - message probably honest but lost. Suggest you preci now or loose your intent.[/p][/quote]Some of your posts have been pretty lengthy in the past though, A Of L.[/p][/quote]True.[/p][/quote]AoL said: "I might be wrong, but but it does seem that the BTT's actions to date do appear to have resulted in failure to allow Jumbo to evolve and develop for the majority of the town to enjoy, and not just the interests of a minority. Really sorry about the mouse" Evolve and Develop? Legs stuffed with offices and flats with a restaurant half way up? You confuse us with English Heritage who said this scheme would damage the building's significance . . . Neither are we responsible for the National Planning Policy Framework and other planning guidance for listed buildings. Do your homework.[/p][/quote]Ok Ourdogtess, we are unlikely to agree. It would be great for the BTT if Jumbo could be kept in its original format and refurbished. I am not convinced it would attract huge numbers of paying visitors, and of course the town would loose a development space. Again, it's my opinion, but I believe the cost of preserving jumbo in aspic would be considerably more than the figures quoted in this thread to date. Who will pay? - ultimately and indirectly we who pay tax in one form or another. In my opinion this would be unfair as it is a minority interest with very little to offer. I work with buildings much older than jumbo that have evolved, are commercial and self sustaining. Just spent time in York, wall to wall ancient structures, but used commercially eg the shambles. I have mentioned a couple of the buildings we have looked after, two to three hundred years - they thrive and are a working useful structures. I don't disbelieve your interpretation of E.H. etc comments/guidance, but I will take to give them a call. Regards[/p][/quote]People who think like you would let people crap all over their doorsteps for profit so long as it didn't cost them a penny. Jumbo is not a minority interest, it is one of the most prominent landmarks in this town, and furthermore, you won't get better views of Colchester anywhere unless you hire a helicopter. Colchester thrives on its tourist industry and I'm sure people visiting the town for the first time would love to go up and get some pictures and enjoy the views. There are many buildings in many towns and cities preserved for their own sakes. Take the Monument in London for example. Its got no commercial value, just like Jumbo, but people pay to climb up it and enjoy the views. Water towers are something few people ever get to see the inside of. In colchester we have the largest remaining Victorian water tower, undeveloped and unspoiled. The giant valves and pipes are still intact and tell a story. These are the same valves and pipes which will be ripped out when Jumbo is turned into a gutted out shell if these plans ever see the light of day. DL1970
  • Score: 8

9:45pm Tue 3 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

DL1970 wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
Ourdogtess wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL1970 wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL1970 wrote:
I've read all the comments thus far attacking BTT, the council and Bob Russell. Well, this is how I think things will probably play out, and I have run through many scenarios. I reckon the owner(s) will try and get planning permission by constantly resubmitting similar schemes to the last one. The provision of a restaurant, cafe, museum etc will be used as a pretext to win public favour, turn the people of Colchester against those who seek to truly preserve Jumbo and use it as leverage against the planning committee. Once they have a foot in the door, i.e. planning permission, they will carry out a scheme very similar to the last one at a massive initial loss, because restaurants, cafe's, museums and viewing platforms won't make the kind of returns/profits a developer is after, not now, nor in the long term. Once its been running a year or two, maybe a bit longer, the museum, restaurant and cafe will fold, because the rents will be too high and the conditions too draconian (and anyone who believes differently is welcome to go to the planning pages and look at the business plan submitted for the previous scheme). Once the building has been suitably ruined by the conversion, I think its highly likely an attempt will be made to get it de-listed from grade 2* to grade 2 or even totally de-listed, and a planning application for change of use will be submitted to convert the entire building to luxury private apartments and close it to the public completely - after all it would have been proved by then that the restaurant, museum et al were a non goer and there will be empty space that will need a new 'use'. Lets be honest, if the building has already been ruined, what difference is more destruction going to make? To understand a property developer you have to start thinking like one and follow the money. We'd all like to think there is some sort of public spirited sentiment about all of this and there will be all these wonderful things for the good of the people of Colchester, such as restaurants, etc. I don't for one instant think that either of these things or the future of Jumbo matter one iota to a developer. I think the motive is purely speculative and the raison d'etre of these schemes is to get a foot in the door based on the pretext of a 'community' area being provided in the scheme, then once that foot is in the door, and the scheme has been carried out, kicking the door down and going for maximum profit. The only certainty of the schemes submitted thus far is that there will be three private apartments within the tower. The restaurant was not a certainty and neither was the museum and cafe. They were only an offer to a 'third party' for the space. No-one in their right mind was going to take up the offer for the museum given the terms and conditions laid out in the previous scheme's business plan. No developer is going to give up the biggest, most profitable and exclusive part of the tower; the roof and tank for a museum and viewing platform in the long term. A luxury apartment up there with private viewing platform would make a killing on its own, let alone another eight or so floors of luxury private apartments below it. You want to buy into these schemes? Fine. Caveat Emptor
Number of words? - inverse proportion applies - message probably honest but lost. Suggest you preci now or loose your intent.
Some of your posts have been pretty lengthy in the past though, A Of L.
True.
AoL said:

"I might be wrong, but but it does seem that the BTT's actions to date do appear to have resulted in failure to allow Jumbo to evolve and develop for the majority of the town to enjoy, and not just the interests of a minority. Really sorry about the mouse"

Evolve and Develop? Legs stuffed with offices and flats with a restaurant half way up?

You confuse us with English Heritage who said this scheme would damage the building's significance . . . Neither are we responsible for the National Planning Policy Framework and other planning guidance for listed buildings. Do your homework.
Ok Ourdogtess, we are unlikely to agree. It would be great for the BTT if Jumbo could be kept in its original format and refurbished. I am not convinced it would attract huge numbers of paying visitors, and of course the town would loose a development space. Again, it's my opinion, but I believe the cost of preserving jumbo in aspic would be considerably more than the figures quoted in this thread to date. Who will pay? - ultimately and indirectly we who pay tax in one form or another. In my opinion this would be unfair as it is a minority interest with very little to offer. I work with buildings much older than jumbo that have evolved, are commercial and self sustaining. Just spent time in York, wall to wall ancient structures, but used commercially eg the shambles. I have mentioned a couple of the buildings we have looked after, two to three hundred years - they thrive and are a working useful structures. I don't disbelieve your interpretation of E.H. etc comments/guidance, but I will take to give them a call. Regards
People who think like you would let people crap all over their doorsteps for profit so long as it didn't cost them a penny. Jumbo is not a minority interest, it is one of the most prominent landmarks in this town, and furthermore, you won't get better views of Colchester anywhere unless you hire a helicopter. Colchester thrives on its tourist industry and I'm sure people visiting the town for the first time would love to go up and get some pictures and enjoy the views. There are many buildings in many towns and cities preserved for their own sakes. Take the Monument in London for example. Its got no commercial value, just like Jumbo, but people pay to climb up it and enjoy the views. Water towers are something few people ever get to see the inside of. In colchester we have the largest remaining Victorian water tower, undeveloped and unspoiled. The giant valves and pipes are still intact and tell a story. These are the same valves and pipes which will be ripped out when Jumbo is turned into a gutted out shell if these plans ever see the light of day.
Well Ourdogtess, feel better? That's quite a rude and personal
[quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ourdogtess[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: I've read all the comments thus far attacking BTT, the council and Bob Russell. Well, this is how I think things will probably play out, and I have run through many scenarios. I reckon the owner(s) will try and get planning permission by constantly resubmitting similar schemes to the last one. The provision of a restaurant, cafe, museum etc will be used as a pretext to win public favour, turn the people of Colchester against those who seek to truly preserve Jumbo and use it as leverage against the planning committee. Once they have a foot in the door, i.e. planning permission, they will carry out a scheme very similar to the last one at a massive initial loss, because restaurants, cafe's, museums and viewing platforms won't make the kind of returns/profits a developer is after, not now, nor in the long term. Once its been running a year or two, maybe a bit longer, the museum, restaurant and cafe will fold, because the rents will be too high and the conditions too draconian (and anyone who believes differently is welcome to go to the planning pages and look at the business plan submitted for the previous scheme). Once the building has been suitably ruined by the conversion, I think its highly likely an attempt will be made to get it de-listed from grade 2* to grade 2 or even totally de-listed, and a planning application for change of use will be submitted to convert the entire building to luxury private apartments and close it to the public completely - after all it would have been proved by then that the restaurant, museum et al were a non goer and there will be empty space that will need a new 'use'. Lets be honest, if the building has already been ruined, what difference is more destruction going to make? To understand a property developer you have to start thinking like one and follow the money. We'd all like to think there is some sort of public spirited sentiment about all of this and there will be all these wonderful things for the good of the people of Colchester, such as restaurants, etc. I don't for one instant think that either of these things or the future of Jumbo matter one iota to a developer. I think the motive is purely speculative and the raison d'etre of these schemes is to get a foot in the door based on the pretext of a 'community' area being provided in the scheme, then once that foot is in the door, and the scheme has been carried out, kicking the door down and going for maximum profit. The only certainty of the schemes submitted thus far is that there will be three private apartments within the tower. The restaurant was not a certainty and neither was the museum and cafe. They were only an offer to a 'third party' for the space. No-one in their right mind was going to take up the offer for the museum given the terms and conditions laid out in the previous scheme's business plan. No developer is going to give up the biggest, most profitable and exclusive part of the tower; the roof and tank for a museum and viewing platform in the long term. A luxury apartment up there with private viewing platform would make a killing on its own, let alone another eight or so floors of luxury private apartments below it. You want to buy into these schemes? Fine. Caveat Emptor[/p][/quote]Number of words? - inverse proportion applies - message probably honest but lost. Suggest you preci now or loose your intent.[/p][/quote]Some of your posts have been pretty lengthy in the past though, A Of L.[/p][/quote]True.[/p][/quote]AoL said: "I might be wrong, but but it does seem that the BTT's actions to date do appear to have resulted in failure to allow Jumbo to evolve and develop for the majority of the town to enjoy, and not just the interests of a minority. Really sorry about the mouse" Evolve and Develop? Legs stuffed with offices and flats with a restaurant half way up? You confuse us with English Heritage who said this scheme would damage the building's significance . . . Neither are we responsible for the National Planning Policy Framework and other planning guidance for listed buildings. Do your homework.[/p][/quote]Ok Ourdogtess, we are unlikely to agree. It would be great for the BTT if Jumbo could be kept in its original format and refurbished. I am not convinced it would attract huge numbers of paying visitors, and of course the town would loose a development space. Again, it's my opinion, but I believe the cost of preserving jumbo in aspic would be considerably more than the figures quoted in this thread to date. Who will pay? - ultimately and indirectly we who pay tax in one form or another. In my opinion this would be unfair as it is a minority interest with very little to offer. I work with buildings much older than jumbo that have evolved, are commercial and self sustaining. Just spent time in York, wall to wall ancient structures, but used commercially eg the shambles. I have mentioned a couple of the buildings we have looked after, two to three hundred years - they thrive and are a working useful structures. I don't disbelieve your interpretation of E.H. etc comments/guidance, but I will take to give them a call. Regards[/p][/quote]People who think like you would let people crap all over their doorsteps for profit so long as it didn't cost them a penny. Jumbo is not a minority interest, it is one of the most prominent landmarks in this town, and furthermore, you won't get better views of Colchester anywhere unless you hire a helicopter. Colchester thrives on its tourist industry and I'm sure people visiting the town for the first time would love to go up and get some pictures and enjoy the views. There are many buildings in many towns and cities preserved for their own sakes. Take the Monument in London for example. Its got no commercial value, just like Jumbo, but people pay to climb up it and enjoy the views. Water towers are something few people ever get to see the inside of. In colchester we have the largest remaining Victorian water tower, undeveloped and unspoiled. The giant valves and pipes are still intact and tell a story. These are the same valves and pipes which will be ripped out when Jumbo is turned into a gutted out shell if these plans ever see the light of day.[/p][/quote]Well Ourdogtess, feel better? That's quite a rude and personal Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -7

9:52pm Tue 3 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

DL1970 wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
Ourdogtess wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL1970 wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL1970 wrote:
I've read all the comments thus far attacking BTT, the council and Bob Russell. Well, this is how I think things will probably play out, and I have run through many scenarios. I reckon the owner(s) will try and get planning permission by constantly resubmitting similar schemes to the last one. The provision of a restaurant, cafe, museum etc will be used as a pretext to win public favour, turn the people of Colchester against those who seek to truly preserve Jumbo and use it as leverage against the planning committee. Once they have a foot in the door, i.e. planning permission, they will carry out a scheme very similar to the last one at a massive initial loss, because restaurants, cafe's, museums and viewing platforms won't make the kind of returns/profits a developer is after, not now, nor in the long term. Once its been running a year or two, maybe a bit longer, the museum, restaurant and cafe will fold, because the rents will be too high and the conditions too draconian (and anyone who believes differently is welcome to go to the planning pages and look at the business plan submitted for the previous scheme). Once the building has been suitably ruined by the conversion, I think its highly likely an attempt will be made to get it de-listed from grade 2* to grade 2 or even totally de-listed, and a planning application for change of use will be submitted to convert the entire building to luxury private apartments and close it to the public completely - after all it would have been proved by then that the restaurant, museum et al were a non goer and there will be empty space that will need a new 'use'. Lets be honest, if the building has already been ruined, what difference is more destruction going to make? To understand a property developer you have to start thinking like one and follow the money. We'd all like to think there is some sort of public spirited sentiment about all of this and there will be all these wonderful things for the good of the people of Colchester, such as restaurants, etc. I don't for one instant think that either of these things or the future of Jumbo matter one iota to a developer. I think the motive is purely speculative and the raison d'etre of these schemes is to get a foot in the door based on the pretext of a 'community' area being provided in the scheme, then once that foot is in the door, and the scheme has been carried out, kicking the door down and going for maximum profit. The only certainty of the schemes submitted thus far is that there will be three private apartments within the tower. The restaurant was not a certainty and neither was the museum and cafe. They were only an offer to a 'third party' for the space. No-one in their right mind was going to take up the offer for the museum given the terms and conditions laid out in the previous scheme's business plan. No developer is going to give up the biggest, most profitable and exclusive part of the tower; the roof and tank for a museum and viewing platform in the long term. A luxury apartment up there with private viewing platform would make a killing on its own, let alone another eight or so floors of luxury private apartments below it. You want to buy into these schemes? Fine. Caveat Emptor
Number of words? - inverse proportion applies - message probably honest but lost. Suggest you preci now or loose your intent.
Some of your posts have been pretty lengthy in the past though, A Of L.
True.
AoL said:

"I might be wrong, but but it does seem that the BTT's actions to date do appear to have resulted in failure to allow Jumbo to evolve and develop for the majority of the town to enjoy, and not just the interests of a minority. Really sorry about the mouse"

Evolve and Develop? Legs stuffed with offices and flats with a restaurant half way up?

You confuse us with English Heritage who said this scheme would damage the building's significance . . . Neither are we responsible for the National Planning Policy Framework and other planning guidance for listed buildings. Do your homework.
Ok Ourdogtess, we are unlikely to agree. It would be great for the BTT if Jumbo could be kept in its original format and refurbished. I am not convinced it would attract huge numbers of paying visitors, and of course the town would loose a development space. Again, it's my opinion, but I believe the cost of preserving jumbo in aspic would be considerably more than the figures quoted in this thread to date. Who will pay? - ultimately and indirectly we who pay tax in one form or another. In my opinion this would be unfair as it is a minority interest with very little to offer. I work with buildings much older than jumbo that have evolved, are commercial and self sustaining. Just spent time in York, wall to wall ancient structures, but used commercially eg the shambles. I have mentioned a couple of the buildings we have looked after, two to three hundred years - they thrive and are a working useful structures. I don't disbelieve your interpretation of E.H. etc comments/guidance, but I will take to give them a call. Regards
People who think like you would let people crap all over their doorsteps for profit so long as it didn't cost them a penny. Jumbo is not a minority interest, it is one of the most prominent landmarks in this town, and furthermore, you won't get better views of Colchester anywhere unless you hire a helicopter. Colchester thrives on its tourist industry and I'm sure people visiting the town for the first time would love to go up and get some pictures and enjoy the views. There are many buildings in many towns and cities preserved for their own sakes. Take the Monument in London for example. Its got no commercial value, just like Jumbo, but people pay to climb up it and enjoy the views. Water towers are something few people ever get to see the inside of. In colchester we have the largest remaining Victorian water tower, undeveloped and unspoiled. The giant valves and pipes are still intact and tell a story. These are the same valves and pipes which will be ripped out when Jumbo is turned into a gutted out shell if these plans ever see the light of day.
Well Ourdogtess, I hope you feel better. That's quite a rude and personal attack. I'm not going down to the same route. Good luck with Jumbo.
[quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ourdogtess[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: I've read all the comments thus far attacking BTT, the council and Bob Russell. Well, this is how I think things will probably play out, and I have run through many scenarios. I reckon the owner(s) will try and get planning permission by constantly resubmitting similar schemes to the last one. The provision of a restaurant, cafe, museum etc will be used as a pretext to win public favour, turn the people of Colchester against those who seek to truly preserve Jumbo and use it as leverage against the planning committee. Once they have a foot in the door, i.e. planning permission, they will carry out a scheme very similar to the last one at a massive initial loss, because restaurants, cafe's, museums and viewing platforms won't make the kind of returns/profits a developer is after, not now, nor in the long term. Once its been running a year or two, maybe a bit longer, the museum, restaurant and cafe will fold, because the rents will be too high and the conditions too draconian (and anyone who believes differently is welcome to go to the planning pages and look at the business plan submitted for the previous scheme). Once the building has been suitably ruined by the conversion, I think its highly likely an attempt will be made to get it de-listed from grade 2* to grade 2 or even totally de-listed, and a planning application for change of use will be submitted to convert the entire building to luxury private apartments and close it to the public completely - after all it would have been proved by then that the restaurant, museum et al were a non goer and there will be empty space that will need a new 'use'. Lets be honest, if the building has already been ruined, what difference is more destruction going to make? To understand a property developer you have to start thinking like one and follow the money. We'd all like to think there is some sort of public spirited sentiment about all of this and there will be all these wonderful things for the good of the people of Colchester, such as restaurants, etc. I don't for one instant think that either of these things or the future of Jumbo matter one iota to a developer. I think the motive is purely speculative and the raison d'etre of these schemes is to get a foot in the door based on the pretext of a 'community' area being provided in the scheme, then once that foot is in the door, and the scheme has been carried out, kicking the door down and going for maximum profit. The only certainty of the schemes submitted thus far is that there will be three private apartments within the tower. The restaurant was not a certainty and neither was the museum and cafe. They were only an offer to a 'third party' for the space. No-one in their right mind was going to take up the offer for the museum given the terms and conditions laid out in the previous scheme's business plan. No developer is going to give up the biggest, most profitable and exclusive part of the tower; the roof and tank for a museum and viewing platform in the long term. A luxury apartment up there with private viewing platform would make a killing on its own, let alone another eight or so floors of luxury private apartments below it. You want to buy into these schemes? Fine. Caveat Emptor[/p][/quote]Number of words? - inverse proportion applies - message probably honest but lost. Suggest you preci now or loose your intent.[/p][/quote]Some of your posts have been pretty lengthy in the past though, A Of L.[/p][/quote]True.[/p][/quote]AoL said: "I might be wrong, but but it does seem that the BTT's actions to date do appear to have resulted in failure to allow Jumbo to evolve and develop for the majority of the town to enjoy, and not just the interests of a minority. Really sorry about the mouse" Evolve and Develop? Legs stuffed with offices and flats with a restaurant half way up? You confuse us with English Heritage who said this scheme would damage the building's significance . . . Neither are we responsible for the National Planning Policy Framework and other planning guidance for listed buildings. Do your homework.[/p][/quote]Ok Ourdogtess, we are unlikely to agree. It would be great for the BTT if Jumbo could be kept in its original format and refurbished. I am not convinced it would attract huge numbers of paying visitors, and of course the town would loose a development space. Again, it's my opinion, but I believe the cost of preserving jumbo in aspic would be considerably more than the figures quoted in this thread to date. Who will pay? - ultimately and indirectly we who pay tax in one form or another. In my opinion this would be unfair as it is a minority interest with very little to offer. I work with buildings much older than jumbo that have evolved, are commercial and self sustaining. Just spent time in York, wall to wall ancient structures, but used commercially eg the shambles. I have mentioned a couple of the buildings we have looked after, two to three hundred years - they thrive and are a working useful structures. I don't disbelieve your interpretation of E.H. etc comments/guidance, but I will take to give them a call. Regards[/p][/quote]People who think like you would let people crap all over their doorsteps for profit so long as it didn't cost them a penny. Jumbo is not a minority interest, it is one of the most prominent landmarks in this town, and furthermore, you won't get better views of Colchester anywhere unless you hire a helicopter. Colchester thrives on its tourist industry and I'm sure people visiting the town for the first time would love to go up and get some pictures and enjoy the views. There are many buildings in many towns and cities preserved for their own sakes. Take the Monument in London for example. Its got no commercial value, just like Jumbo, but people pay to climb up it and enjoy the views. Water towers are something few people ever get to see the inside of. In colchester we have the largest remaining Victorian water tower, undeveloped and unspoiled. The giant valves and pipes are still intact and tell a story. These are the same valves and pipes which will be ripped out when Jumbo is turned into a gutted out shell if these plans ever see the light of day.[/p][/quote]Well Ourdogtess, I hope you feel better. That's quite a rude and personal attack. I'm not going down to the same route. Good luck with Jumbo. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -9

10:01pm Tue 3 Jun 14

DL1970 says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL1970 wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
Ourdogtess wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL1970 wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL1970 wrote:
I've read all the comments thus far attacking BTT, the council and Bob Russell. Well, this is how I think things will probably play out, and I have run through many scenarios. I reckon the owner(s) will try and get planning permission by constantly resubmitting similar schemes to the last one. The provision of a restaurant, cafe, museum etc will be used as a pretext to win public favour, turn the people of Colchester against those who seek to truly preserve Jumbo and use it as leverage against the planning committee. Once they have a foot in the door, i.e. planning permission, they will carry out a scheme very similar to the last one at a massive initial loss, because restaurants, cafe's, museums and viewing platforms won't make the kind of returns/profits a developer is after, not now, nor in the long term. Once its been running a year or two, maybe a bit longer, the museum, restaurant and cafe will fold, because the rents will be too high and the conditions too draconian (and anyone who believes differently is welcome to go to the planning pages and look at the business plan submitted for the previous scheme). Once the building has been suitably ruined by the conversion, I think its highly likely an attempt will be made to get it de-listed from grade 2* to grade 2 or even totally de-listed, and a planning application for change of use will be submitted to convert the entire building to luxury private apartments and close it to the public completely - after all it would have been proved by then that the restaurant, museum et al were a non goer and there will be empty space that will need a new 'use'. Lets be honest, if the building has already been ruined, what difference is more destruction going to make? To understand a property developer you have to start thinking like one and follow the money. We'd all like to think there is some sort of public spirited sentiment about all of this and there will be all these wonderful things for the good of the people of Colchester, such as restaurants, etc. I don't for one instant think that either of these things or the future of Jumbo matter one iota to a developer. I think the motive is purely speculative and the raison d'etre of these schemes is to get a foot in the door based on the pretext of a 'community' area being provided in the scheme, then once that foot is in the door, and the scheme has been carried out, kicking the door down and going for maximum profit. The only certainty of the schemes submitted thus far is that there will be three private apartments within the tower. The restaurant was not a certainty and neither was the museum and cafe. They were only an offer to a 'third party' for the space. No-one in their right mind was going to take up the offer for the museum given the terms and conditions laid out in the previous scheme's business plan. No developer is going to give up the biggest, most profitable and exclusive part of the tower; the roof and tank for a museum and viewing platform in the long term. A luxury apartment up there with private viewing platform would make a killing on its own, let alone another eight or so floors of luxury private apartments below it. You want to buy into these schemes? Fine. Caveat Emptor
Number of words? - inverse proportion applies - message probably honest but lost. Suggest you preci now or loose your intent.
Some of your posts have been pretty lengthy in the past though, A Of L.
True.
AoL said:

"I might be wrong, but but it does seem that the BTT's actions to date do appear to have resulted in failure to allow Jumbo to evolve and develop for the majority of the town to enjoy, and not just the interests of a minority. Really sorry about the mouse"

Evolve and Develop? Legs stuffed with offices and flats with a restaurant half way up?

You confuse us with English Heritage who said this scheme would damage the building's significance . . . Neither are we responsible for the National Planning Policy Framework and other planning guidance for listed buildings. Do your homework.
Ok Ourdogtess, we are unlikely to agree. It would be great for the BTT if Jumbo could be kept in its original format and refurbished. I am not convinced it would attract huge numbers of paying visitors, and of course the town would loose a development space. Again, it's my opinion, but I believe the cost of preserving jumbo in aspic would be considerably more than the figures quoted in this thread to date. Who will pay? - ultimately and indirectly we who pay tax in one form or another. In my opinion this would be unfair as it is a minority interest with very little to offer. I work with buildings much older than jumbo that have evolved, are commercial and self sustaining. Just spent time in York, wall to wall ancient structures, but used commercially eg the shambles. I have mentioned a couple of the buildings we have looked after, two to three hundred years - they thrive and are a working useful structures. I don't disbelieve your interpretation of E.H. etc comments/guidance, but I will take to give them a call. Regards
People who think like you would let people crap all over their doorsteps for profit so long as it didn't cost them a penny. Jumbo is not a minority interest, it is one of the most prominent landmarks in this town, and furthermore, you won't get better views of Colchester anywhere unless you hire a helicopter. Colchester thrives on its tourist industry and I'm sure people visiting the town for the first time would love to go up and get some pictures and enjoy the views. There are many buildings in many towns and cities preserved for their own sakes. Take the Monument in London for example. Its got no commercial value, just like Jumbo, but people pay to climb up it and enjoy the views. Water towers are something few people ever get to see the inside of. In colchester we have the largest remaining Victorian water tower, undeveloped and unspoiled. The giant valves and pipes are still intact and tell a story. These are the same valves and pipes which will be ripped out when Jumbo is turned into a gutted out shell if these plans ever see the light of day.
Well Ourdogtess, feel better? That's quite a rude and personal
I made the comment, not Ourdogtess. It wasn't meant to be rude or personal, it was meant to make the point that we shouldn't always put money before our environment. Please accept my apologies if you took it that way. Jumbo, the Castle, the Roman walls, they're all special to most people of this town. I've found your previous arguments that Jumbo isn't worth the effort and is 'nothing special' pretty offensive and personal as someone born and bred in this town. Its all a matter of opinion and I think we'll have to beg to differ on our views. I don't agree that just because someone has a lot of money, they should be allowed to buy up one of our most prominent listed buildings and do as they please irrespective of planning law and planning policy guidelines.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ourdogtess[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: I've read all the comments thus far attacking BTT, the council and Bob Russell. Well, this is how I think things will probably play out, and I have run through many scenarios. I reckon the owner(s) will try and get planning permission by constantly resubmitting similar schemes to the last one. The provision of a restaurant, cafe, museum etc will be used as a pretext to win public favour, turn the people of Colchester against those who seek to truly preserve Jumbo and use it as leverage against the planning committee. Once they have a foot in the door, i.e. planning permission, they will carry out a scheme very similar to the last one at a massive initial loss, because restaurants, cafe's, museums and viewing platforms won't make the kind of returns/profits a developer is after, not now, nor in the long term. Once its been running a year or two, maybe a bit longer, the museum, restaurant and cafe will fold, because the rents will be too high and the conditions too draconian (and anyone who believes differently is welcome to go to the planning pages and look at the business plan submitted for the previous scheme). Once the building has been suitably ruined by the conversion, I think its highly likely an attempt will be made to get it de-listed from grade 2* to grade 2 or even totally de-listed, and a planning application for change of use will be submitted to convert the entire building to luxury private apartments and close it to the public completely - after all it would have been proved by then that the restaurant, museum et al were a non goer and there will be empty space that will need a new 'use'. Lets be honest, if the building has already been ruined, what difference is more destruction going to make? To understand a property developer you have to start thinking like one and follow the money. We'd all like to think there is some sort of public spirited sentiment about all of this and there will be all these wonderful things for the good of the people of Colchester, such as restaurants, etc. I don't for one instant think that either of these things or the future of Jumbo matter one iota to a developer. I think the motive is purely speculative and the raison d'etre of these schemes is to get a foot in the door based on the pretext of a 'community' area being provided in the scheme, then once that foot is in the door, and the scheme has been carried out, kicking the door down and going for maximum profit. The only certainty of the schemes submitted thus far is that there will be three private apartments within the tower. The restaurant was not a certainty and neither was the museum and cafe. They were only an offer to a 'third party' for the space. No-one in their right mind was going to take up the offer for the museum given the terms and conditions laid out in the previous scheme's business plan. No developer is going to give up the biggest, most profitable and exclusive part of the tower; the roof and tank for a museum and viewing platform in the long term. A luxury apartment up there with private viewing platform would make a killing on its own, let alone another eight or so floors of luxury private apartments below it. You want to buy into these schemes? Fine. Caveat Emptor[/p][/quote]Number of words? - inverse proportion applies - message probably honest but lost. Suggest you preci now or loose your intent.[/p][/quote]Some of your posts have been pretty lengthy in the past though, A Of L.[/p][/quote]True.[/p][/quote]AoL said: "I might be wrong, but but it does seem that the BTT's actions to date do appear to have resulted in failure to allow Jumbo to evolve and develop for the majority of the town to enjoy, and not just the interests of a minority. Really sorry about the mouse" Evolve and Develop? Legs stuffed with offices and flats with a restaurant half way up? You confuse us with English Heritage who said this scheme would damage the building's significance . . . Neither are we responsible for the National Planning Policy Framework and other planning guidance for listed buildings. Do your homework.[/p][/quote]Ok Ourdogtess, we are unlikely to agree. It would be great for the BTT if Jumbo could be kept in its original format and refurbished. I am not convinced it would attract huge numbers of paying visitors, and of course the town would loose a development space. Again, it's my opinion, but I believe the cost of preserving jumbo in aspic would be considerably more than the figures quoted in this thread to date. Who will pay? - ultimately and indirectly we who pay tax in one form or another. In my opinion this would be unfair as it is a minority interest with very little to offer. I work with buildings much older than jumbo that have evolved, are commercial and self sustaining. Just spent time in York, wall to wall ancient structures, but used commercially eg the shambles. I have mentioned a couple of the buildings we have looked after, two to three hundred years - they thrive and are a working useful structures. I don't disbelieve your interpretation of E.H. etc comments/guidance, but I will take to give them a call. Regards[/p][/quote]People who think like you would let people crap all over their doorsteps for profit so long as it didn't cost them a penny. Jumbo is not a minority interest, it is one of the most prominent landmarks in this town, and furthermore, you won't get better views of Colchester anywhere unless you hire a helicopter. Colchester thrives on its tourist industry and I'm sure people visiting the town for the first time would love to go up and get some pictures and enjoy the views. There are many buildings in many towns and cities preserved for their own sakes. Take the Monument in London for example. Its got no commercial value, just like Jumbo, but people pay to climb up it and enjoy the views. Water towers are something few people ever get to see the inside of. In colchester we have the largest remaining Victorian water tower, undeveloped and unspoiled. The giant valves and pipes are still intact and tell a story. These are the same valves and pipes which will be ripped out when Jumbo is turned into a gutted out shell if these plans ever see the light of day.[/p][/quote]Well Ourdogtess, feel better? That's quite a rude and personal[/p][/quote]I made the comment, not Ourdogtess. It wasn't meant to be rude or personal, it was meant to make the point that we shouldn't always put money before our environment. Please accept my apologies if you took it that way. Jumbo, the Castle, the Roman walls, they're all special to most people of this town. I've found your previous arguments that Jumbo isn't worth the effort and is 'nothing special' pretty offensive and personal as someone born and bred in this town. Its all a matter of opinion and I think we'll have to beg to differ on our views. I don't agree that just because someone has a lot of money, they should be allowed to buy up one of our most prominent listed buildings and do as they please irrespective of planning law and planning policy guidelines. DL1970
  • Score: 11

12:38am Wed 4 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

First, really sorry Ourdogtess, I addressed my reaction to you - my confusion with the listings.

DL, I do under stand your hopes, but in my work with "old" buildings, my experience is that things move on. There is the need to work with, and accept that transition sometimes has to be the only way forward. Also the process does well to take the younger generation along, so that there is a practical link between our heritage and the need for development in the context of new dynamic stuff - see Billinsgate/so called Colchester castle, Framlingham Castle.
First, really sorry Ourdogtess, I addressed my reaction to you - my confusion with the listings. DL, I do under stand your hopes, but in my work with "old" buildings, my experience is that things move on. There is the need to work with, and accept that transition sometimes has to be the only way forward. Also the process does well to take the younger generation along, so that there is a practical link between our heritage and the need for development in the context of new dynamic stuff - see Billinsgate/so called Colchester castle, Framlingham Castle. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -5

1:21am Wed 4 Jun 14

Boris says...

Angry, you repeat your harangues so much that you bewilder most of us, and we end up unable to address your stated concerns. Is that your aim? If so, it has backfired. No normal human being can address this volume of output.
Out of the 125 posts so far, 43 have come from you: one-third of the total. And you only joined in when the thread was well under way.
.
Ipsum Delor is right, Chris Howell is right, Romantic is right, Dorian is right, William George is right, Hamiltonandy is right, Driver4108 is right, DL1970 is right, Ourdogtess is right, and you are wrong.
.
You are obviously someone who thinks a lot about Jumbo, so why not try a fresh tack? Instead of opposing the Balkerne Tower Trust, get behind us, help us to achieve our aim, and let us run Jumbo for a number of years. If people stop coming to Jumbo, then its future may have to be a commercial one. But let BTT have a go first, whiule the structure is still intact.
This of course presupposes that CBC fulfils its duty of protecting its high-status listed building, as it has done to date.
.
If you are not with us, it is hard for us to avoid the conclusion that you are a mere millionaire-worshipp
er.
Angry, you repeat your harangues so much that you bewilder most of us, and we end up unable to address your stated concerns. Is that your aim? If so, it has backfired. No normal human being can address this volume of output. Out of the 125 posts so far, 43 have come from you: one-third of the total. And you only joined in when the thread was well under way. . Ipsum Delor is right, Chris Howell is right, Romantic is right, Dorian is right, William George is right, Hamiltonandy is right, Driver4108 is right, DL1970 is right, Ourdogtess is right, and you are wrong. . You are obviously someone who thinks a lot about Jumbo, so why not try a fresh tack? Instead of opposing the Balkerne Tower Trust, get behind us, help us to achieve our aim, and let us run Jumbo for a number of years. If people stop coming to Jumbo, then its future may have to be a commercial one. But let BTT have a go first, whiule the structure is still intact. This of course presupposes that CBC fulfils its duty of protecting its high-status listed building, as it has done to date. . If you are not with us, it is hard for us to avoid the conclusion that you are a mere millionaire-worshipp er. Boris
  • Score: 5

7:14am Wed 4 Jun 14

Hiker54 says...

Jumbo has had its day. Development was not permitted consequently demolition seems to be the best option.£190k is a lot to pay for a pile of bricks, a steel water tank and a bit of land.
Jumbo has had its day. Development was not permitted consequently demolition seems to be the best option.£190k is a lot to pay for a pile of bricks, a steel water tank and a bit of land. Hiker54
  • Score: -12

10:02am Wed 4 Jun 14

Jess Jephcott says...

Boris seems to have missed the fact that BTT failed to buy Jumbo. This is now a commercial venture. You had your opportunity to buy Boris and you/we failed. What is it that don't understand about all this? Dinosaurs like you cannot stop the march of progress and I am sick and tired of hearing the views of an impecunious minority. If it means glass sides and the removal of rusty old valves then so be it. Please stop holding Colchester back.
Boris seems to have missed the fact that BTT failed to buy Jumbo. This is now a commercial venture. You had your opportunity to buy Boris and you/we failed. What is it that don't understand about all this? Dinosaurs like you cannot stop the march of progress and I am sick and tired of hearing the views of an impecunious minority. If it means glass sides and the removal of rusty old valves then so be it. Please stop holding Colchester back. Jess Jephcott
  • Score: -5

12:37pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Boris says...

Jess Jephcott wrote:
Boris seems to have missed the fact that BTT failed to buy Jumbo. This is now a commercial venture. You had your opportunity to buy Boris and you/we failed. What is it that don't understand about all this? Dinosaurs like you cannot stop the march of progress and I am sick and tired of hearing the views of an impecunious minority. If it means glass sides and the removal of rusty old valves then so be it. Please stop holding Colchester back.
I am sick and tired of millionaire-worshipp
ers like Jess equating cutlural vandalism to the march of progress. He might as well call the building of all those new houses on the green fields of Mile End "the march of progress".
Jess and his fellow-worshippers need to understand that a Grade II* listing is something extremely rare, not to be violated.
Mr Braithwaite's scheme was rightly rejected, and if Mr Flatman submits something similar, which is what he has said he will do, then that should be rejected too.
[quote][p][bold]Jess Jephcott[/bold] wrote: Boris seems to have missed the fact that BTT failed to buy Jumbo. This is now a commercial venture. You had your opportunity to buy Boris and you/we failed. What is it that don't understand about all this? Dinosaurs like you cannot stop the march of progress and I am sick and tired of hearing the views of an impecunious minority. If it means glass sides and the removal of rusty old valves then so be it. Please stop holding Colchester back.[/p][/quote]I am sick and tired of millionaire-worshipp ers like Jess equating cutlural vandalism to the march of progress. He might as well call the building of all those new houses on the green fields of Mile End "the march of progress". Jess and his fellow-worshippers need to understand that a Grade II* listing is something extremely rare, not to be violated. Mr Braithwaite's scheme was rightly rejected, and if Mr Flatman submits something similar, which is what he has said he will do, then that should be rejected too. Boris
  • Score: 8

1:08pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Catchedicam says...

Boris wrote:
Jess Jephcott wrote:
Boris seems to have missed the fact that BTT failed to buy Jumbo. This is now a commercial venture. You had your opportunity to buy Boris and you/we failed. What is it that don't understand about all this? Dinosaurs like you cannot stop the march of progress and I am sick and tired of hearing the views of an impecunious minority. If it means glass sides and the removal of rusty old valves then so be it. Please stop holding Colchester back.
I am sick and tired of millionaire-worshipp

ers like Jess equating cutlural vandalism to the march of progress. He might as well call the building of all those new houses on the green fields of Mile End "the march of progress".
Jess and his fellow-worshippers need to understand that a Grade II* listing is something extremely rare, not to be violated.
Mr Braithwaite's scheme was rightly rejected, and if Mr Flatman submits something similar, which is what he has said he will do, then that should be rejected too.
I totally agree with what you say Boris, but money talks louder these days, even the Queens speech this morning opened the floodgates for developers to build 'garden cities' on greenfield land. Dinosaurs like us can only shout from the sidelines as the destruction of our historic and cultural heritage takes place. I wonder if we had the same objections when the Roman wall was ripped apart for Culver square? or the fact we allow Holy Trinity Church to fall into disrepair,
Our old unique military buildings to disappear or be turned into houses and essentially lost to the wider public How many developments have buried parts of our unique history, but this is progress, the march of the money men is ever onward, nothing is sacred in search for greater profits, no loss is to great. A sad indictment of a society that worships money as it's god, above people, above heritage and above culture.
[quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jess Jephcott[/bold] wrote: Boris seems to have missed the fact that BTT failed to buy Jumbo. This is now a commercial venture. You had your opportunity to buy Boris and you/we failed. What is it that don't understand about all this? Dinosaurs like you cannot stop the march of progress and I am sick and tired of hearing the views of an impecunious minority. If it means glass sides and the removal of rusty old valves then so be it. Please stop holding Colchester back.[/p][/quote]I am sick and tired of millionaire-worshipp ers like Jess equating cutlural vandalism to the march of progress. He might as well call the building of all those new houses on the green fields of Mile End "the march of progress". Jess and his fellow-worshippers need to understand that a Grade II* listing is something extremely rare, not to be violated. Mr Braithwaite's scheme was rightly rejected, and if Mr Flatman submits something similar, which is what he has said he will do, then that should be rejected too.[/p][/quote]I totally agree with what you say Boris, but money talks louder these days, even the Queens speech this morning opened the floodgates for developers to build 'garden cities' on greenfield land. Dinosaurs like us can only shout from the sidelines as the destruction of our historic and cultural heritage takes place. I wonder if we had the same objections when the Roman wall was ripped apart for Culver square? or the fact we allow Holy Trinity Church to fall into disrepair, Our old unique military buildings to disappear or be turned into houses and essentially lost to the wider public How many developments have buried parts of our unique history, but this is progress, the march of the money men is ever onward, nothing is sacred in search for greater profits, no loss is to great. A sad indictment of a society that worships money as it's god, above people, above heritage and above culture. Catchedicam
  • Score: 5

3:18pm Wed 4 Jun 14

DL1970 says...

Catchedicam wrote:
Boris wrote:
Jess Jephcott wrote:
Boris seems to have missed the fact that BTT failed to buy Jumbo. This is now a commercial venture. You had your opportunity to buy Boris and you/we failed. What is it that don't understand about all this? Dinosaurs like you cannot stop the march of progress and I am sick and tired of hearing the views of an impecunious minority. If it means glass sides and the removal of rusty old valves then so be it. Please stop holding Colchester back.I am sick and tired of millionaire-worshipp


ers like Jess equating cutlural vandalism to the march of progress. He might as well call the building of all those new houses on the green fields of Mile End "the march of progressSpot on. Good to hear a fellow Colcestrian with a bit of civic pride.
[quote][p][bold]Catchedicam[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jess Jephcott[/bold] wrote: Boris seems to have missed the fact that BTT failed to buy Jumbo. This is now a commercial venture. You had your opportunity to buy Boris and you/we failed. What is it that don't understand about all this? Dinosaurs like you cannot stop the march of progress and I am sick and tired of hearing the views of an impecunious minority. If it means glass sides and the removal of rusty old valves then so be it. Please stop holding Colchester back.[/p][/quote]I am sick and tired of millionaire-worshipp ers like Jess equating cutlural vandalism to the march of progress. He might as well call the building of all those new houses on the green fields of Mile End "the march of progressSpot on. Good to hear a fellow Colcestrian with a bit of civic pride. DL1970
  • Score: 5

3:33pm Wed 4 Jun 14

DL1970 says...

Jess Jephcott wrote:
Boris seems to have missed the fact that BTT failed to buy Jumbo. This is now a commercial venture. You had your opportunity to buy Boris and you/we failed. What is it that don't understand about all this? Dinosaurs like you cannot stop the march of progress and I am sick and tired of hearing the views of an impecunious minority. If it means glass sides and the removal of rusty old valves then so be it. Please stop holding Colchester back.
Jess, you need to decide what side you want to be on and stay there. Your comment here is a far cry from the comment you left further up the page when you were having a go at those criticising BTT, and I quote:

"Listen to you lot. Who do you think owns Jumbo and how many of you put your hands in your pockets to help the Balkerne Trust buy it? If you didn't contribute then mind your own business. The present owner will be the only one deciding on its future, not you lot. What a load of self-righteous twaddle I am reading here. If 100,000 Colcestrians had put a fiver towards buying it, it would be ours now and the proper squabbling could begin. As it is, those who didn't contribute, your views are irrelevant so go find another bandwagon to vent your collective spleens on."

I'm a tad disappointed in you to be honest. Next time, stand behind what you say or don't bother saying it.
[quote][p][bold]Jess Jephcott[/bold] wrote: Boris seems to have missed the fact that BTT failed to buy Jumbo. This is now a commercial venture. You had your opportunity to buy Boris and you/we failed. What is it that don't understand about all this? Dinosaurs like you cannot stop the march of progress and I am sick and tired of hearing the views of an impecunious minority. If it means glass sides and the removal of rusty old valves then so be it. Please stop holding Colchester back.[/p][/quote]Jess, you need to decide what side you want to be on and stay there. Your comment here is a far cry from the comment you left further up the page when you were having a go at those criticising BTT, and I quote: "Listen to you lot. Who do you think owns Jumbo and how many of you put your hands in your pockets to help the Balkerne Trust buy it? If you didn't contribute then mind your own business. The present owner will be the only one deciding on its future, not you lot. What a load of self-righteous twaddle I am reading here. If 100,000 Colcestrians had put a fiver towards buying it, it would be ours now and the proper squabbling could begin. As it is, those who didn't contribute, your views are irrelevant so go find another bandwagon to vent your collective spleens on." I'm a tad disappointed in you to be honest. Next time, stand behind what you say or don't bother saying it. DL1970
  • Score: 8

5:04pm Wed 4 Jun 14

William George says...

Boris wrote:
Angry, you repeat your harangues so much that you bewilder most of us, and we end up unable to address your stated concerns. Is that your aim? If so, it has backfired. No normal human being can address this volume of output.
Out of the 125 posts so far, 43 have come from you: one-third of the total. And you only joined in when the thread was well under way.
.
Ipsum Delor is right, Chris Howell is right, Romantic is right, Dorian is right, William George is right, Hamiltonandy is right, Driver4108 is right, DL1970 is right, Ourdogtess is right, and you are wrong.
.
You are obviously someone who thinks a lot about Jumbo, so why not try a fresh tack? Instead of opposing the Balkerne Tower Trust, get behind us, help us to achieve our aim, and let us run Jumbo for a number of years. If people stop coming to Jumbo, then its future may have to be a commercial one. But let BTT have a go first, whiule the structure is still intact.
This of course presupposes that CBC fulfils its duty of protecting its high-status listed building, as it has done to date.
.
If you are not with us, it is hard for us to avoid the conclusion that you are a mere millionaire-worshipp

er.
I totally agree with your recent view about the comments of Angry Lexden. Angry Lexden words are confusing and too argumentive. Their made not in favour to the other writers to read in any constance by Angry's ways.

Paul Flatman with any connection to Braithwaite will not be in favour to decide on in use for Jumbo Water Tower. If any such similar design is chosen to be used.
Glass panels between the legs of the landmark won't be a good choice for Jumbo Water Tower in Colchester.

The other said names Boris has just mentioned in quantity of nine names are performing more proper sense. In most of their views their stable meanings are for us all to compare and consider can agree.
Let us hope that a fair and righteous conclusion is helped reached by the comments that we continue to make for this matter.
[quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: Angry, you repeat your harangues so much that you bewilder most of us, and we end up unable to address your stated concerns. Is that your aim? If so, it has backfired. No normal human being can address this volume of output. Out of the 125 posts so far, 43 have come from you: one-third of the total. And you only joined in when the thread was well under way. . Ipsum Delor is right, Chris Howell is right, Romantic is right, Dorian is right, William George is right, Hamiltonandy is right, Driver4108 is right, DL1970 is right, Ourdogtess is right, and you are wrong. . You are obviously someone who thinks a lot about Jumbo, so why not try a fresh tack? Instead of opposing the Balkerne Tower Trust, get behind us, help us to achieve our aim, and let us run Jumbo for a number of years. If people stop coming to Jumbo, then its future may have to be a commercial one. But let BTT have a go first, whiule the structure is still intact. This of course presupposes that CBC fulfils its duty of protecting its high-status listed building, as it has done to date. . If you are not with us, it is hard for us to avoid the conclusion that you are a mere millionaire-worshipp er.[/p][/quote]I totally agree with your recent view about the comments of Angry Lexden. Angry Lexden words are confusing and too argumentive. Their made not in favour to the other writers to read in any constance by Angry's ways. Paul Flatman with any connection to Braithwaite will not be in favour to decide on in use for Jumbo Water Tower. If any such similar design is chosen to be used. Glass panels between the legs of the landmark won't be a good choice for Jumbo Water Tower in Colchester. The other said names Boris has just mentioned in quantity of nine names are performing more proper sense. In most of their views their stable meanings are for us all to compare and consider can agree. Let us hope that a fair and righteous conclusion is helped reached by the comments that we continue to make for this matter. William George
  • Score: 9

5:11pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Jess Jephcott says...

Don't get me wrong please but, whilst my preference is the BTT way, it has failed. Why did it fail? Because people didn't support the BTT way in sufficient numbers or with sufficient cash. This is the second time that BTT tried to buy Jumbo for all of us to enjoy, not just for a Mr Moneybags and his mates to enjoy. So now we have a stand-off situation yet again where Colchester is the loser and Jumbo gets to stand and rot for several more decades. The last owners bid failed because it was opposed by politicians, presumably annoyed that a certain political banner of the opposition was hung from Jumbo, many years ago. The local planners and the cabinet member with responsibility for cultural matters were quite happy with approving it. All I ask is that a pragmatic approach be taken and a compromise made. As it is, we have a feud that those in the Middle East are worthy of, tribal hatred that can date back thousands of years. I blame the Romans for building our town on a hilltop where no water was present. Personally I don't care about a few old valves being taken out or a window being cut in the tank side or glass being used to infill the legs. I do care that small minded political midgets can hold us back over this out of sheer spite. No, provided it was done such that the structure was not materially damaged, as is being done with other heritage buildings across the country, then I don't mind. But for sure, I would much rather we had raised enough money to buy it, as now we would be planning for a constructive future for Jumbo rather than endlessly bickering about it. We failed. Let's move on.
Don't get me wrong please but, whilst my preference is the BTT way, it has failed. Why did it fail? Because people didn't support the BTT way in sufficient numbers or with sufficient cash. This is the second time that BTT tried to buy Jumbo for all of us to enjoy, not just for a Mr Moneybags and his mates to enjoy. So now we have a stand-off situation yet again where Colchester is the loser and Jumbo gets to stand and rot for several more decades. The last owners bid failed because it was opposed by politicians, presumably annoyed that a certain political banner of the opposition was hung from Jumbo, many years ago. The local planners and the cabinet member with responsibility for cultural matters were quite happy with approving it. All I ask is that a pragmatic approach be taken and a compromise made. As it is, we have a feud that those in the Middle East are worthy of, tribal hatred that can date back thousands of years. I blame the Romans for building our town on a hilltop where no water was present. Personally I don't care about a few old valves being taken out or a window being cut in the tank side or glass being used to infill the legs. I do care that small minded political midgets can hold us back over this out of sheer spite. No, provided it was done such that the structure was not materially damaged, as is being done with other heritage buildings across the country, then I don't mind. But for sure, I would much rather we had raised enough money to buy it, as now we would be planning for a constructive future for Jumbo rather than endlessly bickering about it. We failed. Let's move on. Jess Jephcott
  • Score: -7

5:28pm Wed 4 Jun 14

DL1970 says...

Jumbo has stood there for 132 years with barely a scratch. All of a sudden its going to rot and fall down just because a certain developer got short shrift from the council. Its a mess, but that's down to the owner. By using that in your arguments you are playing right into his hands. The various owners of Jumbo have always deliberately let it get in a state to play on it and win public support for their schemes. The council need to show their teeth and serve some more statutory notices on the owner to get the building cleaned up. Deliberate neglect must not be allowed to be used as an argument to support a planning application. The owner knows what his legal and moral responsibilities are as the owner of a listed building. Something the council also knows only too well. If we let these schemes see the light of day then we've all failed. We've failed the next generation and we've failed to live up to the very principles and values that we lay down as law.
Jumbo has stood there for 132 years with barely a scratch. All of a sudden its going to rot and fall down just because a certain developer got short shrift from the council. Its a mess, but that's down to the owner. By using that in your arguments you are playing right into his hands. The various owners of Jumbo have always deliberately let it get in a state to play on it and win public support for their schemes. The council need to show their teeth and serve some more statutory notices on the owner to get the building cleaned up. Deliberate neglect must not be allowed to be used as an argument to support a planning application. The owner knows what his legal and moral responsibilities are as the owner of a listed building. Something the council also knows only too well. If we let these schemes see the light of day then we've all failed. We've failed the next generation and we've failed to live up to the very principles and values that we lay down as law. DL1970
  • Score: 8

6:37pm Wed 4 Jun 14

William George says...

Jess Jephcott wrote:
Boris seems to have missed the fact that BTT failed to buy Jumbo. This is now a commercial venture. You had your opportunity to buy Boris and you/we failed. What is it that don't understand about all this? Dinosaurs like you cannot stop the march of progress and I am sick and tired of hearing the views of an impecunious minority. If it means glass sides and the removal of rusty old valves then so be it. Please stop holding Colchester back.
Jess Jephcott You have been noted by many people as a good man in your supports to save historic buildings. I have also been to your meeting to hear your lectures for the such good subjects.
I think you have given your support to try to save Jumbo with its historic importance.

In your recent comment it just seems to show one that you are giving a slight reverse in your thoughts in the history for our buildings.

I shall be joining the BTT to see where some concern can be added for the Jumbo Water Tower by myself, I hope you will continue your helps in some way as that too.
[quote][p][bold]Jess Jephcott[/bold] wrote: Boris seems to have missed the fact that BTT failed to buy Jumbo. This is now a commercial venture. You had your opportunity to buy Boris and you/we failed. What is it that don't understand about all this? Dinosaurs like you cannot stop the march of progress and I am sick and tired of hearing the views of an impecunious minority. If it means glass sides and the removal of rusty old valves then so be it. Please stop holding Colchester back.[/p][/quote]Jess Jephcott You have been noted by many people as a good man in your supports to save historic buildings. I have also been to your meeting to hear your lectures for the such good subjects. I think you have given your support to try to save Jumbo with its historic importance. In your recent comment it just seems to show one that you are giving a slight reverse in your thoughts in the history for our buildings. I shall be joining the BTT to see where some concern can be added for the Jumbo Water Tower by myself, I hope you will continue your helps in some way as that too. William George
  • Score: 7

10:31pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Boris wrote:
Angry, you repeat your harangues so much that you bewilder most of us, and we end up unable to address your stated concerns. Is that your aim? If so, it has backfired. No normal human being can address this volume of output.
Out of the 125 posts so far, 43 have come from you: one-third of the total. And you only joined in when the thread was well under way.
.
Ipsum Delor is right, Chris Howell is right, Romantic is right, Dorian is right, William George is right, Hamiltonandy is right, Driver4108 is right, DL1970 is right, Ourdogtess is right, and you are wrong.
.
You are obviously someone who thinks a lot about Jumbo, so why not try a fresh tack? Instead of opposing the Balkerne Tower Trust, get behind us, help us to achieve our aim, and let us run Jumbo for a number of years. If people stop coming to Jumbo, then its future may have to be a commercial one. But let BTT have a go first, whiule the structure is still intact.
This of course presupposes that CBC fulfils its duty of protecting its high-status listed building, as it has done to date.
.
If you are not with us, it is hard for us to avoid the conclusion that you are a mere millionaire-worshipp

er.
Good evening Boris,
Your are correct I do care about Jumbo, and much more about the whole of Colchester. Travelling to other "old" towns and maintaining old town centre buildings, has left me with two clear conclusions on why Colchester has drifted down and sideways into to be second rate.
One, that in the last 25 to 30 years Colchester has missed countless opportunities to develop in a joined up way. Access is discouraged by a ridiculous traffic system, costly parking, and loss of short term street parking and a no go town at night.
And two - that successful "old" towns encourage their heritage to evolve and be functional elements of joined up development.

I emphasise that this is my personal opinion, and from Colchester's recent track record, I guess I'm in the minority.
[quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: Angry, you repeat your harangues so much that you bewilder most of us, and we end up unable to address your stated concerns. Is that your aim? If so, it has backfired. No normal human being can address this volume of output. Out of the 125 posts so far, 43 have come from you: one-third of the total. And you only joined in when the thread was well under way. . Ipsum Delor is right, Chris Howell is right, Romantic is right, Dorian is right, William George is right, Hamiltonandy is right, Driver4108 is right, DL1970 is right, Ourdogtess is right, and you are wrong. . You are obviously someone who thinks a lot about Jumbo, so why not try a fresh tack? Instead of opposing the Balkerne Tower Trust, get behind us, help us to achieve our aim, and let us run Jumbo for a number of years. If people stop coming to Jumbo, then its future may have to be a commercial one. But let BTT have a go first, whiule the structure is still intact. This of course presupposes that CBC fulfils its duty of protecting its high-status listed building, as it has done to date. . If you are not with us, it is hard for us to avoid the conclusion that you are a mere millionaire-worshipp er.[/p][/quote]Good evening Boris, Your are correct I do care about Jumbo, and much more about the whole of Colchester. Travelling to other "old" towns and maintaining old town centre buildings, has left me with two clear conclusions on why Colchester has drifted down and sideways into to be second rate. One, that in the last 25 to 30 years Colchester has missed countless opportunities to develop in a joined up way. Access is discouraged by a ridiculous traffic system, costly parking, and loss of short term street parking and a no go town at night. And two - that successful "old" towns encourage their heritage to evolve and be functional elements of joined up development. I emphasise that this is my personal opinion, and from Colchester's recent track record, I guess I'm in the minority. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -4

12:07am Thu 5 Jun 14

Boris says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
Boris wrote:
Angry, you repeat your harangues so much that you bewilder most of us, and we end up unable to address your stated concerns. Is that your aim? If so, it has backfired. No normal human being can address this volume of output.
Out of the 125 posts so far, 43 have come from you: one-third of the total. And you only joined in when the thread was well under way.
.
Ipsum Delor is right, Chris Howell is right, Romantic is right, Dorian is right, William George is right, Hamiltonandy is right, Driver4108 is right, DL1970 is right, Ourdogtess is right, and you are wrong.
.
You are obviously someone who thinks a lot about Jumbo, so why not try a fresh tack? Instead of opposing the Balkerne Tower Trust, get behind us, help us to achieve our aim, and let us run Jumbo for a number of years. If people stop coming to Jumbo, then its future may have to be a commercial one. But let BTT have a go first, whiule the structure is still intact.
This of course presupposes that CBC fulfils its duty of protecting its high-status listed building, as it has done to date.
.
If you are not with us, it is hard for us to avoid the conclusion that you are a mere millionaire-worshipp


er.
Good evening Boris,
Your are correct I do care about Jumbo, and much more about the whole of Colchester. Travelling to other "old" towns and maintaining old town centre buildings, has left me with two clear conclusions on why Colchester has drifted down and sideways into to be second rate.
One, that in the last 25 to 30 years Colchester has missed countless opportunities to develop in a joined up way. Access is discouraged by a ridiculous traffic system, costly parking, and loss of short term street parking and a no go town at night.
And two - that successful "old" towns encourage their heritage to evolve and be functional elements of joined up development.

I emphasise that this is my personal opinion, and from Colchester's recent track record, I guess I'm in the minority.
Angry, it is true that CBC has made many mistakes, and not just in the last 20 to 30 years. Over the last 50 years, our councillors have sacrificed far too much to the car. So much of good old Colchester has been destroyed, and the process continues.
Regarding Jumbo, I blame people like Darius Laws, Will Quince and Jess Jephcott for politicising the debate. Anyone prepared to put politics to one side will recognise that a highly-valued monument like Jumbo must be protected as befits its listed status.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: Angry, you repeat your harangues so much that you bewilder most of us, and we end up unable to address your stated concerns. Is that your aim? If so, it has backfired. No normal human being can address this volume of output. Out of the 125 posts so far, 43 have come from you: one-third of the total. And you only joined in when the thread was well under way. . Ipsum Delor is right, Chris Howell is right, Romantic is right, Dorian is right, William George is right, Hamiltonandy is right, Driver4108 is right, DL1970 is right, Ourdogtess is right, and you are wrong. . You are obviously someone who thinks a lot about Jumbo, so why not try a fresh tack? Instead of opposing the Balkerne Tower Trust, get behind us, help us to achieve our aim, and let us run Jumbo for a number of years. If people stop coming to Jumbo, then its future may have to be a commercial one. But let BTT have a go first, whiule the structure is still intact. This of course presupposes that CBC fulfils its duty of protecting its high-status listed building, as it has done to date. . If you are not with us, it is hard for us to avoid the conclusion that you are a mere millionaire-worshipp er.[/p][/quote]Good evening Boris, Your are correct I do care about Jumbo, and much more about the whole of Colchester. Travelling to other "old" towns and maintaining old town centre buildings, has left me with two clear conclusions on why Colchester has drifted down and sideways into to be second rate. One, that in the last 25 to 30 years Colchester has missed countless opportunities to develop in a joined up way. Access is discouraged by a ridiculous traffic system, costly parking, and loss of short term street parking and a no go town at night. And two - that successful "old" towns encourage their heritage to evolve and be functional elements of joined up development. I emphasise that this is my personal opinion, and from Colchester's recent track record, I guess I'm in the minority.[/p][/quote]Angry, it is true that CBC has made many mistakes, and not just in the last 20 to 30 years. Over the last 50 years, our councillors have sacrificed far too much to the car. So much of good old Colchester has been destroyed, and the process continues. Regarding Jumbo, I blame people like Darius Laws, Will Quince and Jess Jephcott for politicising the debate. Anyone prepared to put politics to one side will recognise that a highly-valued monument like Jumbo must be protected as befits its listed status. Boris
  • Score: 8

12:27am Thu 5 Jun 14

Boris says...

Jess Jephcott wrote:
Don't get me wrong please but, whilst my preference is the BTT way, it has failed. Why did it fail? Because people didn't support the BTT way in sufficient numbers or with sufficient cash. This is the second time that BTT tried to buy Jumbo for all of us to enjoy, not just for a Mr Moneybags and his mates to enjoy. So now we have a stand-off situation yet again where Colchester is the loser and Jumbo gets to stand and rot for several more decades. The last owners bid failed because it was opposed by politicians, presumably annoyed that a certain political banner of the opposition was hung from Jumbo, many years ago. The local planners and the cabinet member with responsibility for cultural matters were quite happy with approving it. All I ask is that a pragmatic approach be taken and a compromise made. As it is, we have a feud that those in the Middle East are worthy of, tribal hatred that can date back thousands of years. I blame the Romans for building our town on a hilltop where no water was present. Personally I don't care about a few old valves being taken out or a window being cut in the tank side or glass being used to infill the legs. I do care that small minded political midgets can hold us back over this out of sheer spite. No, provided it was done such that the structure was not materially damaged, as is being done with other heritage buildings across the country, then I don't mind. But for sure, I would much rather we had raised enough money to buy it, as now we would be planning for a constructive future for Jumbo rather than endlessly bickering about it. We failed. Let's move on.
Jess, we didn't fail. The fight continues. We may be 2-1 down at half time, but there are still 45 minutes (several years in fact) to play, and we have every chance of winning in the end. One Mr Moneybags has bitten the dust, and another will eventually follow. You want to preserve the Victorian military buildings, we want to preserve the Victorian water tower. Why do you give up so easily? You know very well that commercial development as proposed by Mr Braithwaite would have damaged Jumbo irreparably. Reportedly, Mr Flatman hopes to succeed where Mr Braithwaite failed.
Stop being so defeatist, stop giving priority to your personal preferences, and stop that ridiculous drivel about "small minded political midgets can hold us back ... out of sheer spite". Join in a serious fight to preserve the building that, more than any other, represents Colchester to the world.
[quote][p][bold]Jess Jephcott[/bold] wrote: Don't get me wrong please but, whilst my preference is the BTT way, it has failed. Why did it fail? Because people didn't support the BTT way in sufficient numbers or with sufficient cash. This is the second time that BTT tried to buy Jumbo for all of us to enjoy, not just for a Mr Moneybags and his mates to enjoy. So now we have a stand-off situation yet again where Colchester is the loser and Jumbo gets to stand and rot for several more decades. The last owners bid failed because it was opposed by politicians, presumably annoyed that a certain political banner of the opposition was hung from Jumbo, many years ago. The local planners and the cabinet member with responsibility for cultural matters were quite happy with approving it. All I ask is that a pragmatic approach be taken and a compromise made. As it is, we have a feud that those in the Middle East are worthy of, tribal hatred that can date back thousands of years. I blame the Romans for building our town on a hilltop where no water was present. Personally I don't care about a few old valves being taken out or a window being cut in the tank side or glass being used to infill the legs. I do care that small minded political midgets can hold us back over this out of sheer spite. No, provided it was done such that the structure was not materially damaged, as is being done with other heritage buildings across the country, then I don't mind. But for sure, I would much rather we had raised enough money to buy it, as now we would be planning for a constructive future for Jumbo rather than endlessly bickering about it. We failed. Let's move on.[/p][/quote]Jess, we didn't fail. The fight continues. We may be 2-1 down at half time, but there are still 45 minutes (several years in fact) to play, and we have every chance of winning in the end. One Mr Moneybags has bitten the dust, and another will eventually follow. You want to preserve the Victorian military buildings, we want to preserve the Victorian water tower. Why do you give up so easily? You know very well that commercial development as proposed by Mr Braithwaite would have damaged Jumbo irreparably. Reportedly, Mr Flatman hopes to succeed where Mr Braithwaite failed. Stop being so defeatist, stop giving priority to your personal preferences, and stop that ridiculous drivel about "small minded political midgets can hold us back ... out of sheer spite". Join in a serious fight to preserve the building that, more than any other, represents Colchester to the world. Boris
  • Score: 9

12:54am Thu 5 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Boris wrote:
Jess Jephcott wrote:
Don't get me wrong please but, whilst my preference is the BTT way, it has failed. Why did it fail? Because people didn't support the BTT way in sufficient numbers or with sufficient cash. This is the second time that BTT tried to buy Jumbo for all of us to enjoy, not just for a Mr Moneybags and his mates to enjoy. So now we have a stand-off situation yet again where Colchester is the loser and Jumbo gets to stand and rot for several more decades. The last owners bid failed because it was opposed by politicians, presumably annoyed that a certain political banner of the opposition was hung from Jumbo, many years ago. The local planners and the cabinet member with responsibility for cultural matters were quite happy with approving it. All I ask is that a pragmatic approach be taken and a compromise made. As it is, we have a feud that those in the Middle East are worthy of, tribal hatred that can date back thousands of years. I blame the Romans for building our town on a hilltop where no water was present. Personally I don't care about a few old valves being taken out or a window being cut in the tank side or glass being used to infill the legs. I do care that small minded political midgets can hold us back over this out of sheer spite. No, provided it was done such that the structure was not materially damaged, as is being done with other heritage buildings across the country, then I don't mind. But for sure, I would much rather we had raised enough money to buy it, as now we would be planning for a constructive future for Jumbo rather than endlessly bickering about it. We failed. Let's move on.
Jess, we didn't fail. The fight continues. We may be 2-1 down at half time, but there are still 45 minutes (several years in fact) to play, and we have every chance of winning in the end. One Mr Moneybags has bitten the dust, and another will eventually follow. You want to preserve the Victorian military buildings, we want to preserve the Victorian water tower. Why do you give up so easily? You know very well that commercial development as proposed by Mr Braithwaite would have damaged Jumbo irreparably. Reportedly, Mr Flatman hopes to succeed where Mr Braithwaite failed.
Stop being so defeatist, stop giving priority to your personal preferences, and stop that ridiculous drivel about "small minded political midgets can hold us back ... out of sheer spite". Join in a serious fight to preserve the building that, more than any other, represents Colchester to the world.
Hi Boris, great text etc, but I can't believe we should pin our hopes for Colchester's world reputation on a 135 year old water tank preserved as was built. I've worked on four fascinating buildings in the town - the youngest has elements ranging from 150 to 230 years of age. Surely jumbo will thrive if it becomes the core of a development which boasts it's amazing shape, height and detail.
[quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jess Jephcott[/bold] wrote: Don't get me wrong please but, whilst my preference is the BTT way, it has failed. Why did it fail? Because people didn't support the BTT way in sufficient numbers or with sufficient cash. This is the second time that BTT tried to buy Jumbo for all of us to enjoy, not just for a Mr Moneybags and his mates to enjoy. So now we have a stand-off situation yet again where Colchester is the loser and Jumbo gets to stand and rot for several more decades. The last owners bid failed because it was opposed by politicians, presumably annoyed that a certain political banner of the opposition was hung from Jumbo, many years ago. The local planners and the cabinet member with responsibility for cultural matters were quite happy with approving it. All I ask is that a pragmatic approach be taken and a compromise made. As it is, we have a feud that those in the Middle East are worthy of, tribal hatred that can date back thousands of years. I blame the Romans for building our town on a hilltop where no water was present. Personally I don't care about a few old valves being taken out or a window being cut in the tank side or glass being used to infill the legs. I do care that small minded political midgets can hold us back over this out of sheer spite. No, provided it was done such that the structure was not materially damaged, as is being done with other heritage buildings across the country, then I don't mind. But for sure, I would much rather we had raised enough money to buy it, as now we would be planning for a constructive future for Jumbo rather than endlessly bickering about it. We failed. Let's move on.[/p][/quote]Jess, we didn't fail. The fight continues. We may be 2-1 down at half time, but there are still 45 minutes (several years in fact) to play, and we have every chance of winning in the end. One Mr Moneybags has bitten the dust, and another will eventually follow. You want to preserve the Victorian military buildings, we want to preserve the Victorian water tower. Why do you give up so easily? You know very well that commercial development as proposed by Mr Braithwaite would have damaged Jumbo irreparably. Reportedly, Mr Flatman hopes to succeed where Mr Braithwaite failed. Stop being so defeatist, stop giving priority to your personal preferences, and stop that ridiculous drivel about "small minded political midgets can hold us back ... out of sheer spite". Join in a serious fight to preserve the building that, more than any other, represents Colchester to the world.[/p][/quote]Hi Boris, great text etc, but I can't believe we should pin our hopes for Colchester's world reputation on a 135 year old water tank preserved as was built. I've worked on four fascinating buildings in the town - the youngest has elements ranging from 150 to 230 years of age. Surely jumbo will thrive if it becomes the core of a development which boasts it's amazing shape, height and detail. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -6

1:16am Thu 5 Jun 14

Ourdogtess says...

Jess Jephcott wrote:
Boris seems to have missed the fact that BTT failed to buy Jumbo. This is now a commercial venture. You had your opportunity to buy Boris and you/we failed. What is it that don't understand about all this? Dinosaurs like you cannot stop the march of progress and I am sick and tired of hearing the views of an impecunious minority. If it means glass sides and the removal of rusty old valves then so be it. Please stop holding Colchester back.
There won't be a commercial venture as there's no way to make a return on one. What there will be is more deliberate neglect and pointless rituals of planning applications doomed from the start.

The march of progress would demand the Roman wall is demolished. After all it takes up valuable development land. Why keep patching up a pile of rubble? It just holds Colchester back, obviously.
[quote][p][bold]Jess Jephcott[/bold] wrote: Boris seems to have missed the fact that BTT failed to buy Jumbo. This is now a commercial venture. You had your opportunity to buy Boris and you/we failed. What is it that don't understand about all this? Dinosaurs like you cannot stop the march of progress and I am sick and tired of hearing the views of an impecunious minority. If it means glass sides and the removal of rusty old valves then so be it. Please stop holding Colchester back.[/p][/quote]There won't be a commercial venture as there's no way to make a return on one. What there will be is more deliberate neglect and pointless rituals of planning applications doomed from the start. The march of progress would demand the Roman wall is demolished. After all it takes up valuable development land. Why keep patching up a pile of rubble? It just holds Colchester back, obviously. Ourdogtess
  • Score: 6

7:55am Thu 5 Jun 14

DL1970 says...

I agree, Ourdogtess. The Balkerne gate could be developed into a studio appartment. Centre of town, not far from the station, pretty bijou. We can't have a building standing doing nothing, let alone the remains of a Roman gatehouse. Everything has got to make a profit for someone these days, so lets get on with it. Perhaps Mr Flatman of Mr Braithwait would be interested.
I agree, Ourdogtess. The Balkerne gate could be developed into a studio appartment. Centre of town, not far from the station, pretty bijou. We can't have a building standing doing nothing, let alone the remains of a Roman gatehouse. Everything has got to make a profit for someone these days, so lets get on with it. Perhaps Mr Flatman of Mr Braithwait would be interested. DL1970
  • Score: 6

8:15am Thu 5 Jun 14

DL1970 says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
Boris wrote:
Jess Jephcott wrote:
Don't get me wrong please but, whilst my preference is the BTT way, it has failed. Why did it fail? Because people didn't support the BTT way in sufficient numbers or with sufficient cash. This is the second time that BTT tried to buy Jumbo for all of us to enjoy, not just for a Mr Moneybags and his mates to enjoy. So now we have a stand-off situation yet again where Colchester is the loser and Jumbo gets to stand and rot for several more decades. The last owners bid failed because it was opposed by politicians, presumably annoyed that a certain political banner of the opposition was hung from Jumbo, many years ago. The local planners and the cabinet member with responsibility for cultural matters were quite happy with approving it. All I ask is that a pragmatic approach be taken and a compromise made. As it is, we have a feud that those in the Middle East are worthy of, tribal hatred that can date back thousands of years. I blame the Romans for building our town on a hilltop where no water was present. Personally I don't care about a few old valves being taken out or a window being cut in the tank side or glass being used to infill the legs. I do care that small minded political midgets can hold us back over this out of sheer spite. No, provided it was done such that the structure was not materially damaged, as is being done with other heritage buildings across the country, then I don't mind. But for sure, I would much rather we had raised enough money to buy it, as now we would be planning for a constructive future for Jumbo rather than endlessly bickering about it. We failed. Let's move on.
Jess, we didn't fail. The fight continues. We may be 2-1 down at half time, but there are still 45 minutes (several years in fact) to play, and we have every chance of winning in the end. One Mr Moneybags has bitten the dust, and another will eventually follow. You want to preserve the Victorian military buildings, we want to preserve the Victorian water tower. Why do you give up so easily? You know very well that commercial development as proposed by Mr Braithwaite would have damaged Jumbo irreparably. Reportedly, Mr Flatman hopes to succeed where Mr Braithwaite failed.
Stop being so defeatist, stop giving priority to your personal preferences, and stop that ridiculous drivel about "small minded political midgets can hold us back ... out of sheer spite". Join in a serious fight to preserve the building that, more than any other, represents Colchester to the world.
Hi Boris, great text etc, but I can't believe we should pin our hopes for Colchester's world reputation on a 135 year old water tank preserved as was built. I've worked on four fascinating buildings in the town - the youngest has elements ranging from 150 to 230 years of age. Surely jumbo will thrive if it becomes the core of a development which boasts it's amazing shape, height and detail.
I would point out that Jumbo is not preserved 'as built'. There have been a few alterations to the building since it was constructed, mainly concerning guttering, catwalks and roofing materials. But it was listed Grade 2 in its present condition in 1971, that being raised to Grade 2* in 2003.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jess Jephcott[/bold] wrote: Don't get me wrong please but, whilst my preference is the BTT way, it has failed. Why did it fail? Because people didn't support the BTT way in sufficient numbers or with sufficient cash. This is the second time that BTT tried to buy Jumbo for all of us to enjoy, not just for a Mr Moneybags and his mates to enjoy. So now we have a stand-off situation yet again where Colchester is the loser and Jumbo gets to stand and rot for several more decades. The last owners bid failed because it was opposed by politicians, presumably annoyed that a certain political banner of the opposition was hung from Jumbo, many years ago. The local planners and the cabinet member with responsibility for cultural matters were quite happy with approving it. All I ask is that a pragmatic approach be taken and a compromise made. As it is, we have a feud that those in the Middle East are worthy of, tribal hatred that can date back thousands of years. I blame the Romans for building our town on a hilltop where no water was present. Personally I don't care about a few old valves being taken out or a window being cut in the tank side or glass being used to infill the legs. I do care that small minded political midgets can hold us back over this out of sheer spite. No, provided it was done such that the structure was not materially damaged, as is being done with other heritage buildings across the country, then I don't mind. But for sure, I would much rather we had raised enough money to buy it, as now we would be planning for a constructive future for Jumbo rather than endlessly bickering about it. We failed. Let's move on.[/p][/quote]Jess, we didn't fail. The fight continues. We may be 2-1 down at half time, but there are still 45 minutes (several years in fact) to play, and we have every chance of winning in the end. One Mr Moneybags has bitten the dust, and another will eventually follow. You want to preserve the Victorian military buildings, we want to preserve the Victorian water tower. Why do you give up so easily? You know very well that commercial development as proposed by Mr Braithwaite would have damaged Jumbo irreparably. Reportedly, Mr Flatman hopes to succeed where Mr Braithwaite failed. Stop being so defeatist, stop giving priority to your personal preferences, and stop that ridiculous drivel about "small minded political midgets can hold us back ... out of sheer spite". Join in a serious fight to preserve the building that, more than any other, represents Colchester to the world.[/p][/quote]Hi Boris, great text etc, but I can't believe we should pin our hopes for Colchester's world reputation on a 135 year old water tank preserved as was built. I've worked on four fascinating buildings in the town - the youngest has elements ranging from 150 to 230 years of age. Surely jumbo will thrive if it becomes the core of a development which boasts it's amazing shape, height and detail.[/p][/quote]I would point out that Jumbo is not preserved 'as built'. There have been a few alterations to the building since it was constructed, mainly concerning guttering, catwalks and roofing materials. But it was listed Grade 2 in its present condition in 1971, that being raised to Grade 2* in 2003. DL1970
  • Score: 8

11:48am Thu 5 Jun 14

Boris says...

DL1970, it was great to see you and your friend testing the catwalk by walking all the way round it, last Bank Holiday Monday. (Anyone else could have done the same, if they had wanted.)
You found the catwalk and other parts of the building to be structurally sound. The only problem is the last owner's wilful failure to carry out routine maintenance as is required for any listed building. CBC should of course have held him to this, but failed to do so.
DL1970, it was great to see you and your friend testing the catwalk by walking all the way round it, last Bank Holiday Monday. (Anyone else could have done the same, if they had wanted.) You found the catwalk and other parts of the building to be structurally sound. The only problem is the last owner's wilful failure to carry out routine maintenance as is required for any listed building. CBC should of course have held him to this, but failed to do so. Boris
  • Score: 11

5:33pm Thu 5 Jun 14

DL1970 says...

Boris wrote:
DL1970, it was great to see you and your friend testing the catwalk by walking all the way round it, last Bank Holiday Monday. (Anyone else could have done the same, if they had wanted.)
You found the catwalk and other parts of the building to be structurally sound. The only problem is the last owner's wilful failure to carry out routine maintenance as is required for any listed building. CBC should of course have held him to this, but failed to do so.
Yes, I climbed all over the tower and inspected the inside of the tank. The Urgent Works Notice served by the council seems to have had the desired effect because the building is now weather tight.
[quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: DL1970, it was great to see you and your friend testing the catwalk by walking all the way round it, last Bank Holiday Monday. (Anyone else could have done the same, if they had wanted.) You found the catwalk and other parts of the building to be structurally sound. The only problem is the last owner's wilful failure to carry out routine maintenance as is required for any listed building. CBC should of course have held him to this, but failed to do so.[/p][/quote]Yes, I climbed all over the tower and inspected the inside of the tank. The Urgent Works Notice served by the council seems to have had the desired effect because the building is now weather tight. DL1970
  • Score: 9

12:38am Fri 6 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

DL1970 wrote:
Boris wrote:
DL1970, it was great to see you and your friend testing the catwalk by walking all the way round it, last Bank Holiday Monday. (Anyone else could have done the same, if they had wanted.)
You found the catwalk and other parts of the building to be structurally sound. The only problem is the last owner's wilful failure to carry out routine maintenance as is required for any listed building. CBC should of course have held him to this, but failed to do so.
Yes, I climbed all over the tower and inspected the inside of the tank. The Urgent Works Notice served by the council seems to have had the desired effect because the building is now weather tight.
Just taken quite a deal of time to read the thread of Jumbo. I genuinely admire the tenacity of the various protagonists... But I can't see the town moving on from this dialogue. also spent some time looking through my old Colchester guide leaflets. Can't find the one concerned yet - but it explained why the main and original rail station was built about one mile from the town centre. Think on guys, do we have any parallels on the the current Jumbo conflict, and why the main station is ridiculously so far from the the town!

Yes, we are totally bogged down against any form
m of development for the wealth of Colchester by certain Colchester
[quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: DL1970, it was great to see you and your friend testing the catwalk by walking all the way round it, last Bank Holiday Monday. (Anyone else could have done the same, if they had wanted.) You found the catwalk and other parts of the building to be structurally sound. The only problem is the last owner's wilful failure to carry out routine maintenance as is required for any listed building. CBC should of course have held him to this, but failed to do so.[/p][/quote]Yes, I climbed all over the tower and inspected the inside of the tank. The Urgent Works Notice served by the council seems to have had the desired effect because the building is now weather tight.[/p][/quote]Just taken quite a deal of time to read the thread of Jumbo. I genuinely admire the tenacity of the various protagonists... But I can't see the town moving on from this dialogue. also spent some time looking through my old Colchester guide leaflets. Can't find the one concerned yet - but it explained why the main and original rail station was built about one mile from the town centre. Think on guys, do we have any parallels on the the current Jumbo conflict, and why the main station is ridiculously so far from the the town! Yes, we are totally bogged down against any form m of development for the wealth of Colchester by certain Colchester Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -6

12:52am Fri 6 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL1970 wrote:
Boris wrote:
DL1970, it was great to see you and your friend testing the catwalk by walking all the way round it, last Bank Holiday Monday. (Anyone else could have done the same, if they had wanted.)
You found the catwalk and other parts of the building to be structurally sound. The only problem is the last owner's wilful failure to carry out routine maintenance as is required for any listed building. CBC should of course have held him to this, but failed to do so.
Yes, I climbed all over the tower and inspected the inside of the tank. The Urgent Works Notice served by the council seems to have had the desired effect because the building is now weather tight.
Just taken quite a deal of time to read the thread of Jumbo. I genuinely admire the tenacity of the various protagonists... But I can't see the town moving on from this dialogue. also spent some time looking through my old Colchester guide leaflets. Can't find the one concerned yet - but it explained why the main and original rail station was built about one mile from the town centre. Think on guys, do we have any parallels on the the current Jumbo conflict, and why the main station is ridiculously so far from the the town!

Yes, we are totally bogged down against any form
m of development for the wealth of Colchester by certain Colchester
Oops again!!! Major problem on the finger front. Was going on to say, it seems endemic locally to dwell on the achievements of the Victorian's, rather than seek the future development of Colchester .

Have to say I'm finding this tread on jumbo now really tedious. It's just going round and round in a circle of bitterness. Would actually really like to walk the top - any chance?
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: DL1970, it was great to see you and your friend testing the catwalk by walking all the way round it, last Bank Holiday Monday. (Anyone else could have done the same, if they had wanted.) You found the catwalk and other parts of the building to be structurally sound. The only problem is the last owner's wilful failure to carry out routine maintenance as is required for any listed building. CBC should of course have held him to this, but failed to do so.[/p][/quote]Yes, I climbed all over the tower and inspected the inside of the tank. The Urgent Works Notice served by the council seems to have had the desired effect because the building is now weather tight.[/p][/quote]Just taken quite a deal of time to read the thread of Jumbo. I genuinely admire the tenacity of the various protagonists... But I can't see the town moving on from this dialogue. also spent some time looking through my old Colchester guide leaflets. Can't find the one concerned yet - but it explained why the main and original rail station was built about one mile from the town centre. Think on guys, do we have any parallels on the the current Jumbo conflict, and why the main station is ridiculously so far from the the town! Yes, we are totally bogged down against any form m of development for the wealth of Colchester by certain Colchester[/p][/quote]Oops again!!! Major problem on the finger front. Was going on to say, it seems endemic locally to dwell on the achievements of the Victorian's, rather than seek the future development of Colchester . Have to say I'm finding this tread on jumbo now really tedious. It's just going round and round in a circle of bitterness. Would actually really like to walk the top - any chance? Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -6

12:52am Fri 6 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL1970 wrote:
Boris wrote:
DL1970, it was great to see you and your friend testing the catwalk by walking all the way round it, last Bank Holiday Monday. (Anyone else could have done the same, if they had wanted.)
You found the catwalk and other parts of the building to be structurally sound. The only problem is the last owner's wilful failure to carry out routine maintenance as is required for any listed building. CBC should of course have held him to this, but failed to do so.
Yes, I climbed all over the tower and inspected the inside of the tank. The Urgent Works Notice served by the council seems to have had the desired effect because the building is now weather tight.
Just taken quite a deal of time to read the thread of Jumbo. I genuinely admire the tenacity of the various protagonists... But I can't see the town moving on from this dialogue. also spent some time looking through my old Colchester guide leaflets. Can't find the one concerned yet - but it explained why the main and original rail station was built about one mile from the town centre. Think on guys, do we have any parallels on the the current Jumbo conflict, and why the main station is ridiculously so far from the the town!

Yes, we are totally bogged down against any form
m of development for the wealth of Colchester by certain Colchester
Oops again!!! Major problem on the finger front. Was going on to say, it seems endemic locally to dwell on the achievements of the Victorian's, rather than seek the future development of Colchester .

Have to say I'm finding this tread on jumbo now really tedious. It's just going round and round in a circle of bitterness. Would actually really like to walk the top - any chance?
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: DL1970, it was great to see you and your friend testing the catwalk by walking all the way round it, last Bank Holiday Monday. (Anyone else could have done the same, if they had wanted.) You found the catwalk and other parts of the building to be structurally sound. The only problem is the last owner's wilful failure to carry out routine maintenance as is required for any listed building. CBC should of course have held him to this, but failed to do so.[/p][/quote]Yes, I climbed all over the tower and inspected the inside of the tank. The Urgent Works Notice served by the council seems to have had the desired effect because the building is now weather tight.[/p][/quote]Just taken quite a deal of time to read the thread of Jumbo. I genuinely admire the tenacity of the various protagonists... But I can't see the town moving on from this dialogue. also spent some time looking through my old Colchester guide leaflets. Can't find the one concerned yet - but it explained why the main and original rail station was built about one mile from the town centre. Think on guys, do we have any parallels on the the current Jumbo conflict, and why the main station is ridiculously so far from the the town! Yes, we are totally bogged down against any form m of development for the wealth of Colchester by certain Colchester[/p][/quote]Oops again!!! Major problem on the finger front. Was going on to say, it seems endemic locally to dwell on the achievements of the Victorian's, rather than seek the future development of Colchester . Have to say I'm finding this tread on jumbo now really tedious. It's just going round and round in a circle of bitterness. Would actually really like to walk the top - any chance? Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -9

2:31am Fri 6 Jun 14

Ourdogtess says...

OK, lets try a new tack. There are at least 6 (actually more) historical towers in Britain which feature spiral stairs to a viewing platform at the top. These are the Monument in London, the Scott Monument in Edinburgh, Hadlow Tower in the Medway Valley, Beckfords Tower near Bath, King Alfreds Tower and the Naze Tower at Walton. ALL these are unaltered externally. ALL are successful visitor attractions with rising visitor numbers. It's all in the BTT business plan which anyone can see at savejumbo.org.uk.

All these towers 'dwell on' their history, of course they do. That's where the interest lies, as with Jumbo. Why anyone should think that the primary interest of Jumbo is its potential for use as flats and offices, defeats and depresses me.
OK, lets try a new tack. There are at least 6 (actually more) historical towers in Britain which feature spiral stairs to a viewing platform at the top. These are the Monument in London, the Scott Monument in Edinburgh, Hadlow Tower in the Medway Valley, Beckfords Tower near Bath, King Alfreds Tower and the Naze Tower at Walton. ALL these are unaltered externally. ALL are successful visitor attractions with rising visitor numbers. It's all in the BTT business plan which anyone can see at savejumbo.org.uk. All these towers 'dwell on' their history, of course they do. That's where the interest lies, as with Jumbo. Why anyone should think that the primary interest of Jumbo is its potential for use as flats and offices, defeats and depresses me. Ourdogtess
  • Score: 8

8:04am Fri 6 Jun 14

DL1970 says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL1970 wrote:
Boris wrote:
DL1970, it was great to see you and your friend testing the catwalk by walking all the way round it, last Bank Holiday Monday. (Anyone else could have done the same, if they had wanted.)
You found the catwalk and other parts of the building to be structurally sound. The only problem is the last owner's wilful failure to carry out routine maintenance as is required for any listed building. CBC should of course have held him to this, but failed to do so.
Yes, I climbed all over the tower and inspected the inside of the tank. The Urgent Works Notice served by the council seems to have had the desired effect because the building is now weather tight.
Just taken quite a deal of time to read the thread of Jumbo. I genuinely admire the tenacity of the various protagonists... But I can't see the town moving on from this dialogue. also spent some time looking through my old Colchester guide leaflets. Can't find the one concerned yet - but it explained why the main and original rail station was built about one mile from the town centre. Think on guys, do we have any parallels on the the current Jumbo conflict, and why the main station is ridiculously so far from the the town!

Yes, we are totally bogged down against any form
m of development for the wealth of Colchester by certain Colchester
Oops again!!! Major problem on the finger front. Was going on to say, it seems endemic locally to dwell on the achievements of the Victorian's, rather than seek the future development of Colchester .

Have to say I'm finding this tread on jumbo now really tedious. It's just going round and round in a circle of bitterness. Would actually really like to walk the top - any chance?
You mention the 'wealth of Colchester'. The only wealth that will be affected is that of a developer. If the scenario I have mentioned above plays out, that only wealth that will benefit will be his, once he has a tower block of private apartments. The people of Colchester will lose. One of their most cherished buildings will be totally defaced and ruined as a result of the 'restaurant and museum' chicanery and they will be left shut out of a building they originally built and paid for forever. Jumbo speaks for itself historically. It doesn't need to converted to an infilled bastardized mass of glass to draw in the crowds. All it needs is some TLC which it has never received from any of the individuals who have owned it over the last 25 years.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: DL1970, it was great to see you and your friend testing the catwalk by walking all the way round it, last Bank Holiday Monday. (Anyone else could have done the same, if they had wanted.) You found the catwalk and other parts of the building to be structurally sound. The only problem is the last owner's wilful failure to carry out routine maintenance as is required for any listed building. CBC should of course have held him to this, but failed to do so.[/p][/quote]Yes, I climbed all over the tower and inspected the inside of the tank. The Urgent Works Notice served by the council seems to have had the desired effect because the building is now weather tight.[/p][/quote]Just taken quite a deal of time to read the thread of Jumbo. I genuinely admire the tenacity of the various protagonists... But I can't see the town moving on from this dialogue. also spent some time looking through my old Colchester guide leaflets. Can't find the one concerned yet - but it explained why the main and original rail station was built about one mile from the town centre. Think on guys, do we have any parallels on the the current Jumbo conflict, and why the main station is ridiculously so far from the the town! Yes, we are totally bogged down against any form m of development for the wealth of Colchester by certain Colchester[/p][/quote]Oops again!!! Major problem on the finger front. Was going on to say, it seems endemic locally to dwell on the achievements of the Victorian's, rather than seek the future development of Colchester . Have to say I'm finding this tread on jumbo now really tedious. It's just going round and round in a circle of bitterness. Would actually really like to walk the top - any chance?[/p][/quote]You mention the 'wealth of Colchester'. The only wealth that will be affected is that of a developer. If the scenario I have mentioned above plays out, that only wealth that will benefit will be his, once he has a tower block of private apartments. The people of Colchester will lose. One of their most cherished buildings will be totally defaced and ruined as a result of the 'restaurant and museum' chicanery and they will be left shut out of a building they originally built and paid for forever. Jumbo speaks for itself historically. It doesn't need to converted to an infilled bastardized mass of glass to draw in the crowds. All it needs is some TLC which it has never received from any of the individuals who have owned it over the last 25 years. DL1970
  • Score: 9

11:28am Fri 6 Jun 14

André says...

Jess Jephcott wrote:
It is worthy of mention that, whilst I and perhaps 100 other people, donated money to the Balkerne Trust in our desire to buy Jumbo for the reasons as detailed in their plea for financial assistance, the vast majority of Colcestrians did not support us. A fiver each from the majority of Colcestrians would have clinched it. As it is, Mr Flatman made the winning bid, and now Jumbo's future is in his hands. Whilst my preference was the Balkerne Trust way, I had no problems with Mr Braithwaite's plans either (subject to planning scrutiny). I am just sick and tired of all the nastiness, envy, prejudice, stubbornness, petty politicking and the decay of a wonderful building. Please, please, can we move forward with the new owner's plans. The Balkerne Trust clearly does not have the support of the people of Colchester, sadly.
The majority of people in Colchester want the town centre revitalised, not bought up by lunatics and left to decay.
[quote][p][bold]Jess Jephcott[/bold] wrote: It is worthy of mention that, whilst I and perhaps 100 other people, donated money to the Balkerne Trust in our desire to buy Jumbo for the reasons as detailed in their plea for financial assistance, the vast majority of Colcestrians did not support us. A fiver each from the majority of Colcestrians would have clinched it. As it is, Mr Flatman made the winning bid, and now Jumbo's future is in his hands. Whilst my preference was the Balkerne Trust way, I had no problems with Mr Braithwaite's plans either (subject to planning scrutiny). I am just sick and tired of all the nastiness, envy, prejudice, stubbornness, petty politicking and the decay of a wonderful building. Please, please, can we move forward with the new owner's plans. The Balkerne Trust clearly does not have the support of the people of Colchester, sadly.[/p][/quote]The majority of people in Colchester want the town centre revitalised, not bought up by lunatics and left to decay. André
  • Score: -9

2:52pm Fri 6 Jun 14

William George says...

Ourdogtess wrote:
OK, lets try a new tack. There are at least 6 (actually more) historical towers in Britain which feature spiral stairs to a viewing platform at the top. These are the Monument in London, the Scott Monument in Edinburgh, Hadlow Tower in the Medway Valley, Beckfords Tower near Bath, King Alfreds Tower and the Naze Tower at Walton. ALL these are unaltered externally. ALL are successful visitor attractions with rising visitor numbers. It's all in the BTT business plan which anyone can see at savejumbo.org.uk.

All these towers 'dwell on' their history, of course they do. That's where the interest lies, as with Jumbo. Why anyone should think that the primary interest of Jumbo is its potential for use as flats and offices, defeats and depresses me.
The new track that you say to try is one to consider. It has good sense in it for what it mentions.
The residents in those Tower regions are proud of those towers they have.
They know they are there for themselves and any tourists that come.

Colchester's Jumbo Water Tower has been badly bought and sold. By long and continued results for neglect for its maintenance. Those bad results are not by our councillors but by our councillors letting that happen.

The Active councillors should give their views to the facts of what is in the comment by ourdogtess in a comment of reply to it by their own comment for us all to see.

The councillors in question have a request from us now to see that reply, and also to show if they have any active in them at all and what is thought of it. So councillors you can show to us that now.
[quote][p][bold]Ourdogtess[/bold] wrote: OK, lets try a new tack. There are at least 6 (actually more) historical towers in Britain which feature spiral stairs to a viewing platform at the top. These are the Monument in London, the Scott Monument in Edinburgh, Hadlow Tower in the Medway Valley, Beckfords Tower near Bath, King Alfreds Tower and the Naze Tower at Walton. ALL these are unaltered externally. ALL are successful visitor attractions with rising visitor numbers. It's all in the BTT business plan which anyone can see at savejumbo.org.uk. All these towers 'dwell on' their history, of course they do. That's where the interest lies, as with Jumbo. Why anyone should think that the primary interest of Jumbo is its potential for use as flats and offices, defeats and depresses me.[/p][/quote]The new track that you say to try is one to consider. It has good sense in it for what it mentions. The residents in those Tower regions are proud of those towers they have. They know they are there for themselves and any tourists that come. Colchester's Jumbo Water Tower has been badly bought and sold. By long and continued results for neglect for its maintenance. Those bad results are not by our councillors but by our councillors letting that happen. The Active councillors should give their views to the facts of what is in the comment by ourdogtess in a comment of reply to it by their own comment for us all to see. The councillors in question have a request from us now to see that reply, and also to show if they have any active in them at all and what is thought of it. So councillors you can show to us that now. William George
  • Score: 7

5:40pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Boris says...

André wrote:
Jess Jephcott wrote:
It is worthy of mention that, whilst I and perhaps 100 other people, donated money to the Balkerne Trust in our desire to buy Jumbo for the reasons as detailed in their plea for financial assistance, the vast majority of Colcestrians did not support us. A fiver each from the majority of Colcestrians would have clinched it. As it is, Mr Flatman made the winning bid, and now Jumbo's future is in his hands. Whilst my preference was the Balkerne Trust way, I had no problems with Mr Braithwaite's plans either (subject to planning scrutiny). I am just sick and tired of all the nastiness, envy, prejudice, stubbornness, petty politicking and the decay of a wonderful building. Please, please, can we move forward with the new owner's plans. The Balkerne Trust clearly does not have the support of the people of Colchester, sadly.
The majority of people in Colchester want the town centre revitalised, not bought up by lunatics and left to decay.
Sadly, Jumbo was bought last week by a lunatic, in your terms, André. We could describe him otherwise, but let's wait and see. We can predict that Mr Flatman will leave Jumbo to continue decayijg while he prepares and submits his unsuccessful planning applications. But perhaps he will do better than that.
.
What is absolutely certain is that the majority of people in Colchester want our precious few listed buildings looked after properly, and not ruined by commercial development.
[quote][p][bold]André[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jess Jephcott[/bold] wrote: It is worthy of mention that, whilst I and perhaps 100 other people, donated money to the Balkerne Trust in our desire to buy Jumbo for the reasons as detailed in their plea for financial assistance, the vast majority of Colcestrians did not support us. A fiver each from the majority of Colcestrians would have clinched it. As it is, Mr Flatman made the winning bid, and now Jumbo's future is in his hands. Whilst my preference was the Balkerne Trust way, I had no problems with Mr Braithwaite's plans either (subject to planning scrutiny). I am just sick and tired of all the nastiness, envy, prejudice, stubbornness, petty politicking and the decay of a wonderful building. Please, please, can we move forward with the new owner's plans. The Balkerne Trust clearly does not have the support of the people of Colchester, sadly.[/p][/quote]The majority of people in Colchester want the town centre revitalised, not bought up by lunatics and left to decay.[/p][/quote]Sadly, Jumbo was bought last week by a lunatic, in your terms, André. We could describe him otherwise, but let's wait and see. We can predict that Mr Flatman will leave Jumbo to continue decayijg while he prepares and submits his unsuccessful planning applications. But perhaps he will do better than that. . What is absolutely certain is that the majority of people in Colchester want our precious few listed buildings looked after properly, and not ruined by commercial development. Boris
  • Score: 8

5:50pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

DL1970 wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL1970 wrote:
Boris wrote:
DL1970, it was great to see you and your friend testing the catwalk by walking all the way round it, last Bank Holiday Monday. (Anyone else could have done the same, if they had wanted.)
You found the catwalk and other parts of the building to be structurally sound. The only problem is the last owner's wilful failure to carry out routine maintenance as is required for any listed building. CBC should of course have held him to this, but failed to do so.
Yes, I climbed all over the tower and inspected the inside of the tank. The Urgent Works Notice served by the council seems to have had the desired effect because the building is now weather tight.
Just taken quite a deal of time to read the thread of Jumbo. I genuinely admire the tenacity of the various protagonists... But I can't see the town moving on from this dialogue. also spent some time looking through my old Colchester guide leaflets. Can't find the one concerned yet - but it explained why the main and original rail station was built about one mile from the town centre. Think on guys, do we have any parallels on the the current Jumbo conflict, and why the main station is ridiculously so far from the the town!

Yes, we are totally bogged down against any form
m of development for the wealth of Colchester by certain Colchester
Oops again!!! Major problem on the finger front. Was going on to say, it seems endemic locally to dwell on the achievements of the Victorian's, rather than seek the future development of Colchester .

Have to say I'm finding this tread on jumbo now really tedious. It's just going round and round in a circle of bitterness. Would actually really like to walk the top - any chance?
You mention the 'wealth of Colchester'. The only wealth that will be affected is that of a developer. If the scenario I have mentioned above plays out, that only wealth that will benefit will be his, once he has a tower block of private apartments. The people of Colchester will lose. One of their most cherished buildings will be totally defaced and ruined as a result of the 'restaurant and museum' chicanery and they will be left shut out of a building they originally built and paid for forever. Jumbo speaks for itself historically. It doesn't need to converted to an infilled bastardized mass of glass to draw in the crowds. All it needs is some TLC which it has never received from any of the individuals who have owned it over the last 25 years.
DL, thanks for the response. By wealth, I mean the intrinsic value of the town as a whole for the people of Colchester. I suppose.......

Have to come back on this - wife's just served the curry!
[quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: DL1970, it was great to see you and your friend testing the catwalk by walking all the way round it, last Bank Holiday Monday. (Anyone else could have done the same, if they had wanted.) You found the catwalk and other parts of the building to be structurally sound. The only problem is the last owner's wilful failure to carry out routine maintenance as is required for any listed building. CBC should of course have held him to this, but failed to do so.[/p][/quote]Yes, I climbed all over the tower and inspected the inside of the tank. The Urgent Works Notice served by the council seems to have had the desired effect because the building is now weather tight.[/p][/quote]Just taken quite a deal of time to read the thread of Jumbo. I genuinely admire the tenacity of the various protagonists... But I can't see the town moving on from this dialogue. also spent some time looking through my old Colchester guide leaflets. Can't find the one concerned yet - but it explained why the main and original rail station was built about one mile from the town centre. Think on guys, do we have any parallels on the the current Jumbo conflict, and why the main station is ridiculously so far from the the town! Yes, we are totally bogged down against any form m of development for the wealth of Colchester by certain Colchester[/p][/quote]Oops again!!! Major problem on the finger front. Was going on to say, it seems endemic locally to dwell on the achievements of the Victorian's, rather than seek the future development of Colchester . Have to say I'm finding this tread on jumbo now really tedious. It's just going round and round in a circle of bitterness. Would actually really like to walk the top - any chance?[/p][/quote]You mention the 'wealth of Colchester'. The only wealth that will be affected is that of a developer. If the scenario I have mentioned above plays out, that only wealth that will benefit will be his, once he has a tower block of private apartments. The people of Colchester will lose. One of their most cherished buildings will be totally defaced and ruined as a result of the 'restaurant and museum' chicanery and they will be left shut out of a building they originally built and paid for forever. Jumbo speaks for itself historically. It doesn't need to converted to an infilled bastardized mass of glass to draw in the crowds. All it needs is some TLC which it has never received from any of the individuals who have owned it over the last 25 years.[/p][/quote]DL, thanks for the response. By wealth, I mean the intrinsic value of the town as a whole for the people of Colchester. I suppose....... Have to come back on this - wife's just served the curry! Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -6

7:11pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL1970 wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL1970 wrote:
Boris wrote:
DL1970, it was great to see you and your friend testing the catwalk by walking all the way round it, last Bank Holiday Monday. (Anyone else could have done the same, if they had wanted.)
You found the catwalk and other parts of the building to be structurally sound. The only problem is the last owner's wilful failure to carry out routine maintenance as is required for any listed building. CBC should of course have held him to this, but failed to do so.
Yes, I climbed all over the tower and inspected the inside of the tank. The Urgent Works Notice served by the council seems to have had the desired effect because the building is now weather tight.
Just taken quite a deal of time to read the thread of Jumbo. I genuinely admire the tenacity of the various protagonists... But I can't see the town moving on from this dialogue. also spent some time looking through my old Colchester guide leaflets. Can't find the one concerned yet - but it explained why the main and original rail station was built about one mile from the town centre. Think on guys, do we have any parallels on the the current Jumbo conflict, and why the main station is ridiculously so far from the the town!

Yes, we are totally bogged down against any form
m of development for the wealth of Colchester by certain Colchester
Oops again!!! Major problem on the finger front. Was going on to say, it seems endemic locally to dwell on the achievements of the Victorian's, rather than seek the future development of Colchester .

Have to say I'm finding this tread on jumbo now really tedious. It's just going round and round in a circle of bitterness. Would actually really like to walk the top - any chance?
You mention the 'wealth of Colchester'. The only wealth that will be affected is that of a developer. If the scenario I have mentioned above plays out, that only wealth that will benefit will be his, once he has a tower block of private apartments. The people of Colchester will lose. One of their most cherished buildings will be totally defaced and ruined as a result of the 'restaurant and museum' chicanery and they will be left shut out of a building they originally built and paid for forever. Jumbo speaks for itself historically. It doesn't need to converted to an infilled bastardized mass of glass to draw in the crowds. All it needs is some TLC which it has never received from any of the individuals who have owned it over the last 25 years.
DL, thanks for the response. By wealth, I mean the intrinsic value of the town as a whole for the people of Colchester. I suppose.......

Have to come back on this - wife's just served the curry!
DL, sorry about that, great curry. I was going on to try explain what I mean by wealth for the whole people of the town. If we got the access right, sought and encouraged investment in joined up quality developments -retail/arts/sport/h
istory/leisure/water sports, marinas etc etc, we would have a positive thriving town. And, not the shameful mess of bars and not quite working dislocated projects. We know it can't be financed by Colchester, so we have to do what other towns have very successfully. That is engage with asset management company's for long term quality development with some smaller entrepreneurs who see the potential in allowing old water towers to evolve and become really practically useful again.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: DL1970, it was great to see you and your friend testing the catwalk by walking all the way round it, last Bank Holiday Monday. (Anyone else could have done the same, if they had wanted.) You found the catwalk and other parts of the building to be structurally sound. The only problem is the last owner's wilful failure to carry out routine maintenance as is required for any listed building. CBC should of course have held him to this, but failed to do so.[/p][/quote]Yes, I climbed all over the tower and inspected the inside of the tank. The Urgent Works Notice served by the council seems to have had the desired effect because the building is now weather tight.[/p][/quote]Just taken quite a deal of time to read the thread of Jumbo. I genuinely admire the tenacity of the various protagonists... But I can't see the town moving on from this dialogue. also spent some time looking through my old Colchester guide leaflets. Can't find the one concerned yet - but it explained why the main and original rail station was built about one mile from the town centre. Think on guys, do we have any parallels on the the current Jumbo conflict, and why the main station is ridiculously so far from the the town! Yes, we are totally bogged down against any form m of development for the wealth of Colchester by certain Colchester[/p][/quote]Oops again!!! Major problem on the finger front. Was going on to say, it seems endemic locally to dwell on the achievements of the Victorian's, rather than seek the future development of Colchester . Have to say I'm finding this tread on jumbo now really tedious. It's just going round and round in a circle of bitterness. Would actually really like to walk the top - any chance?[/p][/quote]You mention the 'wealth of Colchester'. The only wealth that will be affected is that of a developer. If the scenario I have mentioned above plays out, that only wealth that will benefit will be his, once he has a tower block of private apartments. The people of Colchester will lose. One of their most cherished buildings will be totally defaced and ruined as a result of the 'restaurant and museum' chicanery and they will be left shut out of a building they originally built and paid for forever. Jumbo speaks for itself historically. It doesn't need to converted to an infilled bastardized mass of glass to draw in the crowds. All it needs is some TLC which it has never received from any of the individuals who have owned it over the last 25 years.[/p][/quote]DL, thanks for the response. By wealth, I mean the intrinsic value of the town as a whole for the people of Colchester. I suppose....... Have to come back on this - wife's just served the curry![/p][/quote]DL, sorry about that, great curry. I was going on to try explain what I mean by wealth for the whole people of the town. If we got the access right, sought and encouraged investment in joined up quality developments -retail/arts/sport/h istory/leisure/water sports, marinas etc etc, we would have a positive thriving town. And, not the shameful mess of bars and not quite working dislocated projects. We know it can't be financed by Colchester, so we have to do what other towns have very successfully. That is engage with asset management company's for long term quality development with some smaller entrepreneurs who see the potential in allowing old water towers to evolve and become really practically useful again. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -8

8:39pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Boris says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL1970 wrote:
Boris wrote:
DL1970, it was great to see you and your friend testing the catwalk by walking all the way round it, last Bank Holiday Monday. (Anyone else could have done the same, if they had wanted.)
You found the catwalk and other parts of the building to be structurally sound. The only problem is the last owner's wilful failure to carry out routine maintenance as is required for any listed building. CBC should of course have held him to this, but failed to do so.
Yes, I climbed all over the tower and inspected the inside of the tank. The Urgent Works Notice served by the council seems to have had the desired effect because the building is now weather tight.
Just taken quite a deal of time to read the thread of Jumbo. I genuinely admire the tenacity of the various protagonists... But I can't see the town moving on from this dialogue. also spent some time looking through my old Colchester guide leaflets. Can't find the one concerned yet - but it explained why the main and original rail station was built about one mile from the town centre. Think on guys, do we have any parallels on the the current Jumbo conflict, and why the main station is ridiculously so far from the the town!

Yes, we are totally bogged down against any form
m of development for the wealth of Colchester by certain Colchester
Oops again!!! Major problem on the finger front. Was going on to say, it seems endemic locally to dwell on the achievements of the Victorian's, rather than seek the future development of Colchester .

Have to say I'm finding this tread on jumbo now really tedious. It's just going round and round in a circle of bitterness. Would actually really like to walk the top - any chance?
Angry, you say "I'm finding this tread (sic) on jumbo now really tedious. It's just going round and round in a circle of bitterness." That is a bit rich, coming from someone who has burdened us with ,more than a third of all posts oj the topic. It is you who are the main culprit. But I don't see where you find bitterness, there doesn't seem to be a lot of that. You are not bitter, you are just obsessed with your own personal view of what should happen in Colchester. Just try to imagine that, now and again, on some subjects,.others may have better ideas than you.
.
You also say "Would actually really like to walk the top - any chance?". You could have gone up there on any of the three Monday mornings preceding the auction: 12th, 19th, and 26th May. I went up, DL1970 went up, and so did several others. If Balkerne Tower Trust succeeds in buying it in the future, you will be able to go up as often as you like. Your best chance now is to call up Mr Flatman, tell him you are a fan of his, and see if he will invite you up.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: DL1970, it was great to see you and your friend testing the catwalk by walking all the way round it, last Bank Holiday Monday. (Anyone else could have done the same, if they had wanted.) You found the catwalk and other parts of the building to be structurally sound. The only problem is the last owner's wilful failure to carry out routine maintenance as is required for any listed building. CBC should of course have held him to this, but failed to do so.[/p][/quote]Yes, I climbed all over the tower and inspected the inside of the tank. The Urgent Works Notice served by the council seems to have had the desired effect because the building is now weather tight.[/p][/quote]Just taken quite a deal of time to read the thread of Jumbo. I genuinely admire the tenacity of the various protagonists... But I can't see the town moving on from this dialogue. also spent some time looking through my old Colchester guide leaflets. Can't find the one concerned yet - but it explained why the main and original rail station was built about one mile from the town centre. Think on guys, do we have any parallels on the the current Jumbo conflict, and why the main station is ridiculously so far from the the town! Yes, we are totally bogged down against any form m of development for the wealth of Colchester by certain Colchester[/p][/quote]Oops again!!! Major problem on the finger front. Was going on to say, it seems endemic locally to dwell on the achievements of the Victorian's, rather than seek the future development of Colchester . Have to say I'm finding this tread on jumbo now really tedious. It's just going round and round in a circle of bitterness. Would actually really like to walk the top - any chance?[/p][/quote]Angry, you say "I'm finding this tread (sic) on jumbo now really tedious. It's just going round and round in a circle of bitterness." That is a bit rich, coming from someone who has burdened us with ,more than a third of all posts oj the topic. It is you who are the main culprit. But I don't see where you find bitterness, there doesn't seem to be a lot of that. You are not bitter, you are just obsessed with your own personal view of what should happen in Colchester. Just try to imagine that, now and again, on some subjects,.others may have better ideas than you. . You also say "Would actually really like to walk the top - any chance?". You could have gone up there on any of the three Monday mornings preceding the auction: 12th, 19th, and 26th May. I went up, DL1970 went up, and so did several others. If Balkerne Tower Trust succeeds in buying it in the future, you will be able to go up as often as you like. Your best chance now is to call up Mr Flatman, tell him you are a fan of his, and see if he will invite you up. Boris
  • Score: 8

12:19am Sat 7 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Boris wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL1970 wrote:
Boris wrote:
DL1970, it was great to see you and your friend testing the catwalk by walking all the way round it, last Bank Holiday Monday. (Anyone else could have done the same, if they had wanted.)
You found the catwalk and other parts of the building to be structurally sound. The only problem is the last owner's wilful failure to carry out routine maintenance as is required for any listed building. CBC should of course have held him to this, but failed to do so.
Yes, I climbed all over the tower and inspected the inside of the tank. The Urgent Works Notice served by the council seems to have had the desired effect because the building is now weather tight.
Just taken quite a deal of time to read the thread of Jumbo. I genuinely admire the tenacity of the various protagonists... But I can't see the town moving on from this dialogue. also spent some time looking through my old Colchester guide leaflets. Can't find the one concerned yet - but it explained why the main and original rail station was built about one mile from the town centre. Think on guys, do we have any parallels on the the current Jumbo conflict, and why the main station is ridiculously so far from the the town!

Yes, we are totally bogged down against any form
m of development for the wealth of Colchester by certain Colchester
Oops again!!! Major problem on the finger front. Was going on to say, it seems endemic locally to dwell on the achievements of the Victorian's, rather than seek the future development of Colchester .

Have to say I'm finding this tread on jumbo now really tedious. It's just going round and round in a circle of bitterness. Would actually really like to walk the top - any chance?
Angry, you say "I'm finding this tread (sic) on jumbo now really tedious. It's just going round and round in a circle of bitterness." That is a bit rich, coming from someone who has burdened us with ,more than a third of all posts oj the topic. It is you who are the main culprit. But I don't see where you find bitterness, there doesn't seem to be a lot of that. You are not bitter, you are just obsessed with your own personal view of what should happen in Colchester. Just try to imagine that, now and again, on some subjects,.others may have better ideas than you.
.
You also say "Would actually really like to walk the top - any chance?". You could have gone up there on any of the three Monday mornings preceding the auction: 12th, 19th, and 26th May. I went up, DL1970 went up, and so did several others. If Balkerne Tower Trust succeeds in buying it in the future, you will be able to go up as often as you like. Your best chance now is to call up Mr Flatman, tell him you are a fan of his, and see if he will invite you up.
As you have, and I have said, it's my personal opinion, that's all. If you don't agree that is fine by me. Mind was just an honest contribution of my actual business experience in the matter if how old towns similar to ours can develop. I do find it difficult to understand why our town fathers continue to avoid the open arms of opportunity. Colchester has and will continue to suffer because we can't get our act together. Please take time to consider.
[quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: DL1970, it was great to see you and your friend testing the catwalk by walking all the way round it, last Bank Holiday Monday. (Anyone else could have done the same, if they had wanted.) You found the catwalk and other parts of the building to be structurally sound. The only problem is the last owner's wilful failure to carry out routine maintenance as is required for any listed building. CBC should of course have held him to this, but failed to do so.[/p][/quote]Yes, I climbed all over the tower and inspected the inside of the tank. The Urgent Works Notice served by the council seems to have had the desired effect because the building is now weather tight.[/p][/quote]Just taken quite a deal of time to read the thread of Jumbo. I genuinely admire the tenacity of the various protagonists... But I can't see the town moving on from this dialogue. also spent some time looking through my old Colchester guide leaflets. Can't find the one concerned yet - but it explained why the main and original rail station was built about one mile from the town centre. Think on guys, do we have any parallels on the the current Jumbo conflict, and why the main station is ridiculously so far from the the town! Yes, we are totally bogged down against any form m of development for the wealth of Colchester by certain Colchester[/p][/quote]Oops again!!! Major problem on the finger front. Was going on to say, it seems endemic locally to dwell on the achievements of the Victorian's, rather than seek the future development of Colchester . Have to say I'm finding this tread on jumbo now really tedious. It's just going round and round in a circle of bitterness. Would actually really like to walk the top - any chance?[/p][/quote]Angry, you say "I'm finding this tread (sic) on jumbo now really tedious. It's just going round and round in a circle of bitterness." That is a bit rich, coming from someone who has burdened us with ,more than a third of all posts oj the topic. It is you who are the main culprit. But I don't see where you find bitterness, there doesn't seem to be a lot of that. You are not bitter, you are just obsessed with your own personal view of what should happen in Colchester. Just try to imagine that, now and again, on some subjects,.others may have better ideas than you. . You also say "Would actually really like to walk the top - any chance?". You could have gone up there on any of the three Monday mornings preceding the auction: 12th, 19th, and 26th May. I went up, DL1970 went up, and so did several others. If Balkerne Tower Trust succeeds in buying it in the future, you will be able to go up as often as you like. Your best chance now is to call up Mr Flatman, tell him you are a fan of his, and see if he will invite you up.[/p][/quote]As you have, and I have said, it's my personal opinion, that's all. If you don't agree that is fine by me. Mind was just an honest contribution of my actual business experience in the matter if how old towns similar to ours can develop. I do find it difficult to understand why our town fathers continue to avoid the open arms of opportunity. Colchester has and will continue to suffer because we can't get our act together. Please take time to consider. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -6

12:28am Sat 7 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
Boris wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL1970 wrote:
Boris wrote:
DL1970, it was great to see you and your friend testing the catwalk by walking all the way round it, last Bank Holiday Monday. (Anyone else could have done the same, if they had wanted.)
You found the catwalk and other parts of the building to be structurally sound. The only problem is the last owner's wilful failure to carry out routine maintenance as is required for any listed building. CBC should of course have held him to this, but failed to do so.
Yes, I climbed all over the tower and inspected the inside of the tank. The Urgent Works Notice served by the council seems to have had the desired effect because the building is now weather tight.
Just taken quite a deal of time to read the thread of Jumbo. I genuinely admire the tenacity of the various protagonists... But I can't see the town moving on from this dialogue. also spent some time looking through my old Colchester guide leaflets. Can't find the one concerned yet - but it explained why the main and original rail station was built about one mile from the town centre. Think on guys, do we have any parallels on the the current Jumbo conflict, and why the main station is ridiculously so far from the the town!

Yes, we are totally bogged down against any form
m of development for the wealth of Colchester by certain Colchester
Oops again!!! Major problem on the finger front. Was going on to say, it seems endemic locally to dwell on the achievements of the Victorian's, rather than seek the future development of Colchester .

Have to say I'm finding this tread on jumbo now really tedious. It's just going round and round in a circle of bitterness. Would actually really like to walk the top - any chance?
Angry, you say "I'm finding this tread (sic) on jumbo now really tedious. It's just going round and round in a circle of bitterness." That is a bit rich, coming from someone who has burdened us with ,more than a third of all posts oj the topic. It is you who are the main culprit. But I don't see where you find bitterness, there doesn't seem to be a lot of that. You are not bitter, you are just obsessed with your own personal view of what should happen in Colchester. Just try to imagine that, now and again, on some subjects,.others may have better ideas than you.
.
You also say "Would actually really like to walk the top - any chance?". You could have gone up there on any of the three Monday mornings preceding the auction: 12th, 19th, and 26th May. I went up, DL1970 went up, and so did several others. If Balkerne Tower Trust succeeds in buying it in the future, you will be able to go up as often as you like. Your best chance now is to call up Mr Flatman, tell him you are a fan of his, and see if he will invite you up.
As you have, and I have said, it's my personal opinion, that's all. If you don't agree that is fine by me. Mind was just an honest contribution of my actual business experience in the matter if how old towns similar to ours can develop. I do find it difficult to understand why our town fathers continue to avoid the open arms of opportunity. Colchester has and will continue to suffer because we can't get our act together. Please take time to consider.
One other point, how is that I, a complete nerd when it comes to steam and anything to do with industrial development, was not aware that I could access the dizzy height of Jumbo! I am not by nature judgemental but you guys failed to communicate.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: DL1970, it was great to see you and your friend testing the catwalk by walking all the way round it, last Bank Holiday Monday. (Anyone else could have done the same, if they had wanted.) You found the catwalk and other parts of the building to be structurally sound. The only problem is the last owner's wilful failure to carry out routine maintenance as is required for any listed building. CBC should of course have held him to this, but failed to do so.[/p][/quote]Yes, I climbed all over the tower and inspected the inside of the tank. The Urgent Works Notice served by the council seems to have had the desired effect because the building is now weather tight.[/p][/quote]Just taken quite a deal of time to read the thread of Jumbo. I genuinely admire the tenacity of the various protagonists... But I can't see the town moving on from this dialogue. also spent some time looking through my old Colchester guide leaflets. Can't find the one concerned yet - but it explained why the main and original rail station was built about one mile from the town centre. Think on guys, do we have any parallels on the the current Jumbo conflict, and why the main station is ridiculously so far from the the town! Yes, we are totally bogged down against any form m of development for the wealth of Colchester by certain Colchester[/p][/quote]Oops again!!! Major problem on the finger front. Was going on to say, it seems endemic locally to dwell on the achievements of the Victorian's, rather than seek the future development of Colchester . Have to say I'm finding this tread on jumbo now really tedious. It's just going round and round in a circle of bitterness. Would actually really like to walk the top - any chance?[/p][/quote]Angry, you say "I'm finding this tread (sic) on jumbo now really tedious. It's just going round and round in a circle of bitterness." That is a bit rich, coming from someone who has burdened us with ,more than a third of all posts oj the topic. It is you who are the main culprit. But I don't see where you find bitterness, there doesn't seem to be a lot of that. You are not bitter, you are just obsessed with your own personal view of what should happen in Colchester. Just try to imagine that, now and again, on some subjects,.others may have better ideas than you. . You also say "Would actually really like to walk the top - any chance?". You could have gone up there on any of the three Monday mornings preceding the auction: 12th, 19th, and 26th May. I went up, DL1970 went up, and so did several others. If Balkerne Tower Trust succeeds in buying it in the future, you will be able to go up as often as you like. Your best chance now is to call up Mr Flatman, tell him you are a fan of his, and see if he will invite you up.[/p][/quote]As you have, and I have said, it's my personal opinion, that's all. If you don't agree that is fine by me. Mind was just an honest contribution of my actual business experience in the matter if how old towns similar to ours can develop. I do find it difficult to understand why our town fathers continue to avoid the open arms of opportunity. Colchester has and will continue to suffer because we can't get our act together. Please take time to consider.[/p][/quote]One other point, how is that I, a complete nerd when it comes to steam and anything to do with industrial development, was not aware that I could access the dizzy height of Jumbo! I am not by nature judgemental but you guys failed to communicate. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -5

12:56am Sat 7 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
Boris wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL1970 wrote:
Boris wrote:
DL1970, it was great to see you and your friend testing the catwalk by walking all the way round it, last Bank Holiday Monday. (Anyone else could have done the same, if they had wanted.)
You found the catwalk and other parts of the building to be structurally sound. The only problem is the last owner's wilful failure to carry out routine maintenance as is required for any listed building. CBC should of course have held him to this, but failed to do so.
Yes, I climbed all over the tower and inspected the inside of the tank. The Urgent Works Notice served by the council seems to have had the desired effect because the building is now weather tight.
Just taken quite a deal of time to read the thread of Jumbo. I genuinely admire the tenacity of the various protagonists... But I can't see the town moving on from this dialogue. also spent some time looking through my old Colchester guide leaflets. Can't find the one concerned yet - but it explained why the main and original rail station was built about one mile from the town centre. Think on guys, do we have any parallels on the the current Jumbo conflict, and why the main station is ridiculously so far from the the town!

Yes, we are totally bogged down against any form
m of development for the wealth of Colchester by certain Colchester
Oops again!!! Major problem on the finger front. Was going on to say, it seems endemic locally to dwell on the achievements of the Victorian's, rather than seek the future development of Colchester .

Have to say I'm finding this tread on jumbo now really tedious. It's just going round and round in a circle of bitterness. Would actually really like to walk the top - any chance?
Angry, you say "I'm finding this tread (sic) on jumbo now really tedious. It's just going round and round in a circle of bitterness." That is a bit rich, coming from someone who has burdened us with ,more than a third of all posts oj the topic. It is you who are the main culprit. But I don't see where you find bitterness, there doesn't seem to be a lot of that. You are not bitter, you are just obsessed with your own personal view of what should happen in Colchester. Just try to imagine that, now and again, on some subjects,.others may have better ideas than you.
.
You also say "Would actually really like to walk the top - any chance?". You could have gone up there on any of the three Monday mornings preceding the auction: 12th, 19th, and 26th May. I went up, DL1970 went up, and so did several others. If Balkerne Tower Trust succeeds in buying it in the future, you will be able to go up as often as you like. Your best chance now is to call up Mr Flatman, tell him you are a fan of his, and see if he will invite you up.
As you have, and I have said, it's my personal opinion, that's all. If you don't agree that is fine by me. Mind was just an honest contribution of my actual business experience in the matter if how old towns similar to ours can develop. I do find it difficult to understand why our town fathers continue to avoid the open arms of opportunity. Colchester has and will continue to suffer because we can't get our act together. Please take time to consider.
One other point, how is that I, a complete nerd when it comes to steam and anything to do with industrial development, was not aware that I could access the dizzy height of Jumbo! I am not by nature judgemental but you guys failed to communicate.
And, and! You complain about my input on this important matter for our town - it's because I care about Colchester and believe genuinely we have to take a different approach. I have to move on - I hope Colchester gets the chance to.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: DL1970, it was great to see you and your friend testing the catwalk by walking all the way round it, last Bank Holiday Monday. (Anyone else could have done the same, if they had wanted.) You found the catwalk and other parts of the building to be structurally sound. The only problem is the last owner's wilful failure to carry out routine maintenance as is required for any listed building. CBC should of course have held him to this, but failed to do so.[/p][/quote]Yes, I climbed all over the tower and inspected the inside of the tank. The Urgent Works Notice served by the council seems to have had the desired effect because the building is now weather tight.[/p][/quote]Just taken quite a deal of time to read the thread of Jumbo. I genuinely admire the tenacity of the various protagonists... But I can't see the town moving on from this dialogue. also spent some time looking through my old Colchester guide leaflets. Can't find the one concerned yet - but it explained why the main and original rail station was built about one mile from the town centre. Think on guys, do we have any parallels on the the current Jumbo conflict, and why the main station is ridiculously so far from the the town! Yes, we are totally bogged down against any form m of development for the wealth of Colchester by certain Colchester[/p][/quote]Oops again!!! Major problem on the finger front. Was going on to say, it seems endemic locally to dwell on the achievements of the Victorian's, rather than seek the future development of Colchester . Have to say I'm finding this tread on jumbo now really tedious. It's just going round and round in a circle of bitterness. Would actually really like to walk the top - any chance?[/p][/quote]Angry, you say "I'm finding this tread (sic) on jumbo now really tedious. It's just going round and round in a circle of bitterness." That is a bit rich, coming from someone who has burdened us with ,more than a third of all posts oj the topic. It is you who are the main culprit. But I don't see where you find bitterness, there doesn't seem to be a lot of that. You are not bitter, you are just obsessed with your own personal view of what should happen in Colchester. Just try to imagine that, now and again, on some subjects,.others may have better ideas than you. . You also say "Would actually really like to walk the top - any chance?". You could have gone up there on any of the three Monday mornings preceding the auction: 12th, 19th, and 26th May. I went up, DL1970 went up, and so did several others. If Balkerne Tower Trust succeeds in buying it in the future, you will be able to go up as often as you like. Your best chance now is to call up Mr Flatman, tell him you are a fan of his, and see if he will invite you up.[/p][/quote]As you have, and I have said, it's my personal opinion, that's all. If you don't agree that is fine by me. Mind was just an honest contribution of my actual business experience in the matter if how old towns similar to ours can develop. I do find it difficult to understand why our town fathers continue to avoid the open arms of opportunity. Colchester has and will continue to suffer because we can't get our act together. Please take time to consider.[/p][/quote]One other point, how is that I, a complete nerd when it comes to steam and anything to do with industrial development, was not aware that I could access the dizzy height of Jumbo! I am not by nature judgemental but you guys failed to communicate.[/p][/quote]And, and! You complain about my input on this important matter for our town - it's because I care about Colchester and believe genuinely we have to take a different approach. I have to move on - I hope Colchester gets the chance to. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -4

5:03am Sat 7 Jun 14

DL1970 says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
Boris wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL1970 wrote:
Boris wrote:
DL1970, it was great to see you and your friend testing the catwalk by walking all the way round it, last Bank Holiday Monday. (Anyone else could have done the same, if they had wanted.)
You found the catwalk and other parts of the building to be structurally sound. The only problem is the last owner's wilful failure to carry out routine maintenance as is required for any listed building. CBC should of course have held him to this, but failed to do so.
Yes, I climbed all over the tower and inspected the inside of the tank. The Urgent Works Notice served by the council seems to have had the desired effect because the building is now weather tight.
Just taken quite a deal of time to read the thread of Jumbo. I genuinely admire the tenacity of the various protagonists... But I can't see the town moving on from this dialogue. also spent some time looking through my old Colchester guide leaflets. Can't find the one concerned yet - but it explained why the main and original rail station was built about one mile from the town centre. Think on guys, do we have any parallels on the the current Jumbo conflict, and why the main station is ridiculously so far from the the town!

Yes, we are totally bogged down against any form
m of development for the wealth of Colchester by certain Colchester
Oops again!!! Major problem on the finger front. Was going on to say, it seems endemic locally to dwell on the achievements of the Victorian's, rather than seek the future development of Colchester .

Have to say I'm finding this tread on jumbo now really tedious. It's just going round and round in a circle of bitterness. Would actually really like to walk the top - any chance?
Angry, you say "I'm finding this tread (sic) on jumbo now really tedious. It's just going round and round in a circle of bitterness." That is a bit rich, coming from someone who has burdened us with ,more than a third of all posts oj the topic. It is you who are the main culprit. But I don't see where you find bitterness, there doesn't seem to be a lot of that. You are not bitter, you are just obsessed with your own personal view of what should happen in Colchester. Just try to imagine that, now and again, on some subjects,.others may have better ideas than you.
.
You also say "Would actually really like to walk the top - any chance?". You could have gone up there on any of the three Monday mornings preceding the auction: 12th, 19th, and 26th May. I went up, DL1970 went up, and so did several others. If Balkerne Tower Trust succeeds in buying it in the future, you will be able to go up as often as you like. Your best chance now is to call up Mr Flatman, tell him you are a fan of his, and see if he will invite you up.
As you have, and I have said, it's my personal opinion, that's all. If you don't agree that is fine by me. Mind was just an honest contribution of my actual business experience in the matter if how old towns similar to ours can develop. I do find it difficult to understand why our town fathers continue to avoid the open arms of opportunity. Colchester has and will continue to suffer because we can't get our act together. Please take time to consider.
One other point, how is that I, a complete nerd when it comes to steam and anything to do with industrial development, was not aware that I could access the dizzy height of Jumbo! I am not by nature judgemental but you guys failed to communicate.
Failed to communticate? In what way? Was it our job to tell the everyone that Allsops auctioneers were opening Jumbo for viewers to come and take a look every Monday before the auction? No it wasn't. We did our homework, as we always do, that's how we operate. Why should Colchester have to 'move forward'? One of the good things about this town, aside from the creeping housing development, is the fact that it has kept some of its old historic character and some of its historic buildings remain intact and unspoiled by development. If we keep 'moving forward' we'll just become another featureless modernist town like Harlow or Basildon.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: DL1970, it was great to see you and your friend testing the catwalk by walking all the way round it, last Bank Holiday Monday. (Anyone else could have done the same, if they had wanted.) You found the catwalk and other parts of the building to be structurally sound. The only problem is the last owner's wilful failure to carry out routine maintenance as is required for any listed building. CBC should of course have held him to this, but failed to do so.[/p][/quote]Yes, I climbed all over the tower and inspected the inside of the tank. The Urgent Works Notice served by the council seems to have had the desired effect because the building is now weather tight.[/p][/quote]Just taken quite a deal of time to read the thread of Jumbo. I genuinely admire the tenacity of the various protagonists... But I can't see the town moving on from this dialogue. also spent some time looking through my old Colchester guide leaflets. Can't find the one concerned yet - but it explained why the main and original rail station was built about one mile from the town centre. Think on guys, do we have any parallels on the the current Jumbo conflict, and why the main station is ridiculously so far from the the town! Yes, we are totally bogged down against any form m of development for the wealth of Colchester by certain Colchester[/p][/quote]Oops again!!! Major problem on the finger front. Was going on to say, it seems endemic locally to dwell on the achievements of the Victorian's, rather than seek the future development of Colchester . Have to say I'm finding this tread on jumbo now really tedious. It's just going round and round in a circle of bitterness. Would actually really like to walk the top - any chance?[/p][/quote]Angry, you say "I'm finding this tread (sic) on jumbo now really tedious. It's just going round and round in a circle of bitterness." That is a bit rich, coming from someone who has burdened us with ,more than a third of all posts oj the topic. It is you who are the main culprit. But I don't see where you find bitterness, there doesn't seem to be a lot of that. You are not bitter, you are just obsessed with your own personal view of what should happen in Colchester. Just try to imagine that, now and again, on some subjects,.others may have better ideas than you. . You also say "Would actually really like to walk the top - any chance?". You could have gone up there on any of the three Monday mornings preceding the auction: 12th, 19th, and 26th May. I went up, DL1970 went up, and so did several others. If Balkerne Tower Trust succeeds in buying it in the future, you will be able to go up as often as you like. Your best chance now is to call up Mr Flatman, tell him you are a fan of his, and see if he will invite you up.[/p][/quote]As you have, and I have said, it's my personal opinion, that's all. If you don't agree that is fine by me. Mind was just an honest contribution of my actual business experience in the matter if how old towns similar to ours can develop. I do find it difficult to understand why our town fathers continue to avoid the open arms of opportunity. Colchester has and will continue to suffer because we can't get our act together. Please take time to consider.[/p][/quote]One other point, how is that I, a complete nerd when it comes to steam and anything to do with industrial development, was not aware that I could access the dizzy height of Jumbo! I am not by nature judgemental but you guys failed to communicate.[/p][/quote]Failed to communticate? In what way? Was it our job to tell the everyone that Allsops auctioneers were opening Jumbo for viewers to come and take a look every Monday before the auction? No it wasn't. We did our homework, as we always do, that's how we operate. Why should Colchester have to 'move forward'? One of the good things about this town, aside from the creeping housing development, is the fact that it has kept some of its old historic character and some of its historic buildings remain intact and unspoiled by development. If we keep 'moving forward' we'll just become another featureless modernist town like Harlow or Basildon. DL1970
  • Score: 9

10:41am Sat 7 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

DL1970 wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
Boris wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL1970 wrote:
Boris wrote:
DL1970, it was great to see you and your friend testing the catwalk by walking all the way round it, last Bank Holiday Monday. (Anyone else could have done the same, if they had wanted.)
You found the catwalk and other parts of the building to be structurally sound. The only problem is the last owner's wilful failure to carry out routine maintenance as is required for any listed building. CBC should of course have held him to this, but failed to do so.
Yes, I climbed all over the tower and inspected the inside of the tank. The Urgent Works Notice served by the council seems to have had the desired effect because the building is now weather tight.
Just taken quite a deal of time to read the thread of Jumbo. I genuinely admire the tenacity of the various protagonists... But I can't see the town moving on from this dialogue. also spent some time looking through my old Colchester guide leaflets. Can't find the one concerned yet - but it explained why the main and original rail station was built about one mile from the town centre. Think on guys, do we have any parallels on the the current Jumbo conflict, and why the main station is ridiculously so far from the the town!

Yes, we are totally bogged down against any form
m of development for the wealth of Colchester by certain Colchester
Oops again!!! Major problem on the finger front. Was going on to say, it seems endemic locally to dwell on the achievements of the Victorian's, rather than seek the future development of Colchester .

Have to say I'm finding this tread on jumbo now really tedious. It's just going round and round in a circle of bitterness. Would actually really like to walk the top - any chance?
Angry, you say "I'm finding this tread (sic) on jumbo now really tedious. It's just going round and round in a circle of bitterness." That is a bit rich, coming from someone who has burdened us with ,more than a third of all posts oj the topic. It is you who are the main culprit. But I don't see where you find bitterness, there doesn't seem to be a lot of that. You are not bitter, you are just obsessed with your own personal view of what should happen in Colchester. Just try to imagine that, now and again, on some subjects,.others may have better ideas than you.
.
You also say "Would actually really like to walk the top - any chance?". You could have gone up there on any of the three Monday mornings preceding the auction: 12th, 19th, and 26th May. I went up, DL1970 went up, and so did several others. If Balkerne Tower Trust succeeds in buying it in the future, you will be able to go up as often as you like. Your best chance now is to call up Mr Flatman, tell him you are a fan of his, and see if he will invite you up.
As you have, and I have said, it's my personal opinion, that's all. If you don't agree that is fine by me. Mind was just an honest contribution of my actual business experience in the matter if how old towns similar to ours can develop. I do find it difficult to understand why our town fathers continue to avoid the open arms of opportunity. Colchester has and will continue to suffer because we can't get our act together. Please take time to consider.
One other point, how is that I, a complete nerd when it comes to steam and anything to do with industrial development, was not aware that I could access the dizzy height of Jumbo! I am not by nature judgemental but you guys failed to communicate.
Failed to communticate? In what way? Was it our job to tell the everyone that Allsops auctioneers were opening Jumbo for viewers to come and take a look every Monday before the auction? No it wasn't. We did our homework, as we always do, that's how we operate. Why should Colchester have to 'move forward'? One of the good things about this town, aside from the creeping housing development, is the fact that it has kept some of its old historic character and some of its historic buildings remain intact and unspoiled by development. If we keep 'moving forward' we'll just become another featureless modernist town like Harlow or Basildon.
Colchester could not develop into Harlow or Basildon types - more like Harrogate or York, who have added to their rich heritage. Not just let it fade into a disconnect mess.
[quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: DL1970, it was great to see you and your friend testing the catwalk by walking all the way round it, last Bank Holiday Monday. (Anyone else could have done the same, if they had wanted.) You found the catwalk and other parts of the building to be structurally sound. The only problem is the last owner's wilful failure to carry out routine maintenance as is required for any listed building. CBC should of course have held him to this, but failed to do so.[/p][/quote]Yes, I climbed all over the tower and inspected the inside of the tank. The Urgent Works Notice served by the council seems to have had the desired effect because the building is now weather tight.[/p][/quote]Just taken quite a deal of time to read the thread of Jumbo. I genuinely admire the tenacity of the various protagonists... But I can't see the town moving on from this dialogue. also spent some time looking through my old Colchester guide leaflets. Can't find the one concerned yet - but it explained why the main and original rail station was built about one mile from the town centre. Think on guys, do we have any parallels on the the current Jumbo conflict, and why the main station is ridiculously so far from the the town! Yes, we are totally bogged down against any form m of development for the wealth of Colchester by certain Colchester[/p][/quote]Oops again!!! Major problem on the finger front. Was going on to say, it seems endemic locally to dwell on the achievements of the Victorian's, rather than seek the future development of Colchester . Have to say I'm finding this tread on jumbo now really tedious. It's just going round and round in a circle of bitterness. Would actually really like to walk the top - any chance?[/p][/quote]Angry, you say "I'm finding this tread (sic) on jumbo now really tedious. It's just going round and round in a circle of bitterness." That is a bit rich, coming from someone who has burdened us with ,more than a third of all posts oj the topic. It is you who are the main culprit. But I don't see where you find bitterness, there doesn't seem to be a lot of that. You are not bitter, you are just obsessed with your own personal view of what should happen in Colchester. Just try to imagine that, now and again, on some subjects,.others may have better ideas than you. . You also say "Would actually really like to walk the top - any chance?". You could have gone up there on any of the three Monday mornings preceding the auction: 12th, 19th, and 26th May. I went up, DL1970 went up, and so did several others. If Balkerne Tower Trust succeeds in buying it in the future, you will be able to go up as often as you like. Your best chance now is to call up Mr Flatman, tell him you are a fan of his, and see if he will invite you up.[/p][/quote]As you have, and I have said, it's my personal opinion, that's all. If you don't agree that is fine by me. Mind was just an honest contribution of my actual business experience in the matter if how old towns similar to ours can develop. I do find it difficult to understand why our town fathers continue to avoid the open arms of opportunity. Colchester has and will continue to suffer because we can't get our act together. Please take time to consider.[/p][/quote]One other point, how is that I, a complete nerd when it comes to steam and anything to do with industrial development, was not aware that I could access the dizzy height of Jumbo! I am not by nature judgemental but you guys failed to communicate.[/p][/quote]Failed to communticate? In what way? Was it our job to tell the everyone that Allsops auctioneers were opening Jumbo for viewers to come and take a look every Monday before the auction? No it wasn't. We did our homework, as we always do, that's how we operate. Why should Colchester have to 'move forward'? One of the good things about this town, aside from the creeping housing development, is the fact that it has kept some of its old historic character and some of its historic buildings remain intact and unspoiled by development. If we keep 'moving forward' we'll just become another featureless modernist town like Harlow or Basildon.[/p][/quote]Colchester could not develop into Harlow or Basildon types - more like Harrogate or York, who have added to their rich heritage. Not just let it fade into a disconnect mess. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -6

12:49pm Sat 7 Jun 14

William George says...

Nom De Plume wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
William George wrote:
Jess Jephcott wrote: Listen to you lot. Who do you think owns Jumbo and how many of you put your hands in your pockets to help the Balkerne Trust buy it? If you didn't contribute then mind your own business. The present owner will be the only one deciding on its future, not you lot. What a load of self-righteous twaddle I am reading here. If 100,000 Colcestrians had put a fiver towards buying it, it would be ours now and the proper squabbling could begin. As it is, those who didn't contribute, your views are irrelevant so go find another bandwagon to vent your collective spleens on.
Jess, Your points of views are considerably better in sense than these other irrelevant self-righteous twaddle writers. But we must give the twaddle writers a chance and for them to see what they enjoy and achieve in their unstable fallible results. We must be understanding all for them with their obsessions that they have to cope with perhaps.
William, I'm not convinced you are helping Jess.
It is my personal opinion that there is more logic to introducing a level of commercial backing to the future of Jumbo, if it means the visual impact it's Victorian form of is preserved.
The aim of the BTT to preserve Jumbo exactly as a water tower is illogical. The costs of making it safe and then ongoing maintenance would have to be greatly subsidised. Visitor fees are unlikely to cover little more than the running costs of energy, insurance and legal fees.

Far better to make Jumbo a functioning part of the towns future development - in that format the structure could generate more support, interest and admiration of what the Victorian's did for Colchester than a minority historical interest. And, I bet if the Victorian engineers concerned could have a say, they would want jumbo at the end of its long life as a water tower, to evolve with a new lease of life and functionality.
is there any possibility you can open up a gazette web name Happy Of Lexden so that at various times we can tell when you are happy than biting our hands off at all old chummy?
Nom De Plume,
you gave your comment with a question in it and since then in 31th May I Have tried to find an Happy Lexden but couldn't.

I also suggest we avoid bumping into Angry of Lexden one too. The spice in his curry may be too hot for him. We are hoping better taste should be given by him about the Jumbo Tower but he is not in that start of that yet,

You and the other commenters are giving the thumb downs about him to prove that, so thank you for your comment with its warning too.
[quote][p][bold]Nom De Plume[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]William George[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jess Jephcott[/bold] wrote: Listen to you lot. Who do you think owns Jumbo and how many of you put your hands in your pockets to help the Balkerne Trust buy it? If you didn't contribute then mind your own business. The present owner will be the only one deciding on its future, not you lot. What a load of self-righteous twaddle I am reading here. If 100,000 Colcestrians had put a fiver towards buying it, it would be ours now and the proper squabbling could begin. As it is, those who didn't contribute, your views are irrelevant so go find another bandwagon to vent your collective spleens on.[/p][/quote]Jess, Your points of views are considerably better in sense than these other irrelevant self-righteous twaddle writers. But we must give the twaddle writers a chance and for them to see what they enjoy and achieve in their unstable fallible results. We must be understanding all for them with their obsessions that they have to cope with perhaps.[/p][/quote]William, I'm not convinced you are helping Jess. It is my personal opinion that there is more logic to introducing a level of commercial backing to the future of Jumbo, if it means the visual impact it's Victorian form of is preserved. The aim of the BTT to preserve Jumbo exactly as a water tower is illogical. The costs of making it safe and then ongoing maintenance would have to be greatly subsidised. Visitor fees are unlikely to cover little more than the running costs of energy, insurance and legal fees. Far better to make Jumbo a functioning part of the towns future development - in that format the structure could generate more support, interest and admiration of what the Victorian's did for Colchester than a minority historical interest. And, I bet if the Victorian engineers concerned could have a say, they would want jumbo at the end of its long life as a water tower, to evolve with a new lease of life and functionality.[/p][/quote]is there any possibility you can open up a gazette web name Happy Of Lexden so that at various times we can tell when you are happy than biting our hands off at all old chummy?[/p][/quote]Nom De Plume, you gave your comment with a question in it and since then in 31th May I Have tried to find an Happy Lexden but couldn't. I also suggest we avoid bumping into Angry of Lexden one too. The spice in his curry may be too hot for him. We are hoping better taste should be given by him about the Jumbo Tower but he is not in that start of that yet, You and the other commenters are giving the thumb downs about him to prove that, so thank you for your comment with its warning too. William George
  • Score: 5

1:33pm Sat 7 Jun 14

Boris says...

Oh dear, poor old Angry does so much to draw fire on to himself/. He tells us trivialities like what a wonderful curry his wife makes (no possible relevance to Jumbo), and William G rightly criticises him. He also gives himself that unfortunate hostile name, when really he doesn't seem at all angry.
Then he bleats about how BTT didn't tell him the auctioneers were opening Jumbo for viewers prior to the sale. How were we to know Angry wanted to go up? As DL1970 points out, the information was there on the auctioneers' website. it seems Angry only started taking an interest a few days after the sale was over. But, since he is a millionaire-worshipp
er, he should get on well with Mr Flatman, who will no doubt let him up, if he asks nicely.
Oh dear, poor old Angry does so much to draw fire on to himself/. He tells us trivialities like what a wonderful curry his wife makes (no possible relevance to Jumbo), and William G rightly criticises him. He also gives himself that unfortunate hostile name, when really he doesn't seem at all angry. Then he bleats about how BTT didn't tell him the auctioneers were opening Jumbo for viewers prior to the sale. How were we to know Angry wanted to go up? As DL1970 points out, the information was there on the auctioneers' website. it seems Angry only started taking an interest a few days after the sale was over. But, since he is a millionaire-worshipp er, he should get on well with Mr Flatman, who will no doubt let him up, if he asks nicely. Boris
  • Score: 4

5:17pm Sat 7 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Boris, I'm happy to draw fire if it helps a broader picture to be considered, but it does seem some are too blinkered and biased to think outside the huge flawed box they've built.

You have failed to respond to the alternative and practical options I have raised in a measured and considered fashion. Instead you and WG and resorted to a jumble of weak personal abuse, which implies you are having difficulty justifying your collective mired position on the town's dormant asset jumbo. My shoulders are broad, and as you say I'm not really aggressive, more worried for the town's future in view of the stagnant status and lack of development.
The Victorian's would have driven over the sort of introspective attitude that prevails in Colchester today, and delivered their brilliant new technologies - such as Jumbo!

All the best,

Worried of Lexden.

Ps it's cannelloni tonight.
Boris, I'm happy to draw fire if it helps a broader picture to be considered, but it does seem some are too blinkered and biased to think outside the huge flawed box they've built. You have failed to respond to the alternative and practical options I have raised in a measured and considered fashion. Instead you and WG and resorted to a jumble of weak personal abuse, which implies you are having difficulty justifying your collective mired position on the town's dormant asset jumbo. My shoulders are broad, and as you say I'm not really aggressive, more worried for the town's future in view of the stagnant status and lack of development. The Victorian's would have driven over the sort of introspective attitude that prevails in Colchester today, and delivered their brilliant new technologies - such as Jumbo! All the best, Worried of Lexden. Ps it's cannelloni tonight. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -5

7:25pm Sat 7 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
Boris, I'm happy to draw fire if it helps a broader picture to be considered, but it does seem some are too blinkered and biased to think outside the huge flawed box they've built.

You have failed to respond to the alternative and practical options I have raised in a measured and considered fashion. Instead you and WG and resorted to a jumble of weak personal abuse, which implies you are having difficulty justifying your collective mired position on the town's dormant asset jumbo. My shoulders are broad, and as you say I'm not really aggressive, more worried for the town's future in view of the stagnant status and lack of development.
The Victorian's would have driven over the sort of introspective attitude that prevails in Colchester today, and delivered their brilliant new technologies - such as Jumbo!

All the best,

Worried of Lexden.

Ps it's cannelloni tonight.
Mega brilliant cannelloni. Just hatched a really out of the box way forward for Jumbo. Guess???

That's it, a drive through McDonald's on the ground floor, with five floors above if seating area. With a premium seating area in the tank. CBC to install a weight machine at the entrance, with a fat tax levy on all the wobble bottoms. Be honest chaps, this has to be an all round winner. We could even get the tufty the canary to do the grand opening.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: Boris, I'm happy to draw fire if it helps a broader picture to be considered, but it does seem some are too blinkered and biased to think outside the huge flawed box they've built. You have failed to respond to the alternative and practical options I have raised in a measured and considered fashion. Instead you and WG and resorted to a jumble of weak personal abuse, which implies you are having difficulty justifying your collective mired position on the town's dormant asset jumbo. My shoulders are broad, and as you say I'm not really aggressive, more worried for the town's future in view of the stagnant status and lack of development. The Victorian's would have driven over the sort of introspective attitude that prevails in Colchester today, and delivered their brilliant new technologies - such as Jumbo! All the best, Worried of Lexden. Ps it's cannelloni tonight.[/p][/quote]Mega brilliant cannelloni. Just hatched a really out of the box way forward for Jumbo. Guess??? That's it, a drive through McDonald's on the ground floor, with five floors above if seating area. With a premium seating area in the tank. CBC to install a weight machine at the entrance, with a fat tax levy on all the wobble bottoms. Be honest chaps, this has to be an all round winner. We could even get the tufty the canary to do the grand opening. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -4

7:30pm Sat 7 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
Boris, I'm happy to draw fire if it helps a broader picture to be considered, but it does seem some are too blinkered and biased to think outside the huge flawed box they've built.

You have failed to respond to the alternative and practical options I have raised in a measured and considered fashion. Instead you and WG and resorted to a jumble of weak personal abuse, which implies you are having difficulty justifying your collective mired position on the town's dormant asset jumbo. My shoulders are broad, and as you say I'm not really aggressive, more worried for the town's future in view of the stagnant status and lack of development.
The Victorian's would have driven over the sort of introspective attitude that prevails in Colchester today, and delivered their brilliant new technologies - such as Jumbo!

All the best,

Worried of Lexden.

Ps it's cannelloni tonight.
Mega brilliant cannelloni. Just hatched a really out of the box way forward for Jumbo. Guess???

That's it, a drive through McDonald's on the ground floor, with five floors above if seating area. With a premium seating area in the tank. CBC to install a weight machine at the entrance, with a fat tax levy on all the wobble bottoms. Be honest chaps, this has to be an all round winner. We could even get the tufty the canary to do the grand opening.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: Boris, I'm happy to draw fire if it helps a broader picture to be considered, but it does seem some are too blinkered and biased to think outside the huge flawed box they've built. You have failed to respond to the alternative and practical options I have raised in a measured and considered fashion. Instead you and WG and resorted to a jumble of weak personal abuse, which implies you are having difficulty justifying your collective mired position on the town's dormant asset jumbo. My shoulders are broad, and as you say I'm not really aggressive, more worried for the town's future in view of the stagnant status and lack of development. The Victorian's would have driven over the sort of introspective attitude that prevails in Colchester today, and delivered their brilliant new technologies - such as Jumbo! All the best, Worried of Lexden. Ps it's cannelloni tonight.[/p][/quote]Mega brilliant cannelloni. Just hatched a really out of the box way forward for Jumbo. Guess??? That's it, a drive through McDonald's on the ground floor, with five floors above if seating area. With a premium seating area in the tank. CBC to install a weight machine at the entrance, with a fat tax levy on all the wobble bottoms. Be honest chaps, this has to be an all round winner. We could even get the tufty the canary to do the grand opening. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -4

7:36pm Sat 7 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
Boris, I'm happy to draw fire if it helps a broader picture to be considered, but it does seem some are too blinkered and biased to think outside the huge flawed box they've built.

You have failed to respond to the alternative and practical options I have raised in a measured and considered fashion. Instead you and WG and resorted to a jumble of weak personal abuse, which implies you are having difficulty justifying your collective mired position on the town's dormant asset jumbo. My shoulders are broad, and as you say I'm not really aggressive, more worried for the town's future in view of the stagnant status and lack of development.
The Victorian's would have driven over the sort of introspective attitude that prevails in Colchester today, and delivered their brilliant new technologies - such as Jumbo!

All the best,

Worried of Lexden.

Ps it's cannelloni tonight.
Mega brilliant cannelloni. Just hatched a really out of the box way forward for Jumbo. Guess???

That's it, a drive through McDonald's on the ground floor, with five floors above if seating area. With a premium seating area in the tank. CBC to install a weight machine at the entrance, with a fat tax levy on all the wobble bottoms. Be honest chaps, this has to be an all round winner. We could even get the tufty the canary to do the grand opening.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: Boris, I'm happy to draw fire if it helps a broader picture to be considered, but it does seem some are too blinkered and biased to think outside the huge flawed box they've built. You have failed to respond to the alternative and practical options I have raised in a measured and considered fashion. Instead you and WG and resorted to a jumble of weak personal abuse, which implies you are having difficulty justifying your collective mired position on the town's dormant asset jumbo. My shoulders are broad, and as you say I'm not really aggressive, more worried for the town's future in view of the stagnant status and lack of development. The Victorian's would have driven over the sort of introspective attitude that prevails in Colchester today, and delivered their brilliant new technologies - such as Jumbo! All the best, Worried of Lexden. Ps it's cannelloni tonight.[/p][/quote]Mega brilliant cannelloni. Just hatched a really out of the box way forward for Jumbo. Guess??? That's it, a drive through McDonald's on the ground floor, with five floors above if seating area. With a premium seating area in the tank. CBC to install a weight machine at the entrance, with a fat tax levy on all the wobble bottoms. Be honest chaps, this has to be an all round winner. We could even get the tufty the canary to do the grand opening. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -3

8:59pm Sat 7 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
Boris, I'm happy to draw fire if it helps a broader picture to be considered, but it does seem some are too blinkered and biased to think outside the huge flawed box they've built.

You have failed to respond to the alternative and practical options I have raised in a measured and considered fashion. Instead you and WG and resorted to a jumble of weak personal abuse, which implies you are having difficulty justifying your collective mired position on the town's dormant asset jumbo. My shoulders are broad, and as you say I'm not really aggressive, more worried for the town's future in view of the stagnant status and lack of development.
The Victorian's would have driven over the sort of introspective attitude that prevails in Colchester today, and delivered their brilliant new technologies - such as Jumbo!

All the best,

Worried of Lexden.

Ps it's cannelloni tonight.
Mega brilliant cannelloni. Just hatched a really out of the box way forward for Jumbo. Guess???

That's it, a drive through McDonald's on the ground floor, with five floors above if seating area. With a premium seating area in the tank. CBC to install a weight machine at the entrance, with a fat tax levy on all the wobble bottoms. Be honest chaps, this has to be an all round winner. We could even get the tufty the canary to do the grand opening.
And guess what would be the special if the day? You got it....

Jumbo Cheeseburger.

You chaps still on board for this?
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: Boris, I'm happy to draw fire if it helps a broader picture to be considered, but it does seem some are too blinkered and biased to think outside the huge flawed box they've built. You have failed to respond to the alternative and practical options I have raised in a measured and considered fashion. Instead you and WG and resorted to a jumble of weak personal abuse, which implies you are having difficulty justifying your collective mired position on the town's dormant asset jumbo. My shoulders are broad, and as you say I'm not really aggressive, more worried for the town's future in view of the stagnant status and lack of development. The Victorian's would have driven over the sort of introspective attitude that prevails in Colchester today, and delivered their brilliant new technologies - such as Jumbo! All the best, Worried of Lexden. Ps it's cannelloni tonight.[/p][/quote]Mega brilliant cannelloni. Just hatched a really out of the box way forward for Jumbo. Guess??? That's it, a drive through McDonald's on the ground floor, with five floors above if seating area. With a premium seating area in the tank. CBC to install a weight machine at the entrance, with a fat tax levy on all the wobble bottoms. Be honest chaps, this has to be an all round winner. We could even get the tufty the canary to do the grand opening.[/p][/quote]And guess what would be the special if the day? You got it.... Jumbo Cheeseburger. You chaps still on board for this? Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -5

9:09pm Sat 7 Jun 14

William George says...

Angry Of Lexden,

The iconic water tower Jumbo is admired by many of us of the present generation. It shows its history, strength in structure and its size in and around Colchester when coming to Colchester.
That is history for the present and future people to see. Where history has always shown an importance to have and to see.
You and a couple of others in comments in a similar way of words have said we must move forward for the future generation.

I do say we must, but in a thought of past, present,and future generation for Jumbo Water Tower. As an example one reason of many reasons we should importantly remember once historic buildings are gone they are gone forever but modern buildings can always return whenever, that would include any glass pannel buildings too.
Angry Of Lexden, The iconic water tower Jumbo is admired by many of us of the present generation. It shows its history, strength in structure and its size in and around Colchester when coming to Colchester. That is history for the present and future people to see. Where history has always shown an importance to have and to see. You and a couple of others in comments in a similar way of words have said we must move forward for the future generation. I do say we must, but in a thought of past, present,and future generation for Jumbo Water Tower. As an example one reason of many reasons we should importantly remember once historic buildings are gone they are gone forever but modern buildings can always return whenever, that would include any glass pannel buildings too. William George
  • Score: 8

10:21pm Sat 7 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

William George wrote:
Angry Of Lexden,

The iconic water tower Jumbo is admired by many of us of the present generation. It shows its history, strength in structure and its size in and around Colchester when coming to Colchester.
That is history for the present and future people to see. Where history has always shown an importance to have and to see.
You and a couple of others in comments in a similar way of words have said we must move forward for the future generation.

I do say we must, but in a thought of past, present,and future generation for Jumbo Water Tower. As an example one reason of many reasons we should importantly remember once historic buildings are gone they are gone forever but modern buildings can always return whenever, that would include any glass pannel buildings too.
Ok WG, please clarify, would you support the sympathetic adjustment of Jumbo to enable Jumbo to attract a wider interest and enjoy a new lease of useful life as.... cafe, museum, observation platform, art studio, plus others? or are determined to preserve Jumbo as a 135 year old water tower minority interest? The latter has proved to be a failure to date, and further attempts might be a distraction from the former. What do you say, or maybe the McDonald's type option could worm it's way in while we are distracted on the impossible.
[quote][p][bold]William George[/bold] wrote: Angry Of Lexden, The iconic water tower Jumbo is admired by many of us of the present generation. It shows its history, strength in structure and its size in and around Colchester when coming to Colchester. That is history for the present and future people to see. Where history has always shown an importance to have and to see. You and a couple of others in comments in a similar way of words have said we must move forward for the future generation. I do say we must, but in a thought of past, present,and future generation for Jumbo Water Tower. As an example one reason of many reasons we should importantly remember once historic buildings are gone they are gone forever but modern buildings can always return whenever, that would include any glass pannel buildings too.[/p][/quote]Ok WG, please clarify, would you support the sympathetic adjustment of Jumbo to enable Jumbo to attract a wider interest and enjoy a new lease of useful life as.... cafe, museum, observation platform, art studio, plus others? or are determined to preserve Jumbo as a 135 year old water tower minority interest? The latter has proved to be a failure to date, and further attempts might be a distraction from the former. What do you say, or maybe the McDonald's type option could worm it's way in while we are distracted on the impossible. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -4

10:22pm Sat 7 Jun 14

DL1970 says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
Boris, I'm happy to draw fire if it helps a broader picture to be considered, but it does seem some are too blinkered and biased to think outside the huge flawed box they've built.

You have failed to respond to the alternative and practical options I have raised in a measured and considered fashion. Instead you and WG and resorted to a jumble of weak personal abuse, which implies you are having difficulty justifying your collective mired position on the town's dormant asset jumbo. My shoulders are broad, and as you say I'm not really aggressive, more worried for the town's future in view of the stagnant status and lack of development.
The Victorian's would have driven over the sort of introspective attitude that prevails in Colchester today, and delivered their brilliant new technologies - such as Jumbo!

All the best,

Worried of Lexden.

Ps it's cannelloni tonight.
I think our Victorian forefathers would be mortified by most of the attitudes on here. They had a lot of civic pride.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: Boris, I'm happy to draw fire if it helps a broader picture to be considered, but it does seem some are too blinkered and biased to think outside the huge flawed box they've built. You have failed to respond to the alternative and practical options I have raised in a measured and considered fashion. Instead you and WG and resorted to a jumble of weak personal abuse, which implies you are having difficulty justifying your collective mired position on the town's dormant asset jumbo. My shoulders are broad, and as you say I'm not really aggressive, more worried for the town's future in view of the stagnant status and lack of development. The Victorian's would have driven over the sort of introspective attitude that prevails in Colchester today, and delivered their brilliant new technologies - such as Jumbo! All the best, Worried of Lexden. Ps it's cannelloni tonight.[/p][/quote]I think our Victorian forefathers would be mortified by most of the attitudes on here. They had a lot of civic pride. DL1970
  • Score: 1

10:29pm Sat 7 Jun 14

DL1970 says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
William George wrote:
Angry Of Lexden,

The iconic water tower Jumbo is admired by many of us of the present generation. It shows its history, strength in structure and its size in and around Colchester when coming to Colchester.
That is history for the present and future people to see. Where history has always shown an importance to have and to see.
You and a couple of others in comments in a similar way of words have said we must move forward for the future generation.

I do say we must, but in a thought of past, present,and future generation for Jumbo Water Tower. As an example one reason of many reasons we should importantly remember once historic buildings are gone they are gone forever but modern buildings can always return whenever, that would include any glass pannel buildings too.
Ok WG, please clarify, would you support the sympathetic adjustment of Jumbo to enable Jumbo to attract a wider interest and enjoy a new lease of useful life as.... cafe, museum, observation platform, art studio, plus others? or are determined to preserve Jumbo as a 135 year old water tower minority interest? The latter has proved to be a failure to date, and further attempts might be a distraction from the former. What do you say, or maybe the McDonald's type option could worm it's way in while we are distracted on the impossible.
Here we go again. Cafe, museum restaurant. Don't we have enough restaurants already? Quite a few of them are failing. What evidence do you have to support you claim that Jumbo, opened to the public and tourist would only be a minority interest? Do you have some facts and figures?
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]William George[/bold] wrote: Angry Of Lexden, The iconic water tower Jumbo is admired by many of us of the present generation. It shows its history, strength in structure and its size in and around Colchester when coming to Colchester. That is history for the present and future people to see. Where history has always shown an importance to have and to see. You and a couple of others in comments in a similar way of words have said we must move forward for the future generation. I do say we must, but in a thought of past, present,and future generation for Jumbo Water Tower. As an example one reason of many reasons we should importantly remember once historic buildings are gone they are gone forever but modern buildings can always return whenever, that would include any glass pannel buildings too.[/p][/quote]Ok WG, please clarify, would you support the sympathetic adjustment of Jumbo to enable Jumbo to attract a wider interest and enjoy a new lease of useful life as.... cafe, museum, observation platform, art studio, plus others? or are determined to preserve Jumbo as a 135 year old water tower minority interest? The latter has proved to be a failure to date, and further attempts might be a distraction from the former. What do you say, or maybe the McDonald's type option could worm it's way in while we are distracted on the impossible.[/p][/quote]Here we go again. Cafe, museum restaurant. Don't we have enough restaurants already? Quite a few of them are failing. What evidence do you have to support you claim that Jumbo, opened to the public and tourist would only be a minority interest? Do you have some facts and figures? DL1970
  • Score: 4

10:29pm Sat 7 Jun 14

DL1970 says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
William George wrote:
Angry Of Lexden,

The iconic water tower Jumbo is admired by many of us of the present generation. It shows its history, strength in structure and its size in and around Colchester when coming to Colchester.
That is history for the present and future people to see. Where history has always shown an importance to have and to see.
You and a couple of others in comments in a similar way of words have said we must move forward for the future generation.

I do say we must, but in a thought of past, present,and future generation for Jumbo Water Tower. As an example one reason of many reasons we should importantly remember once historic buildings are gone they are gone forever but modern buildings can always return whenever, that would include any glass pannel buildings too.
Ok WG, please clarify, would you support the sympathetic adjustment of Jumbo to enable Jumbo to attract a wider interest and enjoy a new lease of useful life as.... cafe, museum, observation platform, art studio, plus others? or are determined to preserve Jumbo as a 135 year old water tower minority interest? The latter has proved to be a failure to date, and further attempts might be a distraction from the former. What do you say, or maybe the McDonald's type option could worm it's way in while we are distracted on the impossible.
Here we go again. Cafe, museum restaurant. Don't we have enough restaurants already? Quite a few of them are failing. What evidence do you have to support you claim that Jumbo, opened to the public and tourist would only be a minority interest? Do you have some facts and figures?
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]William George[/bold] wrote: Angry Of Lexden, The iconic water tower Jumbo is admired by many of us of the present generation. It shows its history, strength in structure and its size in and around Colchester when coming to Colchester. That is history for the present and future people to see. Where history has always shown an importance to have and to see. You and a couple of others in comments in a similar way of words have said we must move forward for the future generation. I do say we must, but in a thought of past, present,and future generation for Jumbo Water Tower. As an example one reason of many reasons we should importantly remember once historic buildings are gone they are gone forever but modern buildings can always return whenever, that would include any glass pannel buildings too.[/p][/quote]Ok WG, please clarify, would you support the sympathetic adjustment of Jumbo to enable Jumbo to attract a wider interest and enjoy a new lease of useful life as.... cafe, museum, observation platform, art studio, plus others? or are determined to preserve Jumbo as a 135 year old water tower minority interest? The latter has proved to be a failure to date, and further attempts might be a distraction from the former. What do you say, or maybe the McDonald's type option could worm it's way in while we are distracted on the impossible.[/p][/quote]Here we go again. Cafe, museum restaurant. Don't we have enough restaurants already? Quite a few of them are failing. What evidence do you have to support you claim that Jumbo, opened to the public and tourist would only be a minority interest? Do you have some facts and figures? DL1970
  • Score: 4

11:30pm Sat 7 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

DL1970 wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
William George wrote:
Angry Of Lexden,

The iconic water tower Jumbo is admired by many of us of the present generation. It shows its history, strength in structure and its size in and around Colchester when coming to Colchester.
That is history for the present and future people to see. Where history has always shown an importance to have and to see.
You and a couple of others in comments in a similar way of words have said we must move forward for the future generation.

I do say we must, but in a thought of past, present,and future generation for Jumbo Water Tower. As an example one reason of many reasons we should importantly remember once historic buildings are gone they are gone forever but modern buildings can always return whenever, that would include any glass pannel buildings too.
Ok WG, please clarify, would you support the sympathetic adjustment of Jumbo to enable Jumbo to attract a wider interest and enjoy a new lease of useful life as.... cafe, museum, observation platform, art studio, plus others? or are determined to preserve Jumbo as a 135 year old water tower minority interest? The latter has proved to be a failure to date, and further attempts might be a distraction from the former. What do you say, or maybe the McDonald's type option could worm it's way in while we are distracted on the impossible.
Here we go again. Cafe, museum restaurant. Don't we have enough restaurants already? Quite a few of them are failing. What evidence do you have to support you claim that Jumbo, opened to the public and tourist would only be a minority interest? Do you have some facts and figures?
DL, minority interest facts? amongst others total failure of the BTT lobby to win a working level of effective support in 30 years resulting in a pretty sad legacy.

Just thought, the "preserve as is only" lobby have had centre stage on this for about one third of jumbos working life.

Harrowgate and York have made a fruitful and tasteful transition of use for their old buildings, most of which are decades older than Jumbo.

I say again, and perhaps you do the forum the courtesy of a response, how would the Victorian's have dealt with a redundant water storage system if it was in the way of high tech Jumbo?
[quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]William George[/bold] wrote: Angry Of Lexden, The iconic water tower Jumbo is admired by many of us of the present generation. It shows its history, strength in structure and its size in and around Colchester when coming to Colchester. That is history for the present and future people to see. Where history has always shown an importance to have and to see. You and a couple of others in comments in a similar way of words have said we must move forward for the future generation. I do say we must, but in a thought of past, present,and future generation for Jumbo Water Tower. As an example one reason of many reasons we should importantly remember once historic buildings are gone they are gone forever but modern buildings can always return whenever, that would include any glass pannel buildings too.[/p][/quote]Ok WG, please clarify, would you support the sympathetic adjustment of Jumbo to enable Jumbo to attract a wider interest and enjoy a new lease of useful life as.... cafe, museum, observation platform, art studio, plus others? or are determined to preserve Jumbo as a 135 year old water tower minority interest? The latter has proved to be a failure to date, and further attempts might be a distraction from the former. What do you say, or maybe the McDonald's type option could worm it's way in while we are distracted on the impossible.[/p][/quote]Here we go again. Cafe, museum restaurant. Don't we have enough restaurants already? Quite a few of them are failing. What evidence do you have to support you claim that Jumbo, opened to the public and tourist would only be a minority interest? Do you have some facts and figures?[/p][/quote]DL, minority interest facts? amongst others total failure of the BTT lobby to win a working level of effective support in 30 years resulting in a pretty sad legacy. Just thought, the "preserve as is only" lobby have had centre stage on this for about one third of jumbos working life. Harrowgate and York have made a fruitful and tasteful transition of use for their old buildings, most of which are decades older than Jumbo. I say again, and perhaps you do the forum the courtesy of a response, how would the Victorian's have dealt with a redundant water storage system if it was in the way of high tech Jumbo? Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -3

12:40am Sun 8 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL1970 wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
William George wrote:
Angry Of Lexden,

The iconic water tower Jumbo is admired by many of us of the present generation. It shows its history, strength in structure and its size in and around Colchester when coming to Colchester.
That is history for the present and future people to see. Where history has always shown an importance to have and to see.
You and a couple of others in comments in a similar way of words have said we must move forward for the future generation.

I do say we must, but in a thought of past, present,and future generation for Jumbo Water Tower. As an example one reason of many reasons we should importantly remember once historic buildings are gone they are gone forever but modern buildings can always return whenever, that would include any glass pannel buildings too.
Ok WG, please clarify, would you support the sympathetic adjustment of Jumbo to enable Jumbo to attract a wider interest and enjoy a new lease of useful life as.... cafe, museum, observation platform, art studio, plus others? or are determined to preserve Jumbo as a 135 year old water tower minority interest? The latter has proved to be a failure to date, and further attempts might be a distraction from the former. What do you say, or maybe the McDonald's type option could worm it's way in while we are distracted on the impossible.
Here we go again. Cafe, museum restaurant. Don't we have enough restaurants already? Quite a few of them are failing. What evidence do you have to support you claim that Jumbo, opened to the public and tourist would only be a minority interest? Do you have some facts and figures?
DL, minority interest facts? amongst others total failure of the BTT lobby to win a working level of effective support in 30 years resulting in a pretty sad legacy.

Just thought, the "preserve as is only" lobby have had centre stage on this for about one third of jumbos working life.

Harrowgate and York have made a fruitful and tasteful transition of use for their old buildings, most of which are decades older than Jumbo.

I say again, and perhaps you do the forum the courtesy of a response, how would the Victorian's have dealt with a redundant water storage system if it was in the way of high tech Jumbo?
Sorry DL, didn't address yours re "haven't we got enough cafe's, bars" totally agree with you, we are submerged in cafe's bars etc but they are total lower order stuff. We need to raise the standard of our offer, "The Jumbo Centre " could be it. - only kidding. I personally believe Jumbo could be developed into an asset for the whole community. Just think of the potential links to the Mercury Theatre and Roman wall as a visitor route from St Mary's car park along the high St, to pick up Red Lion Walk/Culver Square/Castle Park/the Castle etc etc. But would that move forward interfere with the self centred interest of a minority. Honesty Time DL...
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]William George[/bold] wrote: Angry Of Lexden, The iconic water tower Jumbo is admired by many of us of the present generation. It shows its history, strength in structure and its size in and around Colchester when coming to Colchester. That is history for the present and future people to see. Where history has always shown an importance to have and to see. You and a couple of others in comments in a similar way of words have said we must move forward for the future generation. I do say we must, but in a thought of past, present,and future generation for Jumbo Water Tower. As an example one reason of many reasons we should importantly remember once historic buildings are gone they are gone forever but modern buildings can always return whenever, that would include any glass pannel buildings too.[/p][/quote]Ok WG, please clarify, would you support the sympathetic adjustment of Jumbo to enable Jumbo to attract a wider interest and enjoy a new lease of useful life as.... cafe, museum, observation platform, art studio, plus others? or are determined to preserve Jumbo as a 135 year old water tower minority interest? The latter has proved to be a failure to date, and further attempts might be a distraction from the former. What do you say, or maybe the McDonald's type option could worm it's way in while we are distracted on the impossible.[/p][/quote]Here we go again. Cafe, museum restaurant. Don't we have enough restaurants already? Quite a few of them are failing. What evidence do you have to support you claim that Jumbo, opened to the public and tourist would only be a minority interest? Do you have some facts and figures?[/p][/quote]DL, minority interest facts? amongst others total failure of the BTT lobby to win a working level of effective support in 30 years resulting in a pretty sad legacy. Just thought, the "preserve as is only" lobby have had centre stage on this for about one third of jumbos working life. Harrowgate and York have made a fruitful and tasteful transition of use for their old buildings, most of which are decades older than Jumbo. I say again, and perhaps you do the forum the courtesy of a response, how would the Victorian's have dealt with a redundant water storage system if it was in the way of high tech Jumbo?[/p][/quote]Sorry DL, didn't address yours re "haven't we got enough cafe's, bars" totally agree with you, we are submerged in cafe's bars etc but they are total lower order stuff. We need to raise the standard of our offer, "The Jumbo Centre " could be it. - only kidding. I personally believe Jumbo could be developed into an asset for the whole community. Just think of the potential links to the Mercury Theatre and Roman wall as a visitor route from St Mary's car park along the high St, to pick up Red Lion Walk/Culver Square/Castle Park/the Castle etc etc. But would that move forward interfere with the self centred interest of a minority. Honesty Time DL... Angry of Lexden
  • Score: 2

12:44am Sun 8 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

DL1970 wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
Boris, I'm happy to draw fire if it helps a broader picture to be considered, but it does seem some are too blinkered and biased to think outside the huge flawed box they've built.

You have failed to respond to the alternative and practical options I have raised in a measured and considered fashion. Instead you and WG and resorted to a jumble of weak personal abuse, which implies you are having difficulty justifying your collective mired position on the town's dormant asset jumbo. My shoulders are broad, and as you say I'm not really aggressive, more worried for the town's future in view of the stagnant status and lack of development.
The Victorian's would have driven over the sort of introspective attitude that prevails in Colchester today, and delivered their brilliant new technologies - such as Jumbo!

All the best,

Worried of Lexden.

Ps it's cannelloni tonight.
I think our Victorian forefathers would be mortified by most of the attitudes on here. They had a lot of civic pride.
Have to disagree, they had a lot of self interest. And, can't prove it, but I'll bet they would have flattened anything in the way.
[quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: Boris, I'm happy to draw fire if it helps a broader picture to be considered, but it does seem some are too blinkered and biased to think outside the huge flawed box they've built. You have failed to respond to the alternative and practical options I have raised in a measured and considered fashion. Instead you and WG and resorted to a jumble of weak personal abuse, which implies you are having difficulty justifying your collective mired position on the town's dormant asset jumbo. My shoulders are broad, and as you say I'm not really aggressive, more worried for the town's future in view of the stagnant status and lack of development. The Victorian's would have driven over the sort of introspective attitude that prevails in Colchester today, and delivered their brilliant new technologies - such as Jumbo! All the best, Worried of Lexden. Ps it's cannelloni tonight.[/p][/quote]I think our Victorian forefathers would be mortified by most of the attitudes on here. They had a lot of civic pride.[/p][/quote]Have to disagree, they had a lot of self interest. And, can't prove it, but I'll bet they would have flattened anything in the way. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -2

1:35am Sun 8 Jun 14

Boris says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
Boris, I'm happy to draw fire if it helps a broader picture to be considered, but it does seem some are too blinkered and biased to think outside the huge flawed box they've built.

You have failed to respond to the alternative and practical options I have raised in a measured and considered fashion. Instead you and WG and resorted to a jumble of weak personal abuse, which implies you are having difficulty justifying your collective mired position on the town's dormant asset jumbo. My shoulders are broad, and as you say I'm not really aggressive, more worried for the town's future in view of the stagnant status and lack of development.
The Victorian's would have driven over the sort of introspective attitude that prevails in Colchester today, and delivered their brilliant new technologies - such as Jumbo!

All the best,

Worried of Lexden.

Ps it's cannelloni tonight.
Angry, I have no idea what you mean by "the alternative and practical options I have raised in a measured and considered fashion". Of the 176 posts so far on this thread, you have supplied at least 60, possibly more. I am not going to trawl back through all that. You then ramble on about a drive-through McDonald's, and then you say Colchester needs more high-end restaurants. You state, with no evidence, that the preservation of Jumbo is a minority interest. You tell us about what you had for dinner. You have the effrontery to accuse us of being "blinkered and biased". Intermittently, you display your skills as a wind-up artist, but most of the time you appear to be confused and inconsistent. How can anyone take you seriously?
.
My reply to your challenge is a challenge in return. You set out, in not more than 300 words, your alternative and practical options. Write it all in one post, with no afterthoughts, no references to cannelloni or curry, and as far as possible eschewing loaded words like "blinkered" or "biased". Take your time, and think through your arguments before you write, for you must say it all in a single post. If you can do this, I will do my best to take your arguments seriously and reply to them.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: Boris, I'm happy to draw fire if it helps a broader picture to be considered, but it does seem some are too blinkered and biased to think outside the huge flawed box they've built. You have failed to respond to the alternative and practical options I have raised in a measured and considered fashion. Instead you and WG and resorted to a jumble of weak personal abuse, which implies you are having difficulty justifying your collective mired position on the town's dormant asset jumbo. My shoulders are broad, and as you say I'm not really aggressive, more worried for the town's future in view of the stagnant status and lack of development. The Victorian's would have driven over the sort of introspective attitude that prevails in Colchester today, and delivered their brilliant new technologies - such as Jumbo! All the best, Worried of Lexden. Ps it's cannelloni tonight.[/p][/quote]Angry, I have no idea what you mean by "the alternative and practical options I have raised in a measured and considered fashion". Of the 176 posts so far on this thread, you have supplied at least 60, possibly more. I am not going to trawl back through all that. You then ramble on about a drive-through McDonald's, and then you say Colchester needs more high-end restaurants. You state, with no evidence, that the preservation of Jumbo is a minority interest. You tell us about what you had for dinner. You have the effrontery to accuse us of being "blinkered and biased". Intermittently, you display your skills as a wind-up artist, but most of the time you appear to be confused and inconsistent. How can anyone take you seriously? . My reply to your challenge is a challenge in return. You set out, in not more than 300 words, your alternative and practical options. Write it all in one post, with no afterthoughts, no references to cannelloni or curry, and as far as possible eschewing loaded words like "blinkered" or "biased". Take your time, and think through your arguments before you write, for you must say it all in a single post. If you can do this, I will do my best to take your arguments seriously and reply to them. Boris
  • Score: 6

1:47am Sun 8 Jun 14

Boris says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL1970 wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
Boris, I'm happy to draw fire if it helps a broader picture to be considered, but it does seem some are too blinkered and biased to think outside the huge flawed box they've built.

You have failed to respond to the alternative and practical options I have raised in a measured and considered fashion. Instead you and WG and resorted to a jumble of weak personal abuse, which implies you are having difficulty justifying your collective mired position on the town's dormant asset jumbo. My shoulders are broad, and as you say I'm not really aggressive, more worried for the town's future in view of the stagnant status and lack of development.
The Victorian's would have driven over the sort of introspective attitude that prevails in Colchester today, and delivered their brilliant new technologies - such as Jumbo!

All the best,

Worried of Lexden.

Ps it's cannelloni tonight.
I think our Victorian forefathers would be mortified by most of the attitudes on here. They had a lot of civic pride.
Have to disagree, they had a lot of self interest. And, can't prove it, but I'll bet they would have flattened anything in the way.
Angry, I'll pick up just this latest post of yours. Yes it is true that the Victorians were happy to demolish old buildings when they wanted to build something else on the site. But we have moved on (as you surely approve of) since then, and we have a régime of listing buildings of special cultural and/or historical interest to protect them. And Jumbo is not in the way of anything, so there is no need to demolish it.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: Boris, I'm happy to draw fire if it helps a broader picture to be considered, but it does seem some are too blinkered and biased to think outside the huge flawed box they've built. You have failed to respond to the alternative and practical options I have raised in a measured and considered fashion. Instead you and WG and resorted to a jumble of weak personal abuse, which implies you are having difficulty justifying your collective mired position on the town's dormant asset jumbo. My shoulders are broad, and as you say I'm not really aggressive, more worried for the town's future in view of the stagnant status and lack of development. The Victorian's would have driven over the sort of introspective attitude that prevails in Colchester today, and delivered their brilliant new technologies - such as Jumbo! All the best, Worried of Lexden. Ps it's cannelloni tonight.[/p][/quote]I think our Victorian forefathers would be mortified by most of the attitudes on here. They had a lot of civic pride.[/p][/quote]Have to disagree, they had a lot of self interest. And, can't prove it, but I'll bet they would have flattened anything in the way.[/p][/quote]Angry, I'll pick up just this latest post of yours. Yes it is true that the Victorians were happy to demolish old buildings when they wanted to build something else on the site. But we have moved on (as you surely approve of) since then, and we have a régime of listing buildings of special cultural and/or historical interest to protect them. And Jumbo is not in the way of anything, so there is no need to demolish it. Boris
  • Score: 3

2:13am Sun 8 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

Boris wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL1970 wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
Boris, I'm happy to draw fire if it helps a broader picture to be considered, but it does seem some are too blinkered and biased to think outside the huge flawed box they've built.

You have failed to respond to the alternative and practical options I have raised in a measured and considered fashion. Instead you and WG and resorted to a jumble of weak personal abuse, which implies you are having difficulty justifying your collective mired position on the town's dormant asset jumbo. My shoulders are broad, and as you say I'm not really aggressive, more worried for the town's future in view of the stagnant status and lack of development.
The Victorian's would have driven over the sort of introspective attitude that prevails in Colchester today, and delivered their brilliant new technologies - such as Jumbo!

All the best,

Worried of Lexden.

Ps it's cannelloni tonight.
I think our Victorian forefathers would be mortified by most of the attitudes on here. They had a lot of civic pride.
Have to disagree, they had a lot of self interest. And, can't prove it, but I'll bet they would have flattened anything in the way.
Angry, I'll pick up just this latest post of yours. Yes it is true that the Victorians were happy to demolish old buildings when they wanted to build something else on the site. But we have moved on (as you surely approve of) since then, and we have a régime of listing buildings of special cultural and/or historical interest to protect them. And Jumbo is not in the way of anything, so there is no need to demolish it.
Boris, appreciate your answer. And. I certainly do not want Jumbo demolished. But in my personal opinion we have to move on. And rather than see Jumbp and his supporters suffer another 30 years of stagnation, why not compromise with the Victorian's, and engineer an enhanced modern and functional future for the beast. Architect mate of mine designed the new roof of a certain London station - I think it's over complicated, but I have to admit the poor users waiting for news of their delayed trains, spend time looking up at the complex structure. The overall stature is still predominately Victorian
[quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: Boris, I'm happy to draw fire if it helps a broader picture to be considered, but it does seem some are too blinkered and biased to think outside the huge flawed box they've built. You have failed to respond to the alternative and practical options I have raised in a measured and considered fashion. Instead you and WG and resorted to a jumble of weak personal abuse, which implies you are having difficulty justifying your collective mired position on the town's dormant asset jumbo. My shoulders are broad, and as you say I'm not really aggressive, more worried for the town's future in view of the stagnant status and lack of development. The Victorian's would have driven over the sort of introspective attitude that prevails in Colchester today, and delivered their brilliant new technologies - such as Jumbo! All the best, Worried of Lexden. Ps it's cannelloni tonight.[/p][/quote]I think our Victorian forefathers would be mortified by most of the attitudes on here. They had a lot of civic pride.[/p][/quote]Have to disagree, they had a lot of self interest. And, can't prove it, but I'll bet they would have flattened anything in the way.[/p][/quote]Angry, I'll pick up just this latest post of yours. Yes it is true that the Victorians were happy to demolish old buildings when they wanted to build something else on the site. But we have moved on (as you surely approve of) since then, and we have a régime of listing buildings of special cultural and/or historical interest to protect them. And Jumbo is not in the way of anything, so there is no need to demolish it.[/p][/quote]Boris, appreciate your answer. And. I certainly do not want Jumbo demolished. But in my personal opinion we have to move on. And rather than see Jumbp and his supporters suffer another 30 years of stagnation, why not compromise with the Victorian's, and engineer an enhanced modern and functional future for the beast. Architect mate of mine designed the new roof of a certain London station - I think it's over complicated, but I have to admit the poor users waiting for news of their delayed trains, spend time looking up at the complex structure. The overall stature is still predominately Victorian Angry of Lexden
  • Score: -6

7:18am Sun 8 Jun 14

DL1970 says...

Evidence that the commercial development of Jumbo development is non viable:

http://www.savejumbo
.org.uk/Report%20and
%20valuation.pdf

http://www.savejumbo
.org.uk/Appraisal%20
of%20Development%20O
ptions%20(Morley%20R
iches).pdf
Evidence that the commercial development of Jumbo development is non viable: http://www.savejumbo .org.uk/Report%20and %20valuation.pdf http://www.savejumbo .org.uk/Appraisal%20 of%20Development%20O ptions%20(Morley%20R iches).pdf DL1970
  • Score: 3

7:46am Sun 8 Jun 14

DL1970 says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL1970 wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
William George wrote:
Angry Of Lexden,

The iconic water tower Jumbo is admired by many of us of the present generation. It shows its history, strength in structure and its size in and around Colchester when coming to Colchester.
That is history for the present and future people to see. Where history has always shown an importance to have and to see.
You and a couple of others in comments in a similar way of words have said we must move forward for the future generation.

I do say we must, but in a thought of past, present,and future generation for Jumbo Water Tower. As an example one reason of many reasons we should importantly remember once historic buildings are gone they are gone forever but modern buildings can always return whenever, that would include any glass pannel buildings too.
Ok WG, please clarify, would you support the sympathetic adjustment of Jumbo to enable Jumbo to attract a wider interest and enjoy a new lease of useful life as.... cafe, museum, observation platform, art studio, plus others? or are determined to preserve Jumbo as a 135 year old water tower minority interest? The latter has proved to be a failure to date, and further attempts might be a distraction from the former. What do you say, or maybe the McDonald's type option could worm it's way in while we are distracted on the impossible.
Here we go again. Cafe, museum restaurant. Don't we have enough restaurants already? Quite a few of them are failing. What evidence do you have to support you claim that Jumbo, opened to the public and tourist would only be a minority interest? Do you have some facts and figures?
DL, minority interest facts? amongst others total failure of the BTT lobby to win a working level of effective support in 30 years resulting in a pretty sad legacy.

Just thought, the "preserve as is only" lobby have had centre stage on this for about one third of jumbos working life.

Harrowgate and York have made a fruitful and tasteful transition of use for their old buildings, most of which are decades older than Jumbo.

I say again, and perhaps you do the forum the courtesy of a response, how would the Victorian's have dealt with a redundant water storage system if it was in the way of high tech Jumbo?
The 'BTT lobby' hasn't as yet been given the opportunity to open Jumbo to the public, so how can you say its failed. You state that the "preserve as is only" lobby has had centre stage on it for about one third of Jumbo's working life. No, the LAW has had centre stage, and hopefully it will stay that way. BTT fail to win support in 30 years? Really, how do you figure, considering the charity didn't form until 2006 which is 8 years ago. For a charity with 'no support' it raised £40,000 very quickly when it was given less that four weeks notice that Jumbo was being auctioned.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]William George[/bold] wrote: Angry Of Lexden, The iconic water tower Jumbo is admired by many of us of the present generation. It shows its history, strength in structure and its size in and around Colchester when coming to Colchester. That is history for the present and future people to see. Where history has always shown an importance to have and to see. You and a couple of others in comments in a similar way of words have said we must move forward for the future generation. I do say we must, but in a thought of past, present,and future generation for Jumbo Water Tower. As an example one reason of many reasons we should importantly remember once historic buildings are gone they are gone forever but modern buildings can always return whenever, that would include any glass pannel buildings too.[/p][/quote]Ok WG, please clarify, would you support the sympathetic adjustment of Jumbo to enable Jumbo to attract a wider interest and enjoy a new lease of useful life as.... cafe, museum, observation platform, art studio, plus others? or are determined to preserve Jumbo as a 135 year old water tower minority interest? The latter has proved to be a failure to date, and further attempts might be a distraction from the former. What do you say, or maybe the McDonald's type option could worm it's way in while we are distracted on the impossible.[/p][/quote]Here we go again. Cafe, museum restaurant. Don't we have enough restaurants already? Quite a few of them are failing. What evidence do you have to support you claim that Jumbo, opened to the public and tourist would only be a minority interest? Do you have some facts and figures?[/p][/quote]DL, minority interest facts? amongst others total failure of the BTT lobby to win a working level of effective support in 30 years resulting in a pretty sad legacy. Just thought, the "preserve as is only" lobby have had centre stage on this for about one third of jumbos working life. Harrowgate and York have made a fruitful and tasteful transition of use for their old buildings, most of which are decades older than Jumbo. I say again, and perhaps you do the forum the courtesy of a response, how would the Victorian's have dealt with a redundant water storage system if it was in the way of high tech Jumbo?[/p][/quote]The 'BTT lobby' hasn't as yet been given the opportunity to open Jumbo to the public, so how can you say its failed. You state that the "preserve as is only" lobby has had centre stage on it for about one third of Jumbo's working life. No, the LAW has had centre stage, and hopefully it will stay that way. BTT fail to win support in 30 years? Really, how do you figure, considering the charity didn't form until 2006 which is 8 years ago. For a charity with 'no support' it raised £40,000 very quickly when it was given less that four weeks notice that Jumbo was being auctioned. DL1970
  • Score: 6

12:57pm Sun 8 Jun 14

Angry of Lexden says...

DL1970 wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL1970 wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
William George wrote:
Angry Of Lexden,

The iconic water tower Jumbo is admired by many of us of the present generation. It shows its history, strength in structure and its size in and around Colchester when coming to Colchester.
That is history for the present and future people to see. Where history has always shown an importance to have and to see.
You and a couple of others in comments in a similar way of words have said we must move forward for the future generation.

I do say we must, but in a thought of past, present,and future generation for Jumbo Water Tower. As an example one reason of many reasons we should importantly remember once historic buildings are gone they are gone forever but modern buildings can always return whenever, that would include any glass pannel buildings too.
Ok WG, please clarify, would you support the sympathetic adjustment of Jumbo to enable Jumbo to attract a wider interest and enjoy a new lease of useful life as.... cafe, museum, observation platform, art studio, plus others? or are determined to preserve Jumbo as a 135 year old water tower minority interest? The latter has proved to be a failure to date, and further attempts might be a distraction from the former. What do you say, or maybe the McDonald's type option could worm it's way in while we are distracted on the impossible.
Here we go again. Cafe, museum restaurant. Don't we have enough restaurants already? Quite a few of them are failing. What evidence do you have to support you claim that Jumbo, opened to the public and tourist would only be a minority interest? Do you have some facts and figures?
DL, minority interest facts? amongst others total failure of the BTT lobby to win a working level of effective support in 30 years resulting in a pretty sad legacy.

Just thought, the "preserve as is only" lobby have had centre stage on this for about one third of jumbos working life.

Harrowgate and York have made a fruitful and tasteful transition of use for their old buildings, most of which are decades older than Jumbo.

I say again, and perhaps you do the forum the courtesy of a response, how would the Victorian's have dealt with a redundant water storage system if it was in the way of high tech Jumbo?
The 'BTT lobby' hasn't as yet been given the opportunity to open Jumbo to the public, so how can you say its failed. You state that the "preserve as is only" lobby has had centre stage on it for about one third of Jumbo's working life. No, the LAW has had centre stage, and hopefully it will stay that way. BTT fail to win support in 30 years? Really, how do you figure, considering the charity didn't form until 2006 which is 8 years ago. For a charity with 'no support' it raised £40,000 very quickly when it was given less that four weeks notice that Jumbo was being auctioned.
DL, please accept my sincere apology. I have got it wrong again. From the tread to date I thought the BTT had some form of agreed access, which would have great fun to use. So why haven't CBC/EH enforced best practice in terms minimal maintenance? We look after one particular building in the town, which is by no means iconic. The heritage mob are there the instant the scaffolding starts. And quite right, they demand the full remedial spec including supplier detail of lime wash and mortar. Has something changed recently in the way of enforcement? I understand from a friend that a certain family in Tiptree systematically wrecked a historic building by stealth over a long period till it became impossible to renovate. I believe planning has now been agreed for high density housing development on the site.

Once again I apologise for believing the BTT had been on board for a longer period.
[quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]William George[/bold] wrote: Angry Of Lexden, The iconic water tower Jumbo is admired by many of us of the present generation. It shows its history, strength in structure and its size in and around Colchester when coming to Colchester. That is history for the present and future people to see. Where history has always shown an importance to have and to see. You and a couple of others in comments in a similar way of words have said we must move forward for the future generation. I do say we must, but in a thought of past, present,and future generation for Jumbo Water Tower. As an example one reason of many reasons we should importantly remember once historic buildings are gone they are gone forever but modern buildings can always return whenever, that would include any glass pannel buildings too.[/p][/quote]Ok WG, please clarify, would you support the sympathetic adjustment of Jumbo to enable Jumbo to attract a wider interest and enjoy a new lease of useful life as.... cafe, museum, observation platform, art studio, plus others? or are determined to preserve Jumbo as a 135 year old water tower minority interest? The latter has proved to be a failure to date, and further attempts might be a distraction from the former. What do you say, or maybe the McDonald's type option could worm it's way in while we are distracted on the impossible.[/p][/quote]Here we go again. Cafe, museum restaurant. Don't we have enough restaurants already? Quite a few of them are failing. What evidence do you have to support you claim that Jumbo, opened to the public and tourist would only be a minority interest? Do you have some facts and figures?[/p][/quote]DL, minority interest facts? amongst others total failure of the BTT lobby to win a working level of effective support in 30 years resulting in a pretty sad legacy. Just thought, the "preserve as is only" lobby have had centre stage on this for about one third of jumbos working life. Harrowgate and York have made a fruitful and tasteful transition of use for their old buildings, most of which are decades older than Jumbo. I say again, and perhaps you do the forum the courtesy of a response, how would the Victorian's have dealt with a redundant water storage system if it was in the way of high tech Jumbo?[/p][/quote]The 'BTT lobby' hasn't as yet been given the opportunity to open Jumbo to the public, so how can you say its failed. You state that the "preserve as is only" lobby has had centre stage on it for about one third of Jumbo's working life. No, the LAW has had centre stage, and hopefully it will stay that way. BTT fail to win support in 30 years? Really, how do you figure, considering the charity didn't form until 2006 which is 8 years ago. For a charity with 'no support' it raised £40,000 very quickly when it was given less that four weeks notice that Jumbo was being auctioned.[/p][/quote]DL, please accept my sincere apology. I have got it wrong again. From the tread to date I thought the BTT had some form of agreed access, which would have great fun to use. So why haven't CBC/EH enforced best practice in terms minimal maintenance? We look after one particular building in the town, which is by no means iconic. The heritage mob are there the instant the scaffolding starts. And quite right, they demand the full remedial spec including supplier detail of lime wash and mortar. Has something changed recently in the way of enforcement? I understand from a friend that a certain family in Tiptree systematically wrecked a historic building by stealth over a long period till it became impossible to renovate. I believe planning has now been agreed for high density housing development on the site. Once again I apologise for believing the BTT had been on board for a longer period. Angry of Lexden
  • Score: 3

3:09pm Sun 8 Jun 14

DL1970 says...

Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL1970 wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
DL1970 wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
William George wrote:
Angry Of Lexden,

The iconic water tower Jumbo is admired by many of us of the present generation. It shows its history, strength in structure and its size in and around Colchester when coming to Colchester.
That is history for the present and future people to see. Where history has always shown an importance to have and to see.
You and a couple of others in comments in a similar way of words have said we must move forward for the future generation.

I do say we must, but in a thought of past, present,and future generation for Jumbo Water Tower. As an example one reason of many reasons we should importantly remember once historic buildings are gone they are gone forever but modern buildings can always return whenever, that would include any glass pannel buildings too.
Ok WG, please clarify, would you support the sympathetic adjustment of Jumbo to enable Jumbo to attract a wider interest and enjoy a new lease of useful life as.... cafe, museum, observation platform, art studio, plus others? or are determined to preserve Jumbo as a 135 year old water tower minority interest? The latter has proved to be a failure to date, and further attempts might be a distraction from the former. What do you say, or maybe the McDonald's type option could worm it's way in while we are distracted on the impossible.
Here we go again. Cafe, museum restaurant. Don't we have enough restaurants already? Quite a few of them are failing. What evidence do you have to support you claim that Jumbo, opened to the public and tourist would only be a minority interest? Do you have some facts and figures?
DL, minority interest facts? amongst others total failure of the BTT lobby to win a working level of effective support in 30 years resulting in a pretty sad legacy.

Just thought, the "preserve as is only" lobby have had centre stage on this for about one third of jumbos working life.

Harrowgate and York have made a fruitful and tasteful transition of use for their old buildings, most of which are decades older than Jumbo.

I say again, and perhaps you do the forum the courtesy of a response, how would the Victorian's have dealt with a redundant water storage system if it was in the way of high tech Jumbo?
The 'BTT lobby' hasn't as yet been given the opportunity to open Jumbo to the public, so how can you say its failed. You state that the "preserve as is only" lobby has had centre stage on it for about one third of Jumbo's working life. No, the LAW has had centre stage, and hopefully it will stay that way. BTT fail to win support in 30 years? Really, how do you figure, considering the charity didn't form until 2006 which is 8 years ago. For a charity with 'no support' it raised £40,000 very quickly when it was given less that four weeks notice that Jumbo was being auctioned.
DL, please accept my sincere apology. I have got it wrong again. From the tread to date I thought the BTT had some form of agreed access, which would have great fun to use. So why haven't CBC/EH enforced best practice in terms minimal maintenance? We look after one particular building in the town, which is by no means iconic. The heritage mob are there the instant the scaffolding starts. And quite right, they demand the full remedial spec including supplier detail of lime wash and mortar. Has something changed recently in the way of enforcement? I understand from a friend that a certain family in Tiptree systematically wrecked a historic building by stealth over a long period till it became impossible to renovate. I believe planning has now been agreed for high density housing development on the site.

Once again I apologise for believing the BTT had been on board for a longer period.
Apology accepted, Angry, of course. It angers me that Colchester Borough Council do not use their statutory powers and come down hard on these individuals who have systematically chosen to buy Jumbo and sit on it for years without doing so much as cleaning it. It is not acceptable that someone should buy a grade 2* listed building and deliberately neglect it to either try and play off its state to gain favour with a public audience to support a planning scheme or because repairs cost money and it reduces profit margins. Jumbo will only decline if the Council fails to act. BTT were part of the lobby to get an Urgent Works Notice served on the previous owner to make the building weather tight, which it now thankfully is. But to my mind, that is not enough. I hope you can gain access to the tower and go and see it for yourself up close and personal. Perhaps then, you will see things differently and will no longer have the stomach to see it get developed and ruined forever. Some things aren't progress, they're vandalism. Jumbo isn't just a water tower, its probably the finest example of a municipal Victorian water tower in existence. Colchester can boast that they have the largest surviving Norman keep in Europe and the largest surviving Victorian water tower in England.
[quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]William George[/bold] wrote: Angry Of Lexden, The iconic water tower Jumbo is admired by many of us of the present generation. It shows its history, strength in structure and its size in and around Colchester when coming to Colchester. That is history for the present and future people to see. Where history has always shown an importance to have and to see. You and a couple of others in comments in a similar way of words have said we must move forward for the future generation. I do say we must, but in a thought of past, present,and future generation for Jumbo Water Tower. As an example one reason of many reasons we should importantly remember once historic buildings are gone they are gone forever but modern buildings can always return whenever, that would include any glass pannel buildings too.[/p][/quote]Ok WG, please clarify, would you support the sympathetic adjustment of Jumbo to enable Jumbo to attract a wider interest and enjoy a new lease of useful life as.... cafe, museum, observation platform, art studio, plus others? or are determined to preserve Jumbo as a 135 year old water tower minority interest? The latter has proved to be a failure to date, and further attempts might be a distraction from the former. What do you say, or maybe the McDonald's type option could worm it's way in while we are distracted on the impossible.[/p][/quote]Here we go again. Cafe, museum restaurant. Don't we have enough restaurants already? Quite a few of them are failing. What evidence do you have to support you claim that Jumbo, opened to the public and tourist would only be a minority interest? Do you have some facts and figures?[/p][/quote]DL, minority interest facts? amongst others total failure of the BTT lobby to win a working level of effective support in 30 years resulting in a pretty sad legacy. Just thought, the "preserve as is only" lobby have had centre stage on this for about one third of jumbos working life. Harrowgate and York have made a fruitful and tasteful transition of use for their old buildings, most of which are decades older than Jumbo. I say again, and perhaps you do the forum the courtesy of a response, how would the Victorian's have dealt with a redundant water storage system if it was in the way of high tech Jumbo?[/p][/quote]The 'BTT lobby' hasn't as yet been given the opportunity to open Jumbo to the public, so how can you say its failed. You state that the "preserve as is only" lobby has had centre stage on it for about one third of Jumbo's working life. No, the LAW has had centre stage, and hopefully it will stay that way. BTT fail to win support in 30 years? Really, how do you figure, considering the charity didn't form until 2006 which is 8 years ago. For a charity with 'no support' it raised £40,000 very quickly when it was given less that four weeks notice that Jumbo was being auctioned.[/p][/quote]DL, please accept my sincere apology. I have got it wrong again. From the tread to date I thought the BTT had some form of agreed access, which would have great fun to use. So why haven't CBC/EH enforced best practice in terms minimal maintenance? We look after one particular building in the town, which is by no means iconic. The heritage mob are there the instant the scaffolding starts. And quite right, they demand the full remedial spec including supplier detail of lime wash and mortar. Has something changed recently in the way of enforcement? I understand from a friend that a certain family in Tiptree systematically wrecked a historic building by stealth over a long period till it became impossible to renovate. I believe planning has now been agreed for high density housing development on the site. Once again I apologise for believing the BTT had been on board for a longer period.[/p][/quote]Apology accepted, Angry, of course. It angers me that Colchester Borough Council do not use their statutory powers and come down hard on these individuals who have systematically chosen to buy Jumbo and sit on it for years without doing so much as cleaning it. It is not acceptable that someone should buy a grade 2* listed building and deliberately neglect it to either try and play off its state to gain favour with a public audience to support a planning scheme or because repairs cost money and it reduces profit margins. Jumbo will only decline if the Council fails to act. BTT were part of the lobby to get an Urgent Works Notice served on the previous owner to make the building weather tight, which it now thankfully is. But to my mind, that is not enough. I hope you can gain access to the tower and go and see it for yourself up close and personal. Perhaps then, you will see things differently and will no longer have the stomach to see it get developed and ruined forever. Some things aren't progress, they're vandalism. Jumbo isn't just a water tower, its probably the finest example of a municipal Victorian water tower in existence. Colchester can boast that they have the largest surviving Norman keep in Europe and the largest surviving Victorian water tower in England. DL1970
  • Score: 7

3:19pm Sun 8 Jun 14

William George says...

DL1970 wrote:
Angry of Lexden wrote:
William George wrote:
Angry Of Lexden,

The iconic water tower Jumbo is admired by many of us of the present generation. It shows its history, strength in structure and its size in and around Colchester when coming to Colchester.
That is history for the present and future people to see. Where history has always shown an importance to have and to see.
You and a couple of others in comments in a similar way of words have said we must move forward for the future generation.

I do say we must, but in a thought of past, present,and future generation for Jumbo Water Tower. As an example one reason of many reasons we should importantly remember once historic buildings are gone they are gone forever but modern buildings can always return whenever, that would include any glass pannel buildings too.
Ok WG, please clarify, would you support the sympathetic adjustment of Jumbo to enable Jumbo to attract a wider interest and enjoy a new lease of useful life as.... cafe, museum, observation platform, art studio, plus others? or are determined to preserve Jumbo as a 135 year old water tower minority interest? The latter has proved to be a failure to date, and further attempts might be a distraction from the former. What do you say, or maybe the McDonald's type option could worm it's way in while we are distracted on the impossible.
Here we go again. Cafe, museum restaurant. Don't we have enough restaurants already? Quite a few of them are failing. What evidence do you have to support you claim that Jumbo, opened to the public and tourist would only be a minority interest? Do you have some facts and figures?
DL 1970,
most perfectly said are your words. Also you mentioned about the amount of cafes and restaurants that Colchester has and they are too many indeed.
For our present generation there are more than enough of them, and for our future generation they are there.
Years ago planning departments were more sensible about, with a ruling to make cafes and restaurants more spread apart. That idea also was a help to the trader in a less tough struggle with their competitors
Now if a cafe or restaurant in a street we don't like, then a pace of few yards by us and then another cafe can be found.

As to whether Angry Of Lexden has any facts and figures, I don't think they can be the right ones he has.

If a cafe for Jumbo Tower is essential to have then so that will have to be perhaps.
But bad designs and of glass panels between the legs is far from a suitable design for the Colchester Jumbo Water Tower.
[quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Angry of Lexden[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]William George[/bold] wrote: Angry Of Lexden, The iconic water tower Jumbo is admired by many of us of the present generation. It shows its history, strength in structure and its size in and around Colchester when coming to Colchester. That is history for the present and future people to see. Where history has always shown an importance to have and to see. You and a couple of others in comments in a similar way of words have said we must move forward for the future generation. I do say we must, but in a thought of past, present,and future generation for Jumbo Water Tower. As an example one reason of many reasons we should importantly remember once historic buildings are gone they are gone forever but modern buildings can always return whenever, that would include any glass pannel buildings too.[/p][/quote]Ok WG, please clarify, would you support the sympathetic adjustment of Jumbo to enable Jumbo to attract a wider interest and enjoy a new lease of useful life as.... cafe, museum, observation platform, art studio, plus others? or are determined to preserve Jumbo as a 135 year old water tower minority interest? The latter has proved to be a failure to date, and further attempts might be a distraction from the former. What do you say, or maybe the McDonald's type option could worm it's way in while we are distracted on the impossible.[/p][/quote]Here we go again. Cafe, museum restaurant. Don't we have enough restaurants already? Quite a few of them are failing. What evidence do you have to support you claim that Jumbo, opened to the public and tourist would only be a minority interest? Do you have some facts and figures?[/p][/quote]DL 1970, most perfectly said are your words. Also you mentioned about the amount of cafes and restaurants that Colchester has and they are too many indeed. For our present generation there are more than enough of them, and for our future generation they are there. Years ago planning departments were more sensible about, with a ruling to make cafes and restaurants more spread apart. That idea also was a help to the trader in a less tough struggle with their competitors Now if a cafe or restaurant in a street we don't like, then a pace of few yards by us and then another cafe can be found. As to whether Angry Of Lexden has any facts and figures, I don't think they can be the right ones he has. If a cafe for Jumbo Tower is essential to have then so that will have to be perhaps. But bad designs and of glass panels between the legs is far from a suitable design for the Colchester Jumbo Water Tower. William George
  • Score: 7

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree