Topic: Save Lower Shaw Farm

[sasquatch]

Tweet

I only have anecdotal evidence provided by someone who attended the meeting who said that a show of hands from prople from swindon was asked for - am I worng then ?

Bert makes a good point the SN postcode covers a huge area - not just swindon !

With regard to the acadamy - I am against that - purely on religious grounds - I don't believe that eductaion should be controlled by any religious group. But didn't I hear that the funding for the acadamy is coming from the government - not SBC ? and that the whole point of the acadamy is investment in tthe eductaion of the kids in that catchment area ?

Hmm - wouldn't call that a business - like lower shaw farm is !

[bell]

Tweet

There was indeed a show of hands in response to the questions 'Who is from West Swindon?' and 'Who is from the Shaw/Ramleaze/Nine Elms area'.  I was at the meeting, and I would say that with regards the former, around 70% put their hands up, and with regards the latter, around 25% put their hands up. This must be the figure Sasquatch is referring to.  I.e in saying only a quarter of the people there were local, what is meant is that a quarter of the people there were from the VERY local area.

And on the issue of SN postcodes covering a large part of Wiltshire, I shall try and get a count of the postcodes Bert mentioned (which come under SBC control), or at least the SN5 postcodes which are all from West Swindon...I think?

I'd also like to make a point in response to Sasquatch's assertion that LSF is a business.  Whilst this is true, I think that Sasquatch- and the others who keep referring to LSF as a business, are implying that is a profit-making business.  Lower Shaw Farm is officially an 'Association', and in this case is non-profit making.  Any money made in excess of the costs incurred to run the activities offered at the farm is put back into the farm in other ways- for example, to mend buildings.  Last year the total turn-over was around £42,000 (please note that this does not include the Swindon Festival of Literature- which is inextricably linked to the farm, but has separate finances; and also does not include The Children's Project- which again, is based at and run by lower shaw farm, but is a registered charity and separate from LSF finances). Matt Holland and Andrea Hirsch do not get payed a salary from this.  The rent was set at £8,000 per year to reflect the requirement in the lease that the Farm be used for educational purposes only.  I think that it is impossible to deny that this is exactly how the farm is used.

And just a final point on the issue of militant vegans- of the family of five that run Lower Shaw Farm, one is vegetarian, and the rest meat eaters.

[ZPW]

Tweet

Bell. hello, thanks for clearing up some of the anectodal bits and pieces.

Sasquatch, I don't think you are a militant anything but I do think that you are continuing to miss the point of LSF. You and lots others.

Some people are just good really, that's it, nothing more. LSFer's are just good. Good for us all.
You don't have to be a time serving hippy or a basket weaver ( I lied about the bicycle basket - there, I can't run for parliament ) to want LSG to keep on.

Put all your 'I want one, why do they have one? ' feelings down.
LSF is not exclusive, you'd like it. You made mention of your childrens education . LSF is a brilliant addition to their education. Doesn't matter how old they are, doesn't matter how old you are - we all gain from this place.

I feel like screaming out loud to you - LSF is good in all ways. Really.

[Tobes]

Tweet

Talk about clutching at rhetorical straws bert and sasquatch...! If you don't think Wiltshire counts as 'local', then you're both REMARKABLY parochial in your outlook... Swindon's reputation doesn't end at the end of a councillors ward.

Nice attempted sidestep Sasquatch - but the fact remains that the same council which wants to guillotene LSF is the one which has just voted for the headlands accademy - an educational establishment run on a commercial basis, whether or not the funding is coming from central government. And thanks to Bell for clarifying that the description doesn't apply to LSF regardless.

But tell me, if you know, wouldn't the accoutants at an 'organisation/institution' such as Headlands be basing their business model on favourable terms? Or are you telling me that they'll be paying the same rates and charges to SBC as any other commercial concern? I'm genuinely intregued to know.

[sasquatch]

Tweet

As far as I can tell Headlands academy will be run without subsidy from SBC and it does matter where the funding is coming from - because I can't influence the government - certainly not my local MP - but I can influence what happens locally - by questioning my local councillors and holding them to account - I expect them to manage my council tax and how the council spends its money. in fact I believe even the council pays rates on it's buildings - which aren't subsidised - have a look at the accounts !

Funny how the likes of Sasquatch pick and choose on this issue. The more he speaks,  more this looks like a condemnation based on the lifestyle of those who run Shaw Farm, rather than the value they bring to the community. So, SBC should be 'spending the money' on things like your kids education eh? What, like subsidising a BUSINESS through favourable rates and financial arrangements, such as the soon-to-be-foisted-upon-us accademy at Headlands - run by a PRIVATE concern?

My gripe has nothing to do with lifestyle, more to do with how the council manages its assets - the council has a finite budget - if the council can realise an asset for a couple of million which is producing a negligible yield - then I would say that is prudent - common sense. The fact that the current tenant is running an activity from the site that "some" people use and pay for is totally and utterly incidental. It is not and should not be a concern of the council. The council is not involved in this business in any way shape or form, it is not providing a service that the council (nor I believe any councillor) has asked for and the council has no responsibility for this business at all. There is not even a moral argument for the council to continue with the lease on this property - whether LSF is run as a profit making business or not - it does not matter. I do not want my council tax to be wasted in this way and believe the council is doing the right thing in not renewing the lease.

Swindon has been long renowned as one of the most culture free towns in the ountry - deservedly so. What do any new acquaintances say when they hear where we live? Why would anyone want to live somewhere with such a bland shopping experience, where the theatre is closed, a town which is dominated by ticky-tack new building developments, roundabouts and souless out of town stores?

Perhaps you should ask the labour group why Swindon has lost its cultural heritage - they were in charge and they were responsible for pretty much everything that has happened in this town for the past 30 years - and I believe they were in charge when the asbestos was meant to have been removed from the wyvern - so you can blame them for the closure of that as well !

The tories have been in charge for two and a half years now and I have seen the difference in my council tax - I have also seen a lot of improvement in the way the council is being run and the way that services are delivered - I also expect a lot more ! Going back to heritage and culture - what about the improvements to Lydiard House and park - all done under the tories - and that park is free for everyone to attend.

LSF is good I will grant you that - perhaps as a business model it could do better - but the fact remains that it is a private concern and thus should not be subsidised by my council tax.

As I have said before - if it is that important I am sure the supporters of LSF will dig deep into their pockets and put a fund together to buy the farm - then surely everyone will be happy ?

[sasquatch]

Tweet

how's this for an analogy - is it the fault of HBOS, which was the banker to European Home Retail (EHR), the company which owned Farepak, that farepak collapsed when they withdrew funding ? or the fault of the directors - poor management, bad planning, not taking into account risks ?

and yet according to the adver today

Halifax has come under fire for not pulling the plug earlier on Farepak's credit. It was the banker for EHR and Labour MP Frank Field has accused it of using Farepak savers' money to prop up the group.

So it should have pulled the finance earlier ? A decision that would affect a business and they should have taken it earlier - has an interesting ring about it.

Let me guess the return argument will be "but lsf is different". However, it is still in business and could relocate - or it could obtain finance to purchase the farm !

[Tobes]

Tweet

Sorry to sound like Paxman:

I'm not talking about subsidy. (Is LSF being subsidised? I just thought it was paying a below market rate?)

Will Headlands be paying the same rates and fees to SBC as any other commercial business?

[ZPW]

Tweet

I can't find this snippet online, but when I was perusing the Adver. at the library this morning I saw bottom of page 2 ( 4?) Anne Snelgrove offering to help the council out with a word in the shell like of the Edu. dept.

Appears that EssBeeSee have an education budget shortfall they are trying to make up through sale of the family jewels. Ms Snelgrove ( recently lauded for her resolute defense of Farepack victims, reported elsewhere on this august board ) has a good eye on what is important to her constituents and is trying to help the council out of it's Branston.

Still not clear what EssBeeSee have done to the schools in West Swindon ( apart from close a couple), also not clear if Gary Barkin' Perkins knows either. Doubtless it will all be sorted out by the time the West Swindonians have sold their ski equipment in order to fund private schooling for their children... or perhaps the plan is to bus 'em up to Pinehurst?

( more wise words spoken in jest than than you might believe )

[bell]

Tweet

My gripe has nothing to do with lifestyle

So how do you explain (false) comments such as :
"if they [SBC] think it isn't a clever idea to have assets being abused by sodding hippies then good on them !"
"I think it is more - indoctrinate your kids into a radical vegan lifestyle type place - or perhaps - learn how to knit spaghetti ! than showing how a farm works - Roves Farm does the proper thing - LSF is for radicals !" ?

  The fact that the current tenant is running an activity from the site that "some" people use and pay for is totally and utterly incidental. It is not and should not be a concern of the council. The council is not involved in this business in any way shape or form, it is not providing a service that the council (nor I believe any councillor) has asked for and the council has no responsibility for this business at all.

Once again, Sasquatch has made some very misleading and even false statements here.  It is not difficult to simply phone or email Matt and Andrea to check the facts.  I have just done so, and have elicited the following:

The 'some' that Sasquatch is referring to is actually 3000 to 5000 visiters per year.  What is more, SBC is very much involved in the business in many shapes and forms.  For a start, the contract for the lease of the farm, which was agreed in 1983, states a requirement from the councill that the farm only do business in non-comercial educational, recreational, and environmental activities.  This was because the Council VALUED what the farm did.

What is more, as the document posted on behalf of Matt Holland demonstrates, SBC has in fact been involved in many of the activities that Lower Shaw Farm provides:

LINKS & PARTNERSHIPS with Swindon Borough Council and other local organisations.

* Swindon Learning Partnership - wide range of courses, especially Family Learning.

* Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership

* LEA - Teacher training, School visits (eg Toothill Primary, Pinehurst Infants, Nylands, Rodbourne Cheney, and various Literacy and Numeracy Family Groups).

* Gladstone Street Resource Centre, Respite Group - children’s activities

*Swindon Artscape (Visual performance and Public Art) - venue for events/training

* Great Western Community Forest - team meetings

* Wiltshire Trust for Nature Conservation - sustainable gardening demonstration plots and courses.

*  Swindon College

* BTCV - tree, hedge and pond project

* Regular vists from local playgroups and pre-school children.

* Organised visits by local school children for storywalks and topic work.

* Regular and annual arts and crafts play days during school holidays.

* Regular Activity Days for pre-school children


Furthermore, in 2004 Lower Shaw Farm was awarded SBC's first 'Quality of Life Award'. 

[ZPW]

Tweet

just been doing some digging about it on the sbc website - found the asset register & did a search on lower shaw:

lower shaw farm - use residental http://193.113.179.211/assetregisterv4.pdf

search on 1360 - it's asset no to save time

document date 02/06/06 - before this all blew up, so should not be a surprise to the current tennants

Oh Bert the Baseball ( may I call you that )
sorry, I've taken a few glances at this mighty tome. Don't really see your point I confess. No-one has claimed that LSF is not owned by EssBeeSee. And a mighty fine asset it is too.

Nice list though.

[ZPW]

Tweet

I think we used to be able to adjust posts, but I can't see how right now. Apols. for posting twice on the same matter, which is the list......

Lower` Shaw Farm is listed under Service area ' resources'. I cannot fathom what 'resources' might mean.
Anyone?

[ZPW]

Tweet

Our cncllrs were busy last night.

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/swindonnewsheadlines/display.var.1019641.0.farm_closure_a_step_closer.php

SWINDON Council is to push on with its plans to sell Lower Shaw Farm after facing down the opposition of more than 60 residents at a public meeting last night.

Residents packed the West Swindon Forum to try to force their local councillors to reverse the decision to sell the community asset.

But the councillors - led by council leader Roderick Bluh and cabinet members Nick Martin and Peter Greenhalgh - said the farm was not giving the town value for money.

continues

Also attending the meeting were local councillors Michael Bray, Keith Williams and cabinet member Garry Perkins. Councillors Steve Wakefield and Mary Martin did not attend.

and...

Independent councillor Geraldine Frost called for an urgent review of the decision.

"It horrifies me, losing something this valuable," she said. "These sorts of facilities hold communities together. I would ask them to look again at it."

[James]

Tweet

How sad is this.
I thought we wanted to be a city, not a housing estate.
One more reason to move, one less reason to come here in the first place.
Swindon's reputation proved right yet again.

Still we know the council can change its mind. The reversal of the Commonweal decision has cost us millions, so we know there is plenty of flexibility in the pot, £2million is nothing compared to that one.

James

[Jude Robinson]

Tweet

Anne's comment on Lower Shaw Farm.

"I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the Tories are determined to close the farm because they don't like it and they see it as an easy target. They don’t seem to know what they are doing or why. The reasons they are giving for closure of the farm don’t stack up and the repeated claims that this has something to do with central government are complete fabrication.

“If the Tories seriously think that government wants Lower Shaw Farm closed, why haven’t they approached me for help? In fact, they have not had the courtesy, or the intelligence to give me a full picture of why exactly they think the sell off is necessary.

“As soon as I heard about the proposed closure – before it was made public - I spoke informally to an Education Minister, who agreed to help Swindon draw down the money to fund the shortfall on West Swindon Schools (another Tory decision). The offer of help has been turned down by the Tory administration. Council Leader Rod Bluh has stated that the proposal is “not directly related to the funding of West Swindon Schools” but at least two of his councillors have said that in public meetings and in the press that it is linked to the shortfall.

“I am also concerned that Cllr Bluh asserts that “Lower Shaw Farm does not currently offer best value” when no Best Value review has taken place. Is the administration completely unaware of the Best Value process or are they just ignoring it? Even if a review had taken place, Best Value is definitely not a purely cost based exercise – that went out of the window when the Tories were thrown out of government in 1997 because the public knows that cost is not the only issue that should be considered.

“The Tories are squirming over this one and trying hard to blame everyone else, including the government for lack of funds. Yet they have never shared any information with me about their bids to government, or asked for my support, despite my repeated offers to work with them on issues such as school funding. I’m here to help but it has become quite clear to me that my help is not wanted by the Tories in Swindon and the public is paying the price.

“Without the full story on why the Tories are so desperate to sell off Lower Shaw farm in the face of local opposition, it is difficult for me to come up with more ways to help prevent the sell off. What I and the public have been told so far is frankly, a derisory attempt to mislead and obscure the issue.

“I have come reluctantly to the conclusion that the Tories want Lower Shaw farm closed because they don’t like it and see it as an easy target. With their majority in the Council, the sad truth is that they can ride roughshod over local people and it seems they are intent on doing so.”

[Tobes]

Tweet

Hello Jude.

You know I don't agree with Annes position on the fundamental issue of ID cards. However, I can't fault her assessment of the Lower Shaw Farm situation - and I'm even more impressed that Anne appears to be offering practical financial solutions/advice. I'd like to see a response from the tories or one of their forum based appologists as to why those offers haven't been taken up.

The only comment regarding Anne's points about the tory majority that I would add though, is that she is rather a victim of her and her own party's policies. People protest against national government through the local ballot box. If she (with her 100% voting record) and her ever increasingly authoritarian colleagues hadn't acted in a similar way to the tories at the national level with their own policies, the voters of Swindon might not have voted as they did locally. Pot calling the kettle black there. Now thats a clear irony, isn't it? Good policy and intention is always likely to be obscured by the bad...

Anyway, to conclude, I, like Anne (and all the more so after her comments about funding) feel that LSF is being picked on pricipally because the incumbent tories simply don't like the lifestyle of the people who run it, their values - or the politics which are stereotypically associated with them. Again, you only have to see the pejorative comments by appologists on this thread to see the sort of motivation which obviously lies behind the rationale - rationale, which has Anne has pointed out, does not stack up when scrutinised.

[James]

Tweet

does not stack up when scrutinised.

Toby is too nice.

I think the last should read "has not been scrutinised" as they didn't even bother to check their basic facts with LSF.

Come on Sasquatch and friends, can you justify this arrogant, high handed, prejudiced, and pre-judged behaviour?

Maybe we're wrong and there has been some analysis done of the value added (or not) by LSF.
Can someone post it on this thread? Or a link to it? Or just summarise the analysis?
Rent small, land value high is just not good enough.

James

(They go thier fingers burnt with the original Residents Parking report which was dreadful. So I don't expect they'll want to publish anything on LSF if it even exists)

[bert]

Tweet

Rent small, land value high is just not good enough.

it's good enough for me, can't see any value for the long term benefit of swindon in keeping this place

cannot wait for sbc to sell it off and let the people of swindon benefit from the proceeds.

[hlt]

Tweet

bert have you got shares in a building compant as you must whant west swindon to be covered in housing  i understand the need for housing but west swindon needs a bit of green as well  and lsf with its green and animals fullfills this for us money is not everything

[Dale Heenan]

Tweet

I believe the mention of a school was simply as a comparision to quantify what #2 million actually represents. To my knowledge it is Anne who has linked this to West Swindon schools and certainly from looking at those comments is trying very hard to keep it that way. If Rod says it's not directly related, then it's not directly related. 

By the sounds of it, she is also advocating raiding next year's budgets? That was one of the ways that the Labour group found itself stuck with a 42% hike in Council Tax in 3 years.

[ZPW]

Tweet

Rent small, land value high is just not good enough.

it's good enough for me, can't see any value for the long term benefit of swindon in keeping this place

cannot wait for sbc to sell it off and let the people of swindon benefit from the proceeds.

what about the short term benefits then?
focus on those and promulgate .

Perhaps swindon could lead the way ?
City Farm to be envied.
City Farm to be emulated
City elders save a little bit of the planet?
City elders lauded by other city elders?
City elders are heros?

any of this sound good?