Hartlepool Sea Watching Observatory Discussion

[A McLee]

I have just received comments from the Planning Dept of HBC. They form a standard checklist of things to be considered in the formal application and are not surprising.
Some issues are not relevant and the club needs to justifiably say so. The issue of parking is a small consideration and although not preceived as a problem by me, we may get adverse comments from the Heugh Heritage Group in the old gun battery whose customers do park outside where birders do also.
At the risk of crying before I am hit, it would be useful evidence if birders parking at the headland noted, and reported on this site, the number of non-birders' vehicles parked outside the old battery. Time of day and date please.
Thanks - Alistair McLee

[Jamie]

Hi,

I see from an auction website that the location we were going to build the new Hartlepool Obs on was sold by auction last week.

Does this impact the clubs plans to build the obs as I guess we must now have spent about £20,000 on this project?

Did the owner of the site not inform the club of this risk before we started all the planning?

As, at one point, we were looking to spend over £300,000 on the obs it is very disappointing to see it get sold from under us assuming we had a guarantee from the original owner of our long term use of this site.

Is there anything that the club can do to recoup all its outgoings on this project from the people who sold the obs as it is a massive loss for a small club like ours that could have been used for other purposes

Regards,
Jamie

[RCT]

The silence concerning this matter is deafening.
Perhaps you are mistaken Jamie?

[A McLee]

I assume that our readers have familiarised themselves with the facts, history and accounting for this project by the simple expedient of reading the club's August 2011 newsletter, the earlier communications on this blog, and the audited annual accounts. This being so I shall only refer to the more recent developments of the last couple of months.
Key to getting planning permission, was the getting on-side the Hartlepool's planning officers by proposing an architectural design which was at ease with the ecleclic mixture of structures already present at this site of historic and architectural significance. We failed at this first fence but after a meeting with the relevant players, the club was about to come forward with a design which met their general approval, whilst fulfilling the constraints of practicality and our budget.
In parallel with these discussions with HBC Planning, the club was discussing a lease agreement with the site owners H M Coastguards, who sudenly announced that this site, along with others they owned, were to be sold at auction. ( I presume they wanted rid of them and the cash is nice too). They were thus not interested in a proposal of a private sale and the auction went through last month. The club did not enter the bidding process. I do not know the buyer but if one is seriously interested and has the money, this information can be found via the Land Registry. having done this, the new owner might be approached and asked of the price they paid and their intentions for the location. They might even respond - but I don't think so.
So there we all are.
I think I can speak for Ted Parker as well as myself, that having put in a huge amount of time and effort on theis whole business for some 5 years now, it is all a great anticlimax.
On the matter of " recouping the money" I do not know what is implied. If it means asking for it back from the those we have paid to do work, then get real!
If it means undertaking club programmes and activities to replenish the coffers, then please do not be backward about coming forward with suggestions or input. I am sure Marketing and Membership commitee will be eager to hear from members.
Otherwise as " The Eagles" said " Get over it" 

[Jamie]

What a great shame. I was thinking of getting the money back if something had been signed but this just sounds like they have let us down so nothing will ever get recouped. I have no idea who bought it but the action website said it went for £20,000. It will be interesting to see what it turns into. Looks like we might be in for a future of trying to look round the cannon.....

[Col D]

Club members (of which I was one when some of the money was spent) are surely entitled to a simple, clear and reasonable explanation of what was spent, why it was spent and when it was spent. For a former chairman to simply tell members to find the information themselves and to 'get real' and 'get over it' is petulant, unprofessional and wholly unacceptable. Hopefully somebody will take the to prepare a succinct explanation.

Cheers Col

[RCT]

I have to say I agree with Col, I think the waste of such an amount of money deserves a less flippant response here. May be chicken feed to some but to me it seems a lot of money
Have read the previous blog entries, and excuse my poor quoting skills but I am sure you can see where I am going.......

Hi Jamie,
Best to start with a bit of the history. The creation of an obs. was an item on the club's management plan several years ago and agreed as such. The whole idea was only possible as a result of PD Ports offering us a form of lease on their land below the lighthouse,
From reply #8
The human and fnancial resources TBC put into the original Feasibility Study were essential.   Anybody involved in developing and managing a project knows that the starting point is always to assess the feasibility of your project in terms of viability, cost, location and constraints to development.  Our Feasibility Study included a professional topographical survey of the site, information on underground services, DETAILS OF LAND OWNERSHIP
From reply #11
Once some budget prices have been firmed up for the trustees, the next step is to have an artists impression drawn and presented for approval to PD Ports
From reply #12
We await word from the site owners P D Ports on those aspects of the project which lie within their domain
From reply #18
the club was discussing a lease agreement with the site owners H M Coastguards

[StewH]

Club members (of which I was one when some of the money was spent) are surely entitled to a simple, clear and reasonable explanation of what was spent, why it was spent and when it was spent. For a former chairman to simply tell members to find the information themselves and to 'get real' and 'get over it' is petulant, unprofessional and wholly unacceptable. Hopefully somebody will take the to prepare a succinct explanation.

Cheers Col

Col certainly has a point and it is clear that he feels strongly about it.... perhaps a reason why he is no longer a club member.  I hope that not too many others decide to follow suit given the 'tone' that seems to be being generated over this issue!

[Dave-N]

Firstly I would like to dispel the rumour that £20,000 has been spent on anything relating to the proposed observatory at Hartlepool Headland.  The only 20k involved was the purchase price at auction by the unknown buyer.
Some years ago a feasibility study was done and initially money was spent on the project, this spend was published in the accounts of that year. Since then no significant amount has been spent on this project. Many people including the Architect have given their time and expertise freely in the clubs endeavour to build the observatory, for all to use, and sadly there seems to be no further options by which we can proceed.
I would like to thank all who have been involved in this project for their commitment and time.
A fuller statement will be given in the next newsletter for all to see.

Dave Nelson (Chairman)

[Jamie]

Hi Dave,

sounds like a good approach. Hopefully the club will continue to be open and honest to all its members making them aware of both positive and negative events as I think the things that have stirred up the most passion in the past are the things that the club did but not inform members of (ie the initial support of the Ruddy Duck Cull, giving a grant for ringing equipment without a positive mention in the newsletter).

I hope from now on the committees will operate in the open as far as is practical.

Regards,
Jamie

(PS just added up our spend on the new obs and between 2008 and 2011 it was £9870)