Decision by Waltham Forest Council hailed as a major step towards returning the historic venue to the community

This Is Local London: Council leader Chris Robbins with cabinet members, residents and campaigners at last night's meeting Council leader Chris Robbins with cabinet members, residents and campaigners at last night's meeting

The re-opening of an historic cinema for the community took a major step forward last night after funding was agreed to purchase the building.

Waltham Forest Council’s cabinet approved undisclosed funds to push for the purchase of the grade II-listed former EMD in Hoe Street, Walthamstow, from owner Universal Church of the Kingdom of God (UCKG).

The council has already vowed to push ahead with the compulsory purchase (CPO) of the building if a deal cannot be struck.

It is working in partnership with the independent Soho Theatre Company and the Waltham Forest Cinema Trust to turn the site into a mixed entertainment venue and cinema.

The Soho Theatre Company described the vote as a victory for community action.

UCKG have had a number of attempts to turn the venue, which has been empty since 2003, into a place of worship rejected.

There has been a long-running community campaign to re-open the venue, which has been supported by a number of high profile celebrities, including Mick Jagger, who performed there with the Rolling Stones in the 1960s.

Cabinet has instructed officers to start the CPO process but UCKG, which is a very wealthy international evangelical organisation, is expected to strongly challenge the bid.

Fore more on this story, see the Waltham Forest Guardian - out Thursday.

Comments (31)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:39am Wed 16 Jul 14

Villagecranberry says...

One snag.............It ain't for sale.
One snag.............It ain't for sale. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -21

11:45am Wed 16 Jul 14

Chingstow says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
One snag.............It ain't for sale.
COMPULSORY purchase order., does t need to be for sale
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: One snag.............It ain't for sale.[/p][/quote]COMPULSORY purchase order., does t need to be for sale Chingstow
  • Score: 13

12:06pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Villagecranberry says...

Chingstow wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
One snag.............It ain't for sale.
COMPULSORY purchase order., does t need to be for sale
Read it again, they have not got that far yet, they are going to try and persuade the church to sell it to them which has as much chance as Eddie The Eagle and Vanesa Mae winning an Olympic Gold for skiing.
[quote][p][bold]Chingstow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: One snag.............It ain't for sale.[/p][/quote]COMPULSORY purchase order., does t need to be for sale[/p][/quote]Read it again, they have not got that far yet, they are going to try and persuade the church to sell it to them which has as much chance as Eddie The Eagle and Vanesa Mae winning an Olympic Gold for skiing. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -14

12:22pm Wed 16 Jul 14

PsiMonk says...

Ah, Villagecranberry - never let the facts get in the way of a bit of a prod on t'internet.

If the church fail to sell at a reasonable price, it's now clear the council are ready to CPO. That was the whole point of the meeting last night - to put all the necessary council agreements in place to get on with it.

Your comments on the cinema and reality drift ever further apart...
Ah, Villagecranberry - never let the facts get in the way of a bit of a prod on t'internet. If the church fail to sell at a reasonable price, it's now clear the council are ready to CPO. That was the whole point of the meeting last night - to put all the necessary council agreements in place to get on with it. Your comments on the cinema and reality drift ever further apart... PsiMonk
  • Score: 17

1:29pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Villagecranberry says...

PsiMonk wrote:
Ah, Villagecranberry - never let the facts get in the way of a bit of a prod on t'internet.

If the church fail to sell at a reasonable price, it's now clear the council are ready to CPO. That was the whole point of the meeting last night - to put all the necessary council agreements in place to get on with it.

Your comments on the cinema and reality drift ever further apart...
Dream on , CPO? Never in a month of Sundays.
[quote][p][bold]PsiMonk[/bold] wrote: Ah, Villagecranberry - never let the facts get in the way of a bit of a prod on t'internet. If the church fail to sell at a reasonable price, it's now clear the council are ready to CPO. That was the whole point of the meeting last night - to put all the necessary council agreements in place to get on with it. Your comments on the cinema and reality drift ever further apart...[/p][/quote]Dream on , CPO? Never in a month of Sundays. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -15

1:47pm Wed 16 Jul 14

karenogil76 says...

wonderful news a move forward for the whole of the Walthamstow community. An important part of the history of this vibrant town close to being saved. I hope the Church now work in a truly christian way and give this back to the people. Make Jesus proud and love they neigbour.
wonderful news a move forward for the whole of the Walthamstow community. An important part of the history of this vibrant town close to being saved. I hope the Church now work in a truly christian way and give this back to the people. Make Jesus proud and love they neigbour. karenogil76
  • Score: 2

1:48pm Wed 16 Jul 14

RichieA70 says...

It felt like an honour to be at this milestone meeting and hear the passionate speeches from Council Leader Chris Robbins, Cllr Clare Coghill and Deputy Leader Clyde Loakes who admitted the council have changed substantially in their support for this cause and recognise the value of this building not just to the borough, but London as a whole and further afield.

It was also great hearing from former MP Neil Gerrard who confirmed the massive community support for this has been solid and growing over the years. I also enjoyed hearing from Soho Theatre's Steve Marmion who has a fantastic vision for the building and a strong commitment to seeing it through. If it was bad luck for the UCKG to deprive the community of this building over the years, it's great fortune that a talented and hugely successful outfit as Soho Theatre should choose to take over this beautiful venue.

Its revival will completely transform Walthamstow.

Exciting times.
It felt like an honour to be at this milestone meeting and hear the passionate speeches from Council Leader Chris Robbins, Cllr Clare Coghill and Deputy Leader Clyde Loakes who admitted the council have changed substantially in their support for this cause and recognise the value of this building not just to the borough, but London as a whole and further afield. It was also great hearing from former MP Neil Gerrard who confirmed the massive community support for this has been solid and growing over the years. I also enjoyed hearing from Soho Theatre's Steve Marmion who has a fantastic vision for the building and a strong commitment to seeing it through. If it was bad luck for the UCKG to deprive the community of this building over the years, it's great fortune that a talented and hugely successful outfit as Soho Theatre should choose to take over this beautiful venue. Its revival will completely transform Walthamstow. Exciting times. RichieA70
  • Score: 16

2:42pm Wed 16 Jul 14

jonny mash says...

This is a mere pyrrhic victory. As the charming and informative Natalie Glanvill points out the church are a very wealthy international organisation, if they are forced to sell I doubt whether the council / McMuffin / Soho Raymond Revue theatre alliance will be the only bidders and there is nothing stopping the UCKG selling to another church or to a respected UK based company like JD Wetherspoon. The opening of the far supeior brand new cinema on the arcade site is shirley the deathknell for the business plan of the council / McMuffin / Soho Raymond Revue theatre alliance. Also, it is highly amusing that Comrade Neil Gerrard is now getting involved in this as the arcade site disaster (10 years of dereliction) happenend when he was the MP for Walthamstow Village pub if memory serves me correctly? As another commenter has stated the majority of people in Walthamstow Central (not the village) could not care less about this anachronistic folly, they want a state of the art venue with facilities fit for the 21st century - not obscure art house films preceeded by someone playing "Oh I do like to be beside the sea side" on a large Bingo Organ.
This is a mere pyrrhic victory. As the charming and informative Natalie Glanvill points out the church are a very wealthy international organisation, if they are forced to sell I doubt whether the council / McMuffin / Soho Raymond Revue theatre alliance will be the only bidders and there is nothing stopping the UCKG selling to another church or to a respected UK based company like JD Wetherspoon. The opening of the far supeior brand new cinema on the arcade site is shirley the deathknell for the business plan of the council / McMuffin / Soho Raymond Revue theatre alliance. Also, it is highly amusing that Comrade Neil Gerrard is now getting involved in this as the arcade site disaster (10 years of dereliction) happenend when he was the MP for Walthamstow Village pub if memory serves me correctly? As another commenter has stated the majority of people in Walthamstow Central (not the village) could not care less about this anachronistic folly, they want a state of the art venue with facilities fit for the 21st century - not obscure art house films preceeded by someone playing "Oh I do like to be beside the sea side" on a large Bingo Organ. jonny mash
  • Score: -17

2:54pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Villagecranberry says...

karenogil76 wrote:
wonderful news a move forward for the whole of the Walthamstow community. An important part of the history of this vibrant town close to being saved. I hope the Church now work in a truly christian way and give this back to the people. Make Jesus proud and love they neigbour.
Even with out an H, they should be loved.

The thing is, the Church will want a return on their money despite 'Campaigners' saying they bought the property 'over the odds'.

People are paying over the odds for tiny cottages in Walthamstow Village at the moment. Try buying these off them for half the price.
[quote][p][bold]karenogil76[/bold] wrote: wonderful news a move forward for the whole of the Walthamstow community. An important part of the history of this vibrant town close to being saved. I hope the Church now work in a truly christian way and give this back to the people. Make Jesus proud and love they neigbour.[/p][/quote]Even with out an H, they should be loved. The thing is, the Church will want a return on their money despite 'Campaigners' saying they bought the property 'over the odds'. People are paying over the odds for tiny cottages in Walthamstow Village at the moment. Try buying these off them for half the price. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -10

3:14pm Wed 16 Jul 14

PsiMonk says...

Ah dear oh dear, what a bunch of rubbish is spouted by some people on here.

jonny mash said:
"the church are a very wealthy international organisation, if they are forced to sell I doubt whether the council / McMuffin / Soho Raymond Revue theatre alliance will be the only bidders and there is nothing stopping the UCKG selling to another church or to a respected UK based company like JD Wetherspoon."

Except everyone and their aunt knows now that the council is moving forward with a CPO of which the aim is to restore the building to entertainment use, and that the church absolutely, spectacularly failed to get a change of use application through. Any buyer who'd require a change of use would have to be insane to go near the cinema now.

"The opening of the far supeior brand new cinema on the arcade site is shirley the deathknell for the business plan of the council / McMuffin / Soho Raymond Revue theatre alliance."

Except the two complement each other, as you'd know if you bothered to read the Cinema Trust's plans - available here: http://www.walthamfo
restcinematrust.com/

The Cinema Trust plans a three-screen arthouse cinema, production offices and the main area being a live comedy venue. Hardly the same as the nine-screen popcorn multiplex planned next door.

"Also, it is highly amusing that Comrade Neil Gerrard is now getting involved in this as the arcade site disaster (10 years of dereliction) happenend when he was the MP"

Except Neil has been in the campaign since the beginning - as has Stella. The sale was a private one - the MP couldn't do anything to stop it.

"the majority of people in Walthamstow Central (not the village) could not care less about this anachronistic folly, they want a state of the art venue with facilities fit for the 21st century - not obscure art house films preceeded by someone playing "Oh I do like to be beside the sea side" on a large Bingo Organ."

Except the council's own survey, done at a time when they were desperate to scupper the campaign, showed a majority of residents across the whole borough wanted it back. And a big majority in Walthamstow specifically. If you'd care to present any evidence at all that people don't care, I'm all ears. But the McGuffins, for instance, operates one of the largest membership lists of a campaigning group in the borough - plenty of evidence people care.

Meanwhile, there's also ample evidence that the massively and rapidly increasing middle classes of Walthamstow would be plenty to support an arthouse cinema. Again, care to throw down some evidence on your ludicrous claims?

Villagecranberry said: "The thing is, the Church will want a return on their money despite 'Campaigners' saying they bought the property 'over the odds'."

You still don't understand what a CPO is, do you? If they won't sell, what the church paid becomes utterly irrelevant - a CPO, for right or wrong, is based on what independent experts value the property at. It's what the building is worth right now that matters. Given its heavily-listed status, condition etc. that's going to have risen a lot less than nearby "tiny cottages". It's probably dropped in value since the last valuation, in fact.
Ah dear oh dear, what a bunch of rubbish is spouted by some people on here. jonny mash said: "the church are a very wealthy international organisation, if they are forced to sell I doubt whether the council / McMuffin / Soho Raymond Revue theatre alliance will be the only bidders and there is nothing stopping the UCKG selling to another church or to a respected UK based company like JD Wetherspoon." Except everyone and their aunt knows now that the council is moving forward with a CPO of which the aim is to restore the building to entertainment use, and that the church absolutely, spectacularly failed to get a change of use application through. Any buyer who'd require a change of use would have to be insane to go near the cinema now. "The opening of the far supeior brand new cinema on the arcade site is shirley the deathknell for the business plan of the council / McMuffin / Soho Raymond Revue theatre alliance." Except the two complement each other, as you'd know if you bothered to read the Cinema Trust's plans - available here: http://www.walthamfo restcinematrust.com/ The Cinema Trust plans a three-screen arthouse cinema, production offices and the main area being a live comedy venue. Hardly the same as the nine-screen popcorn multiplex planned next door. "Also, it is highly amusing that Comrade Neil Gerrard is now getting involved in this as the arcade site disaster (10 years of dereliction) happenend when he was the MP" Except Neil has been in the campaign since the beginning - as has Stella. The sale was a private one - the MP couldn't do anything to stop it. "the majority of people in Walthamstow Central (not the village) could not care less about this anachronistic folly, they want a state of the art venue with facilities fit for the 21st century - not obscure art house films preceeded by someone playing "Oh I do like to be beside the sea side" on a large Bingo Organ." Except the council's own survey, done at a time when they were desperate to scupper the campaign, showed a majority of residents across the whole borough wanted it back. And a big majority in Walthamstow specifically. If you'd care to present any evidence at all that people don't care, I'm all ears. But the McGuffins, for instance, operates one of the largest membership lists of a campaigning group in the borough - plenty of evidence people care. Meanwhile, there's also ample evidence that the massively and rapidly increasing middle classes of Walthamstow would be plenty to support an arthouse cinema. Again, care to throw down some evidence on your ludicrous claims? Villagecranberry said: "The thing is, the Church will want a return on their money despite 'Campaigners' saying they bought the property 'over the odds'." You still don't understand what a CPO is, do you? If they won't sell, what the church paid becomes utterly irrelevant - a CPO, for right or wrong, is based on what independent experts value the property at. It's what the building is worth right now that matters. Given its heavily-listed status, condition etc. that's going to have risen a lot less than nearby "tiny cottages". It's probably dropped in value since the last valuation, in fact. PsiMonk
  • Score: 11

3:40pm Wed 16 Jul 14

jonny mash says...

PsiMonk wrote:
Ah dear oh dear, what a bunch of rubbish is spouted by some people on here. jonny mash said: "the church are a very wealthy international organisation, if they are forced to sell I doubt whether the council / McMuffin / Soho Raymond Revue theatre alliance will be the only bidders and there is nothing stopping the UCKG selling to another church or to a respected UK based company like JD Wetherspoon." Except everyone and their aunt knows now that the council is moving forward with a CPO of which the aim is to restore the building to entertainment use, and that the church absolutely, spectacularly failed to get a change of use application through. Any buyer who'd require a change of use would have to be insane to go near the cinema now. "The opening of the far supeior brand new cinema on the arcade site is shirley the deathknell for the business plan of the council / McMuffin / Soho Raymond Revue theatre alliance." Except the two complement each other, as you'd know if you bothered to read the Cinema Trust's plans - available here: http://www.walthamfo restcinematrust.com/ The Cinema Trust plans a three-screen arthouse cinema, production offices and the main area being a live comedy venue. Hardly the same as the nine-screen popcorn multiplex planned next door. "Also, it is highly amusing that Comrade Neil Gerrard is now getting involved in this as the arcade site disaster (10 years of dereliction) happenend when he was the MP" Except Neil has been in the campaign since the beginning - as has Stella. The sale was a private one - the MP couldn't do anything to stop it. "the majority of people in Walthamstow Central (not the village) could not care less about this anachronistic folly, they want a state of the art venue with facilities fit for the 21st century - not obscure art house films preceeded by someone playing "Oh I do like to be beside the sea side" on a large Bingo Organ." Except the council's own survey, done at a time when they were desperate to scupper the campaign, showed a majority of residents across the whole borough wanted it back. And a big majority in Walthamstow specifically. If you'd care to present any evidence at all that people don't care, I'm all ears. But the McGuffins, for instance, operates one of the largest membership lists of a campaigning group in the borough - plenty of evidence people care. Meanwhile, there's also ample evidence that the massively and rapidly increasing middle classes of Walthamstow would be plenty to support an arthouse cinema. Again, care to throw down some evidence on your ludicrous claims? Villagecranberry said: "The thing is, the Church will want a return on their money despite 'Campaigners' saying they bought the property 'over the odds'." You still don't understand what a CPO is, do you? If they won't sell, what the church paid becomes utterly irrelevant - a CPO, for right or wrong, is based on what independent experts value the property at. It's what the building is worth right now that matters. Given its heavily-listed status, condition etc. that's going to have risen a lot less than nearby "tiny cottages". It's probably dropped in value since the last valuation, in fact.
JD Wetherspoons have spectacularly converted many former cinemas in to public houses over the years creating many jobs without a penny of public money so converting the Granada will not be a problem for them. I have read the Cinema Trust's plans and was absoultely staggered to discover that the cost of this project is £12 million pounds and would take two years to complete!! I say again £12 million pounds, in the plans there are no details of how the future revenue and profit calculations have been made. If you took these plans to Lord Alan Sugar he would without doubt point at you and say "this is the worst business plan I've ever seen in this boardroom, PSI Monk - You have been fired".
I'm sure Comrade Gerrard and the Rt Hon Dr Stella Creases MP have been on side since the start but can you please advise why they allowed the arcade site to remain derelict for 10 years (apart from that time when they had the world's smallest ice rink)?
[quote][p][bold]PsiMonk[/bold] wrote: Ah dear oh dear, what a bunch of rubbish is spouted by some people on here. jonny mash said: "the church are a very wealthy international organisation, if they are forced to sell I doubt whether the council / McMuffin / Soho Raymond Revue theatre alliance will be the only bidders and there is nothing stopping the UCKG selling to another church or to a respected UK based company like JD Wetherspoon." Except everyone and their aunt knows now that the council is moving forward with a CPO of which the aim is to restore the building to entertainment use, and that the church absolutely, spectacularly failed to get a change of use application through. Any buyer who'd require a change of use would have to be insane to go near the cinema now. "The opening of the far supeior brand new cinema on the arcade site is shirley the deathknell for the business plan of the council / McMuffin / Soho Raymond Revue theatre alliance." Except the two complement each other, as you'd know if you bothered to read the Cinema Trust's plans - available here: http://www.walthamfo restcinematrust.com/ The Cinema Trust plans a three-screen arthouse cinema, production offices and the main area being a live comedy venue. Hardly the same as the nine-screen popcorn multiplex planned next door. "Also, it is highly amusing that Comrade Neil Gerrard is now getting involved in this as the arcade site disaster (10 years of dereliction) happenend when he was the MP" Except Neil has been in the campaign since the beginning - as has Stella. The sale was a private one - the MP couldn't do anything to stop it. "the majority of people in Walthamstow Central (not the village) could not care less about this anachronistic folly, they want a state of the art venue with facilities fit for the 21st century - not obscure art house films preceeded by someone playing "Oh I do like to be beside the sea side" on a large Bingo Organ." Except the council's own survey, done at a time when they were desperate to scupper the campaign, showed a majority of residents across the whole borough wanted it back. And a big majority in Walthamstow specifically. If you'd care to present any evidence at all that people don't care, I'm all ears. But the McGuffins, for instance, operates one of the largest membership lists of a campaigning group in the borough - plenty of evidence people care. Meanwhile, there's also ample evidence that the massively and rapidly increasing middle classes of Walthamstow would be plenty to support an arthouse cinema. Again, care to throw down some evidence on your ludicrous claims? Villagecranberry said: "The thing is, the Church will want a return on their money despite 'Campaigners' saying they bought the property 'over the odds'." You still don't understand what a CPO is, do you? If they won't sell, what the church paid becomes utterly irrelevant - a CPO, for right or wrong, is based on what independent experts value the property at. It's what the building is worth right now that matters. Given its heavily-listed status, condition etc. that's going to have risen a lot less than nearby "tiny cottages". It's probably dropped in value since the last valuation, in fact.[/p][/quote]JD Wetherspoons have spectacularly converted many former cinemas in to public houses over the years creating many jobs without a penny of public money so converting the Granada will not be a problem for them. I have read the Cinema Trust's plans and was absoultely staggered to discover that the cost of this project is £12 million pounds and would take two years to complete!! I say again £12 million pounds, in the plans there are no details of how the future revenue and profit calculations have been made. If you took these plans to Lord Alan Sugar he would without doubt point at you and say "this is the worst business plan I've ever seen in this boardroom, PSI Monk - You have been fired". I'm sure Comrade Gerrard and the Rt Hon Dr Stella Creases MP have been on side since the start but can you please advise why they allowed the arcade site to remain derelict for 10 years (apart from that time when they had the world's smallest ice rink)? jonny mash
  • Score: -11

3:49pm Wed 16 Jul 14

PsiMonk says...

jonny, your blather about Wetherspoons misses my point. Read again.

On the Cinema Trust's plans, you're clearly no SirAlan. So pardon me if I'm not overly phased by your dismissal of an online vision document as lacking in a business plan (that would, duh, be confidential).

Stella and Neil also, as MPs, have nothing to do with who does what on the Arcade site. They're representatives of the borough at Parliament - it's the local council who are to blame (or not) for what happens on the Arcade site.
jonny, your blather about Wetherspoons misses my point. Read again. On the Cinema Trust's plans, you're clearly no SirAlan. So pardon me if I'm not overly phased by your dismissal of an online vision document as lacking in a business plan (that would, duh, be confidential). Stella and Neil also, as MPs, have nothing to do with who does what on the Arcade site. They're representatives of the borough at Parliament - it's the local council who are to blame (or not) for what happens on the Arcade site. PsiMonk
  • Score: 10

3:55pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Villagecranberry says...

jonny mash wrote:
PsiMonk wrote:
Ah dear oh dear, what a bunch of rubbish is spouted by some people on here. jonny mash said: "the church are a very wealthy international organisation, if they are forced to sell I doubt whether the council / McMuffin / Soho Raymond Revue theatre alliance will be the only bidders and there is nothing stopping the UCKG selling to another church or to a respected UK based company like JD Wetherspoon." Except everyone and their aunt knows now that the council is moving forward with a CPO of which the aim is to restore the building to entertainment use, and that the church absolutely, spectacularly failed to get a change of use application through. Any buyer who'd require a change of use would have to be insane to go near the cinema now. "The opening of the far supeior brand new cinema on the arcade site is shirley the deathknell for the business plan of the council / McMuffin / Soho Raymond Revue theatre alliance." Except the two complement each other, as you'd know if you bothered to read the Cinema Trust's plans - available here: http://www.walthamfo restcinematrust.com/ The Cinema Trust plans a three-screen arthouse cinema, production offices and the main area being a live comedy venue. Hardly the same as the nine-screen popcorn multiplex planned next door. "Also, it is highly amusing that Comrade Neil Gerrard is now getting involved in this as the arcade site disaster (10 years of dereliction) happenend when he was the MP" Except Neil has been in the campaign since the beginning - as has Stella. The sale was a private one - the MP couldn't do anything to stop it. "the majority of people in Walthamstow Central (not the village) could not care less about this anachronistic folly, they want a state of the art venue with facilities fit for the 21st century - not obscure art house films preceeded by someone playing "Oh I do like to be beside the sea side" on a large Bingo Organ." Except the council's own survey, done at a time when they were desperate to scupper the campaign, showed a majority of residents across the whole borough wanted it back. And a big majority in Walthamstow specifically. If you'd care to present any evidence at all that people don't care, I'm all ears. But the McGuffins, for instance, operates one of the largest membership lists of a campaigning group in the borough - plenty of evidence people care. Meanwhile, there's also ample evidence that the massively and rapidly increasing middle classes of Walthamstow would be plenty to support an arthouse cinema. Again, care to throw down some evidence on your ludicrous claims? Villagecranberry said: "The thing is, the Church will want a return on their money despite 'Campaigners' saying they bought the property 'over the odds'." You still don't understand what a CPO is, do you? If they won't sell, what the church paid becomes utterly irrelevant - a CPO, for right or wrong, is based on what independent experts value the property at. It's what the building is worth right now that matters. Given its heavily-listed status, condition etc. that's going to have risen a lot less than nearby "tiny cottages". It's probably dropped in value since the last valuation, in fact.
JD Wetherspoons have spectacularly converted many former cinemas in to public houses over the years creating many jobs without a penny of public money so converting the Granada will not be a problem for them. I have read the Cinema Trust's plans and was absoultely staggered to discover that the cost of this project is £12 million pounds and would take two years to complete!! I say again £12 million pounds, in the plans there are no details of how the future revenue and profit calculations have been made. If you took these plans to Lord Alan Sugar he would without doubt point at you and say "this is the worst business plan I've ever seen in this boardroom, PSI Monk - You have been fired".
I'm sure Comrade Gerrard and the Rt Hon Dr Stella Creases MP have been on side since the start but can you please advise why they allowed the arcade site to remain derelict for 10 years (apart from that time when they had the world's smallest ice rink)?
Don't forget also, Neil Gerrard when leader of the council, singlehandedly ruined many a shop and business, causing derelict buildings to crop up throughout the borough when he put the business rates up by 62%!

That was his legacy.

He should not be trusted with anything connected with the borough!
[quote][p][bold]jonny mash[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PsiMonk[/bold] wrote: Ah dear oh dear, what a bunch of rubbish is spouted by some people on here. jonny mash said: "the church are a very wealthy international organisation, if they are forced to sell I doubt whether the council / McMuffin / Soho Raymond Revue theatre alliance will be the only bidders and there is nothing stopping the UCKG selling to another church or to a respected UK based company like JD Wetherspoon." Except everyone and their aunt knows now that the council is moving forward with a CPO of which the aim is to restore the building to entertainment use, and that the church absolutely, spectacularly failed to get a change of use application through. Any buyer who'd require a change of use would have to be insane to go near the cinema now. "The opening of the far supeior brand new cinema on the arcade site is shirley the deathknell for the business plan of the council / McMuffin / Soho Raymond Revue theatre alliance." Except the two complement each other, as you'd know if you bothered to read the Cinema Trust's plans - available here: http://www.walthamfo restcinematrust.com/ The Cinema Trust plans a three-screen arthouse cinema, production offices and the main area being a live comedy venue. Hardly the same as the nine-screen popcorn multiplex planned next door. "Also, it is highly amusing that Comrade Neil Gerrard is now getting involved in this as the arcade site disaster (10 years of dereliction) happenend when he was the MP" Except Neil has been in the campaign since the beginning - as has Stella. The sale was a private one - the MP couldn't do anything to stop it. "the majority of people in Walthamstow Central (not the village) could not care less about this anachronistic folly, they want a state of the art venue with facilities fit for the 21st century - not obscure art house films preceeded by someone playing "Oh I do like to be beside the sea side" on a large Bingo Organ." Except the council's own survey, done at a time when they were desperate to scupper the campaign, showed a majority of residents across the whole borough wanted it back. And a big majority in Walthamstow specifically. If you'd care to present any evidence at all that people don't care, I'm all ears. But the McGuffins, for instance, operates one of the largest membership lists of a campaigning group in the borough - plenty of evidence people care. Meanwhile, there's also ample evidence that the massively and rapidly increasing middle classes of Walthamstow would be plenty to support an arthouse cinema. Again, care to throw down some evidence on your ludicrous claims? Villagecranberry said: "The thing is, the Church will want a return on their money despite 'Campaigners' saying they bought the property 'over the odds'." You still don't understand what a CPO is, do you? If they won't sell, what the church paid becomes utterly irrelevant - a CPO, for right or wrong, is based on what independent experts value the property at. It's what the building is worth right now that matters. Given its heavily-listed status, condition etc. that's going to have risen a lot less than nearby "tiny cottages". It's probably dropped in value since the last valuation, in fact.[/p][/quote]JD Wetherspoons have spectacularly converted many former cinemas in to public houses over the years creating many jobs without a penny of public money so converting the Granada will not be a problem for them. I have read the Cinema Trust's plans and was absoultely staggered to discover that the cost of this project is £12 million pounds and would take two years to complete!! I say again £12 million pounds, in the plans there are no details of how the future revenue and profit calculations have been made. If you took these plans to Lord Alan Sugar he would without doubt point at you and say "this is the worst business plan I've ever seen in this boardroom, PSI Monk - You have been fired". I'm sure Comrade Gerrard and the Rt Hon Dr Stella Creases MP have been on side since the start but can you please advise why they allowed the arcade site to remain derelict for 10 years (apart from that time when they had the world's smallest ice rink)?[/p][/quote]Don't forget also, Neil Gerrard when leader of the council, singlehandedly ruined many a shop and business, causing derelict buildings to crop up throughout the borough when he put the business rates up by 62%! That was his legacy. He should not be trusted with anything connected with the borough! Villagecranberry
  • Score: -19

4:04pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Villagecranberry says...

PsiMonk wrote:
Ah dear oh dear, what a bunch of rubbish is spouted by some people on here.

jonny mash said:
"the church are a very wealthy international organisation, if they are forced to sell I doubt whether the council / McMuffin / Soho Raymond Revue theatre alliance will be the only bidders and there is nothing stopping the UCKG selling to another church or to a respected UK based company like JD Wetherspoon."

Except everyone and their aunt knows now that the council is moving forward with a CPO of which the aim is to restore the building to entertainment use, and that the church absolutely, spectacularly failed to get a change of use application through. Any buyer who'd require a change of use would have to be insane to go near the cinema now.

"The opening of the far supeior brand new cinema on the arcade site is shirley the deathknell for the business plan of the council / McMuffin / Soho Raymond Revue theatre alliance."

Except the two complement each other, as you'd know if you bothered to read the Cinema Trust's plans - available here: http://www.walthamfo

restcinematrust.com/


The Cinema Trust plans a three-screen arthouse cinema, production offices and the main area being a live comedy venue. Hardly the same as the nine-screen popcorn multiplex planned next door.

"Also, it is highly amusing that Comrade Neil Gerrard is now getting involved in this as the arcade site disaster (10 years of dereliction) happenend when he was the MP"

Except Neil has been in the campaign since the beginning - as has Stella. The sale was a private one - the MP couldn't do anything to stop it.

"the majority of people in Walthamstow Central (not the village) could not care less about this anachronistic folly, they want a state of the art venue with facilities fit for the 21st century - not obscure art house films preceeded by someone playing "Oh I do like to be beside the sea side" on a large Bingo Organ."

Except the council's own survey, done at a time when they were desperate to scupper the campaign, showed a majority of residents across the whole borough wanted it back. And a big majority in Walthamstow specifically. If you'd care to present any evidence at all that people don't care, I'm all ears. But the McGuffins, for instance, operates one of the largest membership lists of a campaigning group in the borough - plenty of evidence people care.

Meanwhile, there's also ample evidence that the massively and rapidly increasing middle classes of Walthamstow would be plenty to support an arthouse cinema. Again, care to throw down some evidence on your ludicrous claims?

Villagecranberry said: "The thing is, the Church will want a return on their money despite 'Campaigners' saying they bought the property 'over the odds'."

You still don't understand what a CPO is, do you? If they won't sell, what the church paid becomes utterly irrelevant - a CPO, for right or wrong, is based on what independent experts value the property at. It's what the building is worth right now that matters. Given its heavily-listed status, condition etc. that's going to have risen a lot less than nearby "tiny cottages". It's probably dropped in value since the last valuation, in fact.
Once again, look at the photographs, all white people, apart from a few at the front with Loakes and I bet that these are council officials!

This McGuffin folly (1000 Members by their books) is completely unrepresentative of the Borough, as Mash states, most of the Borough could not give a hoot about the Granada and would not want public money spent on a drinking club showing odd ball films, especially when Libraries and Care Homes are being shut down.
[quote][p][bold]PsiMonk[/bold] wrote: Ah dear oh dear, what a bunch of rubbish is spouted by some people on here. jonny mash said: "the church are a very wealthy international organisation, if they are forced to sell I doubt whether the council / McMuffin / Soho Raymond Revue theatre alliance will be the only bidders and there is nothing stopping the UCKG selling to another church or to a respected UK based company like JD Wetherspoon." Except everyone and their aunt knows now that the council is moving forward with a CPO of which the aim is to restore the building to entertainment use, and that the church absolutely, spectacularly failed to get a change of use application through. Any buyer who'd require a change of use would have to be insane to go near the cinema now. "The opening of the far supeior brand new cinema on the arcade site is shirley the deathknell for the business plan of the council / McMuffin / Soho Raymond Revue theatre alliance." Except the two complement each other, as you'd know if you bothered to read the Cinema Trust's plans - available here: http://www.walthamfo restcinematrust.com/ The Cinema Trust plans a three-screen arthouse cinema, production offices and the main area being a live comedy venue. Hardly the same as the nine-screen popcorn multiplex planned next door. "Also, it is highly amusing that Comrade Neil Gerrard is now getting involved in this as the arcade site disaster (10 years of dereliction) happenend when he was the MP" Except Neil has been in the campaign since the beginning - as has Stella. The sale was a private one - the MP couldn't do anything to stop it. "the majority of people in Walthamstow Central (not the village) could not care less about this anachronistic folly, they want a state of the art venue with facilities fit for the 21st century - not obscure art house films preceeded by someone playing "Oh I do like to be beside the sea side" on a large Bingo Organ." Except the council's own survey, done at a time when they were desperate to scupper the campaign, showed a majority of residents across the whole borough wanted it back. And a big majority in Walthamstow specifically. If you'd care to present any evidence at all that people don't care, I'm all ears. But the McGuffins, for instance, operates one of the largest membership lists of a campaigning group in the borough - plenty of evidence people care. Meanwhile, there's also ample evidence that the massively and rapidly increasing middle classes of Walthamstow would be plenty to support an arthouse cinema. Again, care to throw down some evidence on your ludicrous claims? Villagecranberry said: "The thing is, the Church will want a return on their money despite 'Campaigners' saying they bought the property 'over the odds'." You still don't understand what a CPO is, do you? If they won't sell, what the church paid becomes utterly irrelevant - a CPO, for right or wrong, is based on what independent experts value the property at. It's what the building is worth right now that matters. Given its heavily-listed status, condition etc. that's going to have risen a lot less than nearby "tiny cottages". It's probably dropped in value since the last valuation, in fact.[/p][/quote]Once again, look at the photographs, all white people, apart from a few at the front with Loakes and I bet that these are council officials! This McGuffin folly (1000 Members by their books) is completely unrepresentative of the Borough, as Mash states, most of the Borough could not give a hoot about the Granada and would not want public money spent on a drinking club showing odd ball films, especially when Libraries and Care Homes are being shut down. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -22

4:18pm Wed 16 Jul 14

PsiMonk says...

Villagecranberry, yawn. Again, council's own survey of residents found majority in favour of returning Granada to entertainment use. That's as in across the borough, random sample of residents.
Villagecranberry, yawn. Again, council's own survey of residents found majority in favour of returning Granada to entertainment use. That's as in across the borough, random sample of residents. PsiMonk
  • Score: 8

4:33pm Wed 16 Jul 14

jonny mash says...

PsiMonk wrote:
jonny, your blather about Wetherspoons misses my point. Read again. On the Cinema Trust's plans, you're clearly no SirAlan. So pardon me if I'm not overly phased by your dismissal of an online vision document as lacking in a business plan (that would, duh, be confidential). Stella and Neil also, as MPs, have nothing to do with who does what on the Arcade site. They're representatives of the borough at Parliament - it's the local council who are to blame (or not) for what happens on the Arcade site.
So what you're saying is the taxpayers of LBWF are supposed to simply hand over £12 million pounds (no questions asked) to a private Quango based on a "Vision Document" where no financial details have been presented to the public bacause they are "duh, confidential"?
I'm not sure what prejudices you have against JD Wetherspoons but I would be delighted to see the building in their hands at a zero cost to the taxpayer, they are a public company who employ thousands of people and their books are available to view at any time - unlike the Council / McMuffin / Soho Raymond Revue Theatre alliance.
[quote][p][bold]PsiMonk[/bold] wrote: jonny, your blather about Wetherspoons misses my point. Read again. On the Cinema Trust's plans, you're clearly no SirAlan. So pardon me if I'm not overly phased by your dismissal of an online vision document as lacking in a business plan (that would, duh, be confidential). Stella and Neil also, as MPs, have nothing to do with who does what on the Arcade site. They're representatives of the borough at Parliament - it's the local council who are to blame (or not) for what happens on the Arcade site.[/p][/quote]So what you're saying is the taxpayers of LBWF are supposed to simply hand over £12 million pounds (no questions asked) to a private Quango based on a "Vision Document" where no financial details have been presented to the public bacause they are "duh, confidential"? I'm not sure what prejudices you have against JD Wetherspoons but I would be delighted to see the building in their hands at a zero cost to the taxpayer, they are a public company who employ thousands of people and their books are available to view at any time - unlike the Council / McMuffin / Soho Raymond Revue Theatre alliance. jonny mash
  • Score: -10

4:52pm Wed 16 Jul 14

PsiMonk says...

Jonny jonny jonny, really?

1. I'm not particularly prejudiced against or for Wetherspoons. I'm saying that as a pub would be a change of use, they'll be steering well clear of the Granada - as the council wants it for entertainment and is prepared to CPO to get that. No pubco, or church, or anyone outside of entertainment use, is going to buy the building under current circumstances.

2. Since when would the council foot a 12 million pound bill? I went back and had a look at the "finance" section of the vision document you pulled the 12 million from. Might I suggest next time you actually read it properly? Here's what it says...

On revenue: "The venue will be owned by a charitable trust with the activities and programme commercially run to generate income. It will not be seeking any public funding or subsidy towards running costs and must therefore generate profits to be sustainable..." The document then goes on to give turnover and surplus estimates that would make SirAlun sit up and take notice.

On capital costs: "Waltham Forest becomes a priority area for the Heritage Lottery Fund in 2013 and we are in discussion with them
as well as some key charitable foundations and major arts patrons. In addition to these major grants, we shall undertake a professionally run fundraising campaign utilising the vast experience and contacts within the team. The balance of the capital budget will come from commercial financing which the revenue projections are able to support."

As far as I am aware, the only costs to the council are the potential costs of pursuing a CPO. After that, the Cinema Trust steps in, uses a mix of commercial and charitable funding to buy the building and then runs it, ploughing the profits back into the building.
Jonny jonny jonny, really? 1. I'm not particularly prejudiced against or for Wetherspoons. I'm saying that as a pub would be a change of use, they'll be steering well clear of the Granada - as the council wants it for entertainment and is prepared to CPO to get that. No pubco, or church, or anyone outside of entertainment use, is going to buy the building under current circumstances. 2. Since when would the council foot a 12 million pound bill? I went back and had a look at the "finance" section of the vision document you pulled the 12 million from. Might I suggest next time you actually read it properly? Here's what it says... On revenue: "The venue will be owned by a charitable trust with the activities and programme commercially run to generate income. It will not be seeking any public funding or subsidy towards running costs and must therefore generate profits to be sustainable..." The document then goes on to give turnover and surplus estimates that would make SirAlun sit up and take notice. On capital costs: "Waltham Forest becomes a priority area for the Heritage Lottery Fund in 2013 and we are in discussion with them as well as some key charitable foundations and major arts patrons. In addition to these major grants, we shall undertake a professionally run fundraising campaign utilising the vast experience and contacts within the team. The balance of the capital budget will come from commercial financing which the revenue projections are able to support." As far as I am aware, the only costs to the council are the potential costs of pursuing a CPO. After that, the Cinema Trust steps in, uses a mix of commercial and charitable funding to buy the building and then runs it, ploughing the profits back into the building. PsiMonk
  • Score: 10

4:58pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Villagecranberry says...

PsiMonk wrote:
Villagecranberry, yawn. Again, council's own survey of residents found majority in favour of returning Granada to entertainment use. That's as in across the borough, random sample of residents.
You can 'yawn', typical response of someone's desperation to get a point across. What survey? Half the people I have asked know of no survey. Get real, Waltham Forest Council Surveys, are not worth the paper they are written on.

My point is where are the McGuffins, the Cinema Trust and the group in the photos here are not representative of the majority of the borough at all.

I hope the Church Group use their. Human Rights to fight this talk about CPOs
[quote][p][bold]PsiMonk[/bold] wrote: Villagecranberry, yawn. Again, council's own survey of residents found majority in favour of returning Granada to entertainment use. That's as in across the borough, random sample of residents.[/p][/quote]You can 'yawn', typical response of someone's desperation to get a point across. What survey? Half the people I have asked know of no survey. Get real, Waltham Forest Council Surveys, are not worth the paper they are written on. My point is where are the McGuffins, the Cinema Trust and the group in the photos here are not representative of the majority of the borough at all. I hope the Church Group use their. Human Rights to fight this talk about CPOs Villagecranberry
  • Score: -11

5:13pm Wed 16 Jul 14

PsiMonk says...

Villagecranberry, not desperate, apart from desperately bored of sub-standard trolls who seem happy to query basic facts but then throw in airily bizarre conspiracy theories and opinions in return. The survey took place a few years back. If you were polite I could probably dig it out. Since you aren't, I won't.

Your point is that a bunch of people who turned up at the meeting are white. Yes, I understand your point. My point is the council surveyed residents and found a sizeable majority across the borough wanted the Granada returned to cinema use. Time and time again the public have been very clear, when asked, how much they want that building back as an entertainments venue. You gibbering on makes no difference to that.

The church would be very foolish to use their "Human Rights" to fight this. But they may do so. If they do, I doubt they'll win. They've not won anything yet.

Now go away and find something more interesting to do than muck-spreading without any basis in fact.
Villagecranberry, not desperate, apart from desperately bored of sub-standard trolls who seem happy to query basic facts but then throw in airily bizarre conspiracy theories and opinions in return. The survey took place a few years back. If you were polite I could probably dig it out. Since you aren't, I won't. Your point is that a bunch of people who turned up at the meeting are white. Yes, I understand your point. My point is the council surveyed residents and found a sizeable majority across the borough wanted the Granada returned to cinema use. Time and time again the public have been very clear, when asked, how much they want that building back as an entertainments venue. You gibbering on makes no difference to that. The church would be very foolish to use their "Human Rights" to fight this. But they may do so. If they do, I doubt they'll win. They've not won anything yet. Now go away and find something more interesting to do than muck-spreading without any basis in fact. PsiMonk
  • Score: 7

5:23pm Wed 16 Jul 14

jonny mash says...

PsiMonk wrote:
Jonny jonny jonny, really? 1. I'm not particularly prejudiced against or for Wetherspoons. I'm saying that as a pub would be a change of use, they'll be steering well clear of the Granada - as the council wants it for entertainment and is prepared to CPO to get that. No pubco, or church, or anyone outside of entertainment use, is going to buy the building under current circumstances. 2. Since when would the council foot a 12 million pound bill? I went back and had a look at the "finance" section of the vision document you pulled the 12 million from. Might I suggest next time you actually read it properly? Here's what it says... On revenue: "The venue will be owned by a charitable trust with the activities and programme commercially run to generate income. It will not be seeking any public funding or subsidy towards running costs and must therefore generate profits to be sustainable..." The document then goes on to give turnover and surplus estimates that would make SirAlun sit up and take notice. On capital costs: "Waltham Forest becomes a priority area for the Heritage Lottery Fund in 2013 and we are in discussion with them as well as some key charitable foundations and major arts patrons. In addition to these major grants, we shall undertake a professionally run fundraising campaign utilising the vast experience and contacts within the team. The balance of the capital budget will come from commercial financing which the revenue projections are able to support." As far as I am aware, the only costs to the council are the potential costs of pursuing a CPO. After that, the Cinema Trust steps in, uses a mix of commercial and charitable funding to buy the building and then runs it, ploughing the profits back into the building.
Again there is no explanation of how these turnover and surplus estimates were calculated. Were the sums done before the Empire Arcade Cinema was announced, these are vital questions that the Quango must answer. Even if the council liability was only for the CPO given the size of the plot of land you are still looking at a taxpayer bill for several millions of pounds. A commercial valuation would state that at least 15 4 bedroom houses could be built on the plot which would value it at at least £7.5million pounds - even more if tower blocks of flats were built.
[quote][p][bold]PsiMonk[/bold] wrote: Jonny jonny jonny, really? 1. I'm not particularly prejudiced against or for Wetherspoons. I'm saying that as a pub would be a change of use, they'll be steering well clear of the Granada - as the council wants it for entertainment and is prepared to CPO to get that. No pubco, or church, or anyone outside of entertainment use, is going to buy the building under current circumstances. 2. Since when would the council foot a 12 million pound bill? I went back and had a look at the "finance" section of the vision document you pulled the 12 million from. Might I suggest next time you actually read it properly? Here's what it says... On revenue: "The venue will be owned by a charitable trust with the activities and programme commercially run to generate income. It will not be seeking any public funding or subsidy towards running costs and must therefore generate profits to be sustainable..." The document then goes on to give turnover and surplus estimates that would make SirAlun sit up and take notice. On capital costs: "Waltham Forest becomes a priority area for the Heritage Lottery Fund in 2013 and we are in discussion with them as well as some key charitable foundations and major arts patrons. In addition to these major grants, we shall undertake a professionally run fundraising campaign utilising the vast experience and contacts within the team. The balance of the capital budget will come from commercial financing which the revenue projections are able to support." As far as I am aware, the only costs to the council are the potential costs of pursuing a CPO. After that, the Cinema Trust steps in, uses a mix of commercial and charitable funding to buy the building and then runs it, ploughing the profits back into the building.[/p][/quote]Again there is no explanation of how these turnover and surplus estimates were calculated. Were the sums done before the Empire Arcade Cinema was announced, these are vital questions that the Quango must answer. Even if the council liability was only for the CPO given the size of the plot of land you are still looking at a taxpayer bill for several millions of pounds. A commercial valuation would state that at least 15 4 bedroom houses could be built on the plot which would value it at at least £7.5million pounds - even more if tower blocks of flats were built. jonny mash
  • Score: -5

5:25pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Villagecranberry says...

jonny mash wrote:
PsiMonk wrote:
jonny, your blather about Wetherspoons misses my point. Read again. On the Cinema Trust's plans, you're clearly no SirAlan. So pardon me if I'm not overly phased by your dismissal of an online vision document as lacking in a business plan (that would, duh, be confidential). Stella and Neil also, as MPs, have nothing to do with who does what on the Arcade site. They're representatives of the borough at Parliament - it's the local council who are to blame (or not) for what happens on the Arcade site.
So what you're saying is the taxpayers of LBWF are supposed to simply hand over £12 million pounds (no questions asked) to a private Quango based on a "Vision Document" where no financial details have been presented to the public bacause they are "duh, confidential"?
I'm not sure what prejudices you have against JD Wetherspoons but I would be delighted to see the building in their hands at a zero cost to the taxpayer, they are a public company who employ thousands of people and their books are available to view at any time - unlike the Council / McMuffin / Soho Raymond Revue Theatre alliance.
They DO expect it Mash because the council are renowned for wasting millions, the campaigners want a folly for themselves. This project would haemorrhage money if left in a charity trust. A professional set up Wetherspoons or the like is the only way. All those making demands would not put their property up as a security. All mouth no trousers.
[quote][p][bold]jonny mash[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PsiMonk[/bold] wrote: jonny, your blather about Wetherspoons misses my point. Read again. On the Cinema Trust's plans, you're clearly no SirAlan. So pardon me if I'm not overly phased by your dismissal of an online vision document as lacking in a business plan (that would, duh, be confidential). Stella and Neil also, as MPs, have nothing to do with who does what on the Arcade site. They're representatives of the borough at Parliament - it's the local council who are to blame (or not) for what happens on the Arcade site.[/p][/quote]So what you're saying is the taxpayers of LBWF are supposed to simply hand over £12 million pounds (no questions asked) to a private Quango based on a "Vision Document" where no financial details have been presented to the public bacause they are "duh, confidential"? I'm not sure what prejudices you have against JD Wetherspoons but I would be delighted to see the building in their hands at a zero cost to the taxpayer, they are a public company who employ thousands of people and their books are available to view at any time - unlike the Council / McMuffin / Soho Raymond Revue Theatre alliance.[/p][/quote]They DO expect it Mash because the council are renowned for wasting millions, the campaigners want a folly for themselves. This project would haemorrhage money if left in a charity trust. A professional set up Wetherspoons or the like is the only way. All those making demands would not put their property up as a security. All mouth no trousers. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -14

5:30pm Wed 16 Jul 14

stickmanny says...

PsiMonk there's only one idiot here - jonny mush IS Villagecrapberry
PsiMonk there's only one idiot here - jonny mush IS Villagecrapberry stickmanny
  • Score: 13

5:45pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Villagecranberry says...

PsiMonk wrote:
Villagecranberry, not desperate, apart from desperately bored of sub-standard trolls who seem happy to query basic facts but then throw in airily bizarre conspiracy theories and opinions in return. The survey took place a few years back. If you were polite I could probably dig it out. Since you aren't, I won't.

Your point is that a bunch of people who turned up at the meeting are white. Yes, I understand your point. My point is the council surveyed residents and found a sizeable majority across the borough wanted the Granada returned to cinema use. Time and time again the public have been very clear, when asked, how much they want that building back as an entertainments venue. You gibbering on makes no difference to that.

The church would be very foolish to use their "Human Rights" to fight this. But they may do so. If they do, I doubt they'll win. They've not won anything yet.

Now go away and find something more interesting to do than muck-spreading without any basis in fact.
There you go again, insulting, to get your weak points across. At least you agree with the predominantly white breakdown of those in attendance which reflects the point I make, they are not representing the majority and diversity of the borough.

People can have different view points, we do not all have to sing from the same hymn sheet you know.
[quote][p][bold]PsiMonk[/bold] wrote: Villagecranberry, not desperate, apart from desperately bored of sub-standard trolls who seem happy to query basic facts but then throw in airily bizarre conspiracy theories and opinions in return. The survey took place a few years back. If you were polite I could probably dig it out. Since you aren't, I won't. Your point is that a bunch of people who turned up at the meeting are white. Yes, I understand your point. My point is the council surveyed residents and found a sizeable majority across the borough wanted the Granada returned to cinema use. Time and time again the public have been very clear, when asked, how much they want that building back as an entertainments venue. You gibbering on makes no difference to that. The church would be very foolish to use their "Human Rights" to fight this. But they may do so. If they do, I doubt they'll win. They've not won anything yet. Now go away and find something more interesting to do than muck-spreading without any basis in fact.[/p][/quote]There you go again, insulting, to get your weak points across. At least you agree with the predominantly white breakdown of those in attendance which reflects the point I make, they are not representing the majority and diversity of the borough. People can have different view points, we do not all have to sing from the same hymn sheet you know. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -7

7:22pm Wed 16 Jul 14

DaveE17 says...

Having worked in the entertainment industry for almost three decades, I know that the named businesses with a successful track record in both live performance and cinema exhibition are not enthusiastic dilettantes but are instead experienced hard-headed business people who will have done their sums and crunched every number before deciding to support and sign up to this project. It's not as if there aren't other locations around London to choose from and these companies' successful track records in the entertainment field speak for themselves; particularly as successful companies in this sector are not in the business of getting behind - and ponying up for - projects that either fall by the wayside or fail. Of course, there is a risk factor involved in any business project - particularly one in this sector where quality of product is contingent on both the spark of creativity and the desire of an audience to fully embrace it. However, I'd back the informed decisions of businesses whose balance sheets and history supports the view that they know a viable business model when they see one over those who speculate on potential negative outcomes without seemingly having any relevant knowledge or experience to back up their assertions. I hope the CPO succeeds and that an exciting independent venue in a wonderful building fit for purpose helps revive of the town centre and night-time economy - and that also includes the forthcoming complementary neighbouring Empire multiplex cinema complex and casual dining venues in The Scene.
Having worked in the entertainment industry for almost three decades, I know that the named businesses with a successful track record in both live performance and cinema exhibition are not enthusiastic dilettantes but are instead experienced hard-headed business people who will have done their sums and crunched every number before deciding to support and sign up to this project. It's not as if there aren't other locations around London to choose from and these companies' successful track records in the entertainment field speak for themselves; particularly as successful companies in this sector are not in the business of getting behind - and ponying up for - projects that either fall by the wayside or fail. Of course, there is a risk factor involved in any business project - particularly one in this sector where quality of product is contingent on both the spark of creativity and the desire of an audience to fully embrace it. However, I'd back the informed decisions of businesses whose balance sheets and history supports the view that they know a viable business model when they see one over those who speculate on potential negative outcomes without seemingly having any relevant knowledge or experience to back up their assertions. I hope the CPO succeeds and that an exciting independent venue in a wonderful building fit for purpose helps revive of the town centre and night-time economy - and that also includes the forthcoming complementary neighbouring Empire multiplex cinema complex and casual dining venues in The Scene. DaveE17
  • Score: 12

7:45pm Wed 16 Jul 14

Villagecranberry says...

DaveE17 wrote:
Having worked in the entertainment industry for almost three decades, I know that the named businesses with a successful track record in both live performance and cinema exhibition are not enthusiastic dilettantes but are instead experienced hard-headed business people who will have done their sums and crunched every number before deciding to support and sign up to this project. It's not as if there aren't other locations around London to choose from and these companies' successful track records in the entertainment field speak for themselves; particularly as successful companies in this sector are not in the business of getting behind - and ponying up for - projects that either fall by the wayside or fail. Of course, there is a risk factor involved in any business project - particularly one in this sector where quality of product is contingent on both the spark of creativity and the desire of an audience to fully embrace it. However, I'd back the informed decisions of businesses whose balance sheets and history supports the view that they know a viable business model when they see one over those who speculate on potential negative outcomes without seemingly having any relevant knowledge or experience to back up their assertions. I hope the CPO succeeds and that an exciting independent venue in a wonderful building fit for purpose helps revive of the town centre and night-time economy - and that also includes the forthcoming complementary neighbouring Empire multiplex cinema complex and casual dining venues in The Scene.
You make a lot of sense what you say , especially your observations on the shrewd businessmen involved. Of course they will get involved in the project when the incompetent Labour Council are giving taxpayers cash away like confetti.

The flaw in these type of arrangements is exactly what you have identified. You have too many different entities with different agendas and interests.
[quote][p][bold]DaveE17[/bold] wrote: Having worked in the entertainment industry for almost three decades, I know that the named businesses with a successful track record in both live performance and cinema exhibition are not enthusiastic dilettantes but are instead experienced hard-headed business people who will have done their sums and crunched every number before deciding to support and sign up to this project. It's not as if there aren't other locations around London to choose from and these companies' successful track records in the entertainment field speak for themselves; particularly as successful companies in this sector are not in the business of getting behind - and ponying up for - projects that either fall by the wayside or fail. Of course, there is a risk factor involved in any business project - particularly one in this sector where quality of product is contingent on both the spark of creativity and the desire of an audience to fully embrace it. However, I'd back the informed decisions of businesses whose balance sheets and history supports the view that they know a viable business model when they see one over those who speculate on potential negative outcomes without seemingly having any relevant knowledge or experience to back up their assertions. I hope the CPO succeeds and that an exciting independent venue in a wonderful building fit for purpose helps revive of the town centre and night-time economy - and that also includes the forthcoming complementary neighbouring Empire multiplex cinema complex and casual dining venues in The Scene.[/p][/quote]You make a lot of sense what you say , especially your observations on the shrewd businessmen involved. Of course they will get involved in the project when the incompetent Labour Council are giving taxpayers cash away like confetti. The flaw in these type of arrangements is exactly what you have identified. You have too many different entities with different agendas and interests. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -22

11:32pm Wed 16 Jul 14

John@renewwalthamforest says...

Follow the EMD road.... http://t.co/O7cQKAaS
mA http://t.co/N5lBLxnx
Xk
Follow the EMD road.... http://t.co/O7cQKAaS mA http://t.co/N5lBLxnx Xk John@renewwalthamforest
  • Score: 1

9:12am Thu 17 Jul 14

DaveE17 says...

Thanks for the reply, Villagecranberry. I'm not sure what you mean by "too many different entities with different agendas and interests". As far as I can see, this is a move by the council to regenerate the town centre and stimulate the local economy by potentially also bringing money into the borough - which I'm sure you'll agree is much needed. It seems that the private businesses are also buying into this vision, presumably on the basis of their informed assessment of the market and the potential profit that may accrue. It seems to me that the "different entities" are more or less pulling in the same direction and have similar interests as they all want the project to succeed. I take your point about the cost to local residents, but such large-scale planned regeneration does tend to bite deep and hopefully the results will be worth paying for and benefit the area for years to come.
Thanks for the reply, Villagecranberry. I'm not sure what you mean by "too many different entities with different agendas and interests". As far as I can see, this is a move by the council to regenerate the town centre and stimulate the local economy by potentially also bringing money into the borough - which I'm sure you'll agree is much needed. It seems that the private businesses are also buying into this vision, presumably on the basis of their informed assessment of the market and the potential profit that may accrue. It seems to me that the "different entities" are more or less pulling in the same direction and have similar interests as they all want the project to succeed. I take your point about the cost to local residents, but such large-scale planned regeneration does tend to bite deep and hopefully the results will be worth paying for and benefit the area for years to come. DaveE17
  • Score: 12

12:05pm Thu 17 Jul 14

StowLocal says...

Bring on the gentrification - I have absolutely no attachment whatsoever to the old romantic view of Walthamstow as a gritty, salt of the earth place. A nice artsy-fartsy cinema/entertainment venue will make Walthamstow an attractive place to go out at night, and is a long-term investment. It's great that money is finally being invested after years of neglect. Venues like this will most likely attract more "villagey" types i.e. middle class people and young professionals with disposable income. I personally think this is a very good thing - the area's still pretty tatty and needs venues like this to bring it up.
Bring on the gentrification - I have absolutely no attachment whatsoever to the old romantic view of Walthamstow as a gritty, salt of the earth place. A nice artsy-fartsy cinema/entertainment venue will make Walthamstow an attractive place to go out at night, and is a long-term investment. It's great that money is finally being invested after years of neglect. Venues like this will most likely attract more "villagey" types i.e. middle class people and young professionals with disposable income. I personally think this is a very good thing - the area's still pretty tatty and needs venues like this to bring it up. StowLocal
  • Score: 13

2:36pm Thu 17 Jul 14

jonny mash says...

StowLocal wrote:
Bring on the gentrification - I have absolutely no attachment whatsoever to the old romantic view of Walthamstow as a gritty, salt of the earth place. A nice artsy-fartsy cinema/entertainment venue will make Walthamstow an attractive place to go out at night, and is a long-term investment. It's great that money is finally being invested after years of neglect. Venues like this will most likely attract more "villagey" types i.e. middle class people and young professionals with disposable income. I personally think this is a very good thing - the area's still pretty tatty and needs venues like this to bring it up.
Social ethnic cleansing? Very nice
[quote][p][bold]StowLocal[/bold] wrote: Bring on the gentrification - I have absolutely no attachment whatsoever to the old romantic view of Walthamstow as a gritty, salt of the earth place. A nice artsy-fartsy cinema/entertainment venue will make Walthamstow an attractive place to go out at night, and is a long-term investment. It's great that money is finally being invested after years of neglect. Venues like this will most likely attract more "villagey" types i.e. middle class people and young professionals with disposable income. I personally think this is a very good thing - the area's still pretty tatty and needs venues like this to bring it up.[/p][/quote]Social ethnic cleansing? Very nice jonny mash
  • Score: -13

5:45pm Thu 17 Jul 14

StowLocal says...

Mattresses everywhere and people gobbing on the pavement? Even nicer.
Mattresses everywhere and people gobbing on the pavement? Even nicer. StowLocal
  • Score: 6

9:00pm Sat 19 Jul 14

Villagecranberry says...

StowLocal wrote:
Mattresses everywhere and people gobbing on the pavement? Even nicer.
If you wear Cranberry Tinted Spectacles, you will see none of this.

Better still, if you venture past the recycled Hornbean Paint Centre, where you can buy antique paint with a thick skin of crust In each can, you ca wander around the nooks and crannies of Bakers Arms where every weekend you can see gangs selling different herbal products, mostly keeping to their own territory. Very popular location as no police in sight and they even consume said products in the alleyway behind the Police Office in front of passing Blunkett's Bobbies!
[quote][p][bold]StowLocal[/bold] wrote: Mattresses everywhere and people gobbing on the pavement? Even nicer.[/p][/quote]If you wear Cranberry Tinted Spectacles, you will see none of this. Better still, if you venture past the recycled Hornbean Paint Centre, where you can buy antique paint with a thick skin of crust In each can, you ca wander around the nooks and crannies of Bakers Arms where every weekend you can see gangs selling different herbal products, mostly keeping to their own territory. Very popular location as no police in sight and they even consume said products in the alleyway behind the Police Office in front of passing Blunkett's Bobbies! Villagecranberry
  • Score: -2
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

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