Hi Alistair,
as the club members cant post in the announcement section of the forum I thought it might be a good idea to start a discussion here on the obs and hopefully as it goes along the committee can post updates here to give all members a chance to comment on the design/features etc before they are written in stone and we possible create a very expensive white elephant.
My first question is what has happened to the initial plans and sketches that were drawn up as I think the club spent many 1000's of pounds getting these done. If they are still valid could you post them here so people can see where we are starting at?
I feel it is very important that all are kept informed of what will be the most expensive project the club has ever undetaken (last estimate I heard was a cost of £300,000 which I expect will rise with price increases). I know a lot of people (including me) disagree with spending so much on a seawatching shelter but if the club is determined to do it I think we need to be very careful we get it right
Jamie
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, when we lost the access to the old obs in the heritage battery emplacement close by. Ted went to a huge amount of effort to have a feasibility study performed which cost the club about £7 to 8 K - I recall. On the basis of this work, we were able to obtain estimates of costs for various optons of structural materials; reassure H B C Planning of the attractiveness of our obs in what is a conservation area; and importantly be a demonstration of our intentions to allow us to seek award (s) of funding bodies eg Heritage Lottery.
The design option selected by the trustees was I recall considerably over £300K. Whilst sums of this magnitude were awarded they we were informed that they would not be given to projects like ours, which were for a !00% capital item - the obs itself. We also discovered that the strings for community access , education and participation were onerous and as a club we could never fullfil them and consequently a failure to do so, would entail the grant being paid back to the provider. The trustees agreed this was not a relationship the club wanted to be in, and we ceased to consider any third party funding and the associated strings attached. The curtain was drawn at the last trustees' meeting on tis course of action.
So, what now? If we wanted independence of ownership we would have to fund it ourselves and indeed we had the means , provided the design and construction was modest yet practical. We do have money formally designated for the obs and as a charity we cannot simply accumulate money without a reason unless it is defined in our charitable objectives. Dave Nelson and I have already some ideas of what we could have built, but we do not have a monoply on them, and my appeal for input posted in the club's announcement section this morning was an attempt to get some players and contributors together to have an uninhibited discussion on the conceptual aspects of the obs which could be taken forward to PD Ports and Hartlepool Planning Dept as an opening gambit. What I was not seeking was an online discussion on design for the club members generally. I believe such a course of action would be a nightmare!
Alistair
Hi Alistair,
The news that we have formally abandoned the £300K Obs is news to me so I suspect that it is news to a lot of people as I suspect it has not yet been published anywhere (ie the newsletter).
Are there any ground rules for the new one (ie is it still planned to be within the lighthouse complex) or are you just looking at something like a simple shelter where people sit now maybe with a raised bit of ground so more people can see at once.
If this is true I think the number 1 vote would be to get the cannon moved out of the way.
Regards,
Jamie
Jamie.
The abandonment of the earlier plan was only agreed at the last trustees' meeting some 2 weeks ago. I saw no point in putting it in the newslatter as it would merely prompt a series of questions about what are we planning to do then which we were not in a position to answer- just as is happening now.
Ali
Good people! Apart from a very helpful response from an individual on the matter of artistic impressions of a notional external design, I have heard nothing from the old salts who used the old battery site when it was the obs. Surely you recall the benefits and the short comings of that structure and wish to share them? As I said before all the clun requires at present, is to get a group of you around a table and talk generally on the basic concepts of the design based on personal experiences.
Thanks - in anticipation.
Alistair McLee
Count me in...
Me too!
Graeme Joynt
Thank you both. I shall include you in the communications. Also when we have a larger tally of people we can have a meeting ( Saltholme, Kingfisher room?) and share views on the requirements and past experiences.
Alistair
Hi Ali,
As the original instigator of this project during my Chairmanship, I assume you would be aware of my interest in being involved in any future discussions about the observatory project.
Whilst I'm naturally disappointed that the original scheme has been abandoned by the Trustees for valid reasons, I think we should go for the next best, much lower cost option, possibly along the lines of a fabricated, two-tier Phil Stead Hide type approach, though obviously the design will need to reflect that the site is in a Conservation Area. and will still need to conform with Building Regulations and Planning stipulations.
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 and the telecommunications mast, input from Hartlepool Planning Department and a series of costed options which appraised various designs, materials, construction techniques and cost. It also took the burden of much of the laborious work involved off the shoulders of those who were already fully committed working for the benefit of the Club. One of the largest capital costs was the inclusion of a lift for disabled access to the upper floor, which we had to include or we wouldn't have got Planning Permission.
Anyway, I for one fully support the project - anything is better than sitting out in the cold, cowering en masse behind a wall looking through a sea of heads (pardon the pun!), as we do at present.
Ted Parker
Thanks, Ted I knew I could rely on you to be a player. I shall shortly email you and the others who have expressed an interest with a view to a meeting at a mutually convenient time. Many of the issues you mentioned have already been covered in the initial feasibility study and recently I have resolved a few new ones which are pertinent to this newer proposal of a hide design.
Ali
Thanks again to the sea watching devotees who came, or forwarded their comments, to the meeting yesterday at Saltholme. Dave Nelson and I have now been able to draw up a list of requirements for users of the planned Hartlepool observatory and were also able to broadly outline an affordable design and artist's impression of a proposed structure, in situ.
Our next task is to run the imformation before the club's trustees for their approval and alerting them to the likely requirements of third parties ( Hartlepool B C and PD Ports ). If sanction is given to proceed by the trustees, the club can move onto the next phase and involve these bodies and strart hardening up on the details of design and installation.
Alistair McLee
At the present, it looks as if we shall be going forward with a roughly 10 m long, single decker obs. and because of the 2 m high fence already in place, the structure will have to be elevated about 1 m from the existing ground level. This will in turn require a ramp for disabled access to be made and at the moment I am seeing what the minimum costs for this will be and indeed what design latitude there may be for what is essentially a structure used by a private club on private land. We shall see but the cost of disabled access will be considerable in itself.
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 and equally importantly to the conservation department in H B C, as the site is an area of conservation. Until these hurdles are overcome it is pointless in producing detailed drawings to submit for the actual planning process. PD ports have told me they are expediting the removal of the redundant radio mast which will allow the obs to be ca 10m in length.
A McLee
An application for outline planning permission is now lodged with H B C Planning and the club hopes to hear in the next couple of weeks. There is no requirement I am told for building regulations to apply and thus, strictly speaking, there is no requirement for any disabled access to be installed. I feel strongly that it would be quite wrong to adopt this stance, so a quotation for a functional, disabled access facility is being sought from the obs. fabricators. We await word from the site owners P D Ports on those aspects of the project which lie within their domain.
Alistair McLee
An article will be appearing in the August newsletter on this subject, along with pretty pictures.
Alistair
I was just looking at the conditions tonight, not bad for a bit of sea-watching, but the rain put me off. I know the early Teesside birders used to use the Bandstand area and were a hardy lot but an obs would be nice to have again.
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
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
The silence concerning this matter is deafening. ???
Perhaps you are mistaken Jamie?
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"
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.....
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
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.......
Quote from: A McLee on May 17, 2011, 04:50:50 PM
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
Quote from: Col D on August 03, 2012, 05:12:40 PM
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!
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)
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)