Wednesday, 17 April 2013

DCMS decide to uphold the decision NOT to list the Tumble Down Dick

Our reference: 476140

Tumbledown Dick Public House, Farnborough Road, Farnborough, Hampshire

Further to your application in which you asked for a review of the decision not to list the Tumbledown Dick Public House (the “Pub”). I am the Department’s officer responsible for the review of listing decisions and had no involvement in the original decision not to list.

After considering your grounds for review and evidence submitted they are not sufficient to consider overturning the original decision. The reasons for this decision are given below.

Circumstances under which the overturning of a previous decision will be considered
Overturning an original decision will only be considered if there is evidence that the original decision has been wrongly made.  Examples of a wrongly made decision would be:

-          where there has been a significant factual error, e.g. the wrong building was listed; or
-          where there has been some irregularity in the process that has affected the outcome, e.g. significant relevant considerations have not been taken into account/significant irrelevant considerations have been taken into account. 

Reviews of decisions are also undertaken if there is significant new evidence, not previously considered, relating to the special architectural or historic interest of the building in a national context as defined by the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.  For example:

-          where new evidence relating to the date of a building has been discovered; or
-          where there has been a material change of circumstances affecting the assessment of a building’s architectural or historic interest.

In all the above cases evidence can only be considered which relates to the special architectural or historic interest of the building.  The Principles of Selection for Listing Buildings, March 2010, (copy attached) sets out general principles, as well as the statutory criteria, for measuring architectural and historic interest in the national context. Other factors, such as planning considerations and local importance, cannot be taken into account. Disagreement with the advice of English Heritage without persuasive new evidence will also not be considered grounds for review.

The grounds you have submitted are not sufficient to consider overturning the original decision for the following reasons.

The Principles of Selection for Listing Buildings – Identifying and Recording the Historic Environment
This section of the Principles, from which you quote part of paragraph 3, is a generic commentary on identifying and recording the historic environment. It is a preamble to the main purpose of the document – listing buildings of architectural and historic interest – and sets the national context for listing. It doesn’t form part of the general principles or statutory criteria for listing.

The content of English Heritage’s advice report
It is important to note that the EH advice report is not intended to be a comprehensive account of the architecture and history of a building. Its purpose is to provide a summary sufficient to allow a decision to be made on whether or not a building meets the statutory criteria for listing. All information submitted as part of a listing application is critically assessed by EH during the drafting of their report. Opinions and facts submitted by any party are not accepted uncritically.

The General Principles applied during a listing assessment
The date of the rear extension is discussed later in this decision letter. The General Principles are general principles only and any building is subject to the more specific Statutory Criteria. Consequently the date of a building does not automatically result in its listing. It is also subject to the test of special architectural and/or historic interest.

The English Heritage Selection Guides
These are produced by EH to cover various broad building types. They are intended as a guide to what may be of importance when assessing a particular building type. They are non-statutory guidance only and are not listing criteria. The Principles of Selection for Listing Buildings take precedence over the Selection Guides.

Individual features of special interest
Very few buildings display special interest throughout and this would not be expected when assessing a building for listing. The purpose of section 1(3)(b) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is to allow the Secretary of State to protect a specific feature of a building that is of special interest e.g. a particularly fine fireplace or plaster ceiling. Nothing with that level of special interest has been identified at the Tumbledown Dick PH.

The speculation on early fabric
The dating of the rear extension to the Pub to the C16-C18 is speculative. Although similar in form there is no clear evidence that this part of the Pub relates to the building in the 1780s watercolour by Thomas Rowlandson. Even if we accept that it is the same building it has been very heavily altered to the degree that, without any information on its construction, it is only the double roof configuration that tentatively identifies it. It has lost significant amounts of its original fabric, principally its fa├žade, and doesn’t survive in anything like its original form.

The design of the ‘1817’ building
EH commented in their original advice on the form of the part of the building constructed around 1817 but with later alterations. Pubs are not rare building types nationally and selectivity when assessing them for statutory listing is important. In this case the Pub has been altered and extended. The southern part of the main building, for instance, being rebuilt or at least heavily remodelled between 1880 and 1896. As far as is known the building retains nothing of its C19 pub interior.

Historic interest
The Annersley family - The association of the Annesley family with the manorial estate is acknowledged. However, the Pub is only a minor feature of the estate and was constructed after the Annesley’s ownership. There is no direct and close historical association between the family and the Pub. There is also no direct association between the present Pub and ‘Kidnapped’ and similar stories.
The Wilmot family - The association with the Wilmot family, under whose ownership the present Pub was built, is closer than that of the Annesleys. However, the reasons for the Wilmot’s national importance, as expressed in the review request, has no demonstrable connection with the Pub.
The Rowlandson watercolour – The figures in the Rowlandson painting may be representative of local people in the street at the time but the images are too generalised to be associated with any particular prominent figures. Any attribution of names to a figure would be speculation and their appearance in the painting does not signify any direct association with the Pub.

Group Value
The group value between the Pub, Farnborough House and St Peter’s Church is not strong. The three building types, pub, manor and church, are very common functional features of very many English towns and villages and weren’t planned or designed as a group. This, along with the very limited architectural interest of the Pub, significantly limits the group value and doesn’t add materially to a case for listing.

National Interest
The EH advice report acknowledges that the Pub is locally important for its civilian and military role in the historic village of Farnborough. In a national context, however, it does not have the resonance either as a building of national importance or as a local building that adds significantly to the national building stock to merit listing. There are no quotas for listing buildings either by type or location. Buildings are listed solely on their ability to meet the statutory criteria for listing in a national context.

The development of the Tumbledown Dick PH over time
The C19 was a time of strong population growth and transport and trading development. The extension and development of buildings is a common factor in this period and the Pub does not demonstrate any development out of the ordinary.

The association with the local pottery industry
As a very important industry for the local economy many buildings in the area will have a direct or indirect association with pottery manufacture. There is no particular and direct association between the Pub and the pottery industry that could add materially to a case for listing.

The construction materials for the Pub
Historically transporting heavy building materials long distances would have been a slow and often difficult undertaking. It is not surprising, therefore, if the bricks used to build the Pub came from the local area. This would have been the case for most modest buildings and isn’t of any great significance. If the frontage did have some surface decoration, as suggested, it does not survive in any recognisable form and would represent a detrimental alteration to the original building.

The information you have submitted is not sufficient to provide grounds for overturning the original decision. The original decision, and the reasons for it, should therefore stand and the Tumbledown Dick Public House, Farnborough Road, Farnborough, Hampshire should not be added to the statutory list.

Further opportunity to make a listing application
The Secretary of State has a continuing duty under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to maintain an up-to-date statutory list of buildings of architectural or historic interest. If significant new information should come to light in the future then a new listing application may be made to English Heritage through their on-line application process.

Andy Doidge
Designation Review Manager


Anonymous said...

English Heritage listing was always going to be a long shot. Public houses seldom remain in mint condition having had a working life that does not prioritise keeping original features - the priority is ususally serving people and being open.

However, this does not make it a building that is not important to the area or the people of this town. The local listing process exists for that and we await the decision next week with interest.

Is there a point you are aiming to make with this post?

SOTS said...

And the point of posting this is ?

SOTS said...

And the point of posting this is ?

E Arnold said...

"The Tumbledown Dick public house, Farnborough, is a building of local interest as a long established pub with historical links to both the local community and military presence in the area", English Heritage. It is a shame that the building has not made it on to the national list, yet. However EH acknowledge its local importance and without access to the inside of the building it is difficult for anyone to present any further information to them at this time. Both EH and DCMS have provided valuable support and assistance and an application has now been made for the building to be added to the Local List.

David Clifford said...

This is an interesting decision, as it clearly sees no justification to list the building, which many see as nothing spectacular or unique

The confusion many protesters are having is recognising the difference between an important historic site and an important historic building.

This is a reasonably important historic site.

There is clearly however, a question as to the buildings historic and architectural value.

This will be address to a degree by the review of the Buildings of Local Importance listing which is now being carried out by the Chief Executive of Rushmoor.

I am so glad that this building is getting so much attention after years of neglect.(Can I ad that the local Councillors have been consistently calling on the owners to clean up the building before it became 'fashionable') This site has been an eyesore for so long, and whatever happens, I will be glad to see the site back in use.

SOTS said...

The fact that 'local Councillors have been consistently calling on the owners to clean up the building' is a prime example of the councillor complete lack of leadership because again as, as you well know, nothing had been done to maintain the building over the last few years. Only when RBC were "pressured" into action did some action finally take place.

Anonymous said...

I'm not confused. The EH listing was worth going for, but public houses are always less likely to be nationally listed. The Tumbledown Dick was and is an extremely important building for our town, proven by the level of local disgust at the developers proposals for it. If it hadn't been omitted from the local list in the first place, this mess would have not happened, as the owners would not have deliberately allowed it to fall derelict in the hope of redeveloping for a considerable profit. It is time for RBC to do their duty finally, add it to the local list and help preserve it, which the majority of residents want.

Louise Punchard, (resident born and raised , and now raising their own family, in Farnborough)

Carl Hewitt said...

The protesters aren't having any confusion at all councillor Clifford, on the contrary, it is you that's confused. Unless they, or the nearly 3000 local residents suffered a mass confusion event over a period of several months they are absolutely certain of their position.

Isn't it about time you showed some leadership and represented your constituents best interests rather than blowing in the wind ?

Anonymous said...

You are right Clifford, maybe it is only significant to the supporters and members of the campaign to save it.

I would raise two counter points to that though, just because something does not have merit or worth to you, does not mean it lacks these qualities and is not something to fight for.

Secondly, whilst it may not have national significance in your eyes, I would argue that it has international significance due to it's connections with people involved in the Boston tea party.

You are one man, chosen to represent us and our community and this building has significance, merit and worth to a lot of people within that.

Anonymous said...

What a joker.

Anonymous said...

Am I right in thinking that the reason the building has been altered so much ove the past. Is because RBC planning dept have over the years granted permission.

In hindsight it should have been locally listed and Graded years and years ago.

The blame squarely lands on RBC shoulders, the building is in your catchment and you have failed this building & the people of Farnborough, lets face if you cant be bothered to look after a building how the hell do you expect to believe you are looking out for them and not on the gravy train.

Oh you could have used enforcement officers. Please can you tell meif they were ever used.

Anonymous said...

I think this sentence is important:-
If significant new information should come to light in the future then a new listing application may be made to English Heritage through their on-line application process.

I still believe if we the friends of the Tumbledown, along with an old building expert could gain entry then we may well find other things of Historical interest within.
Without this we have to rely on a report which to my mind is not impartial.This is not a cut and dried case by any means.

Dale said...

What did you think you were going to achieve by posting this ?

A cheap shot if you ask me, verging on despicable.

Anonymous said...

Tell me Mr. Clifford - are you enjoying spending the £20,000 site finders fee from McDonald's ?

Anonymous said...

Iwould like to ask Mr Cifford how he thinks posting this is in any way representing the people of his ward? There are many people within the ward who are supporters of the pro-Tumbledown campaign and I am sure there are probably many who are pro-McDonalds, and many again that would feel that some use for the site is better than a derelict, however your post is purely pro-McDonalds.

David Clifford said...

Good to see we have comments that support transparency and openness along with allegations only a coward would hide in an anonymous comment.

Most comments hardly deserve a reply but show the level of mature debate I have come to expect on this issue from certain quarters. Your arguments speak volumes.

David Clifford said...

To the more reasonable comment about gaining access to investigate value etc. Yes, I think if that could be agreed it would help not hinder the debate. This would need to be agreed with the owners. The Borough has no power to insist on entry for private residents.
Good to receive at least one mature comment that added value to the debate - Thank you.

Anonymous said...

David I think the Majority of the peoples comments above are mature comments and deserve more respect from you.So I think the usage of "most comments" is incorrect.I go anonymous as I'm not sure how to use this page and certainly not because I want to hide.
There are at least 9 comments above that deserve a reply.
What you have to remember is that people are very frustrated and upset as to what has happened and what is still happening with the Tumbledown.A lot of time is being spent by local people, I being one of them.I will fight till the end for what I believe in.I have never been involved in anything like this before but the Tumbledown brought me out fighting for what I think is right.

Anonymous said...

David, I don't think my comment was immature either, as a long term local resident of Farnborough I was only expressing my opinions and hopes. I take this seriously, and value respect and politeness too.

Louise Punchard.

Anonymous said...

My comment wasn't rude or Immature David so can you please post it?
I was anonymous due to non understanding of your page.
I also said your "most comments" was in fact incorrect as there are many comments above that were just peoples opinions and hopefully we can all speak freely in this country still.
Lets have a proper debate which means printing most peoples comments ,if not all ,as long as they are not rude or immature.

David Clifford said...

Dear Reasonable comment leavers,

It should be very clear who my remarks above were aimed at, so lets not all get upset and offended.

Some facts about this building.
1. Rushmoor does not own it.
2. Rushmoor did not let is get into disrepair, in fact we have tirelessly communicated to the owners to firstly address some issues before it closed, and secondly thru the little powers we have, to force them to clean up and maintain the site in good order. As I am sure any FOI request will show.
3. If the Pub was so popular it would not have closed.
4. When it was open - I received more complaints about this pub than any other in the ward.
5. I am not anti - pub. They have their place in our communities. And well run pubs are welcome, This was not a well run pub, and no surprise it closed.
6. I welcome the review of whether this building should be on the Buildings of Local Importance listing, and emailed a request for that to be done before becoming aware of a formal request from a member of the public.

If the supporters of this pub had been even just weekly patrons. This pub would not have closed. A little of the being supportive after the horse has bolted isn't it?

I look forward to reasonable and mature comments. Or is that expecting too much?

David Clifford said...

Quick Note: All comments are posted. Sometimes there is a delay, as I skip between work and pleasure!! Believing strongly in freedom of speech can I assure you all are published unless obscene (and not had any yet!!)

Anonymous said...

Oh dear. Your comments betray a pretty fast and loose relationship to the truth, and do seem to be settling in a very 'pro' direction and using their misinformation.

Lets look at them one by one shall we?

1) Yes, everybody knows RBC do not own the building. This does not prevent RBC having responsibility for the building in the context of its location - i.e smack in the middle of town.

2) No, RBC did not let it get into disrepair, the owners and leaseholders did. You claim RBC tirelessly campaigned, but all I've seen is a few limp letters which were easily stalled and rebuffed by the recipients. The only meaningful repairs have been done since the campaign pressed Andrew Lloyd directly. The local listing was an ideal power to bring into play against them but RBC failed to do this. There was also a case for CPO (or at least threatening to do it) that might have brought them to heel. No real action that meant business.

I might also add that refusing to sell the property despite no intention to refit or repair is another obvious warning sign that RBC did not act upon.

3) This is a lie, and you know it. There are many reasons why pubs close and these also include owners seeking to cash in on the real estate value of the land. The TDD was making money quite nicely.

4) I'm not going to argue that pubs aren't a place that generate complaints - but what do you think a McDonalds will do? Lets see the log of complaints please?

5) The staff had to contend with owners that systematically refused to re-invest profits in the building and its upkeep. Yes, the pub company did not run it well but this is your justification for destroying it?

6) You had to be presented with documentary evidence before you changed your tune on that. Andrew Lloyd has indicated this week that the RBC planning department has recommended local listing, subject to cabinet decision. You have to ask what happened in 2011/12 that saw it forgotten, when there was a golden opportunity to get some leverage on the negligent owners?

Your Conclusion) Many people were patrons, in varying frequency, and the vandalism of the building by the pub company did little to dent that. This is just an attempt to further your FUD on reasons for closure.

True, there have been some passionate, sometimes slightly rude comments here - but I'm afraid your maturity, judgement and (frankly, given recent events) impartiality is the more concerning observation of this debate.

After all, you are the elected public servant here, not us.

Carl Hewitt said...

Councillor Clifford
Did you stop to consider that those persons who posted anonymously, regardless of content, did so because perhaps they didn't have an account with Google or any of the others; or perhaps they didn't want their true name in the public domain ?

Anonymity on the internet is not cowardice.

Rushmoor did let this building get this building get into the state of repair it is currently in by it's lack of action and complacency. It is only by the action of the Tumbledown group that remedial work, which should of been done long ago was carried out. The entire council bears responsibility for this but especially the councillor in whose ward this sits.

One can only pass the buck so far around before it ends up in ones own lap again.

David Clifford said...

Let's clear up the anonymity issue. I have no problem with it.
I do get mildly irritated with libel deformation written anonymously.(ie I have received money from McDonald's)
You note that despite the power to not publish it I chose to.
So lets have openness on both sides of this debate - where's the evidence?
It is a sad day when local Councillors meeting with potential developers to get more information for the benefit of residents are accused of corruption with no shred of evidence. The meeting was witnessed by council officers, and held at the town hall - I suppose the accuser will suggest they got paid off too.
That my friends is the sad level this debate has reached. I am not angry about this, just sad that this reflects some of the campaigners views that seem completed unchecked, or dismissed by campaign leaders.

Can we have some campaigners stand up for decent and respectful debate and condemn the bigoted remarks that have been made?

Anonymous said...

You state you have meetings with potential developers to get info and council officers are at the meetings. Are this meetings minuted? Are they availabe for the public to attend? Do you invite people who care about their community?

I am afraid if these meetings are behind closed doors, people will always assume the worse. They will feel that there is a whiff of corruption in the air.

The only advice I would give you is that whilst you are the top remember the very people who put you there. As when you are on the way down you are going to need their help!


Unknown said...

The nature of historic buildings is that they are often on prime pieces of development land, where the land value is worth much more if the building is demolished Unscrupulous developers can often buy such plots with this as their sole aim. I understand that one of the roles of local government is to prevent this.

Allegations of corruption in this case may be totally unfounded but I am sure you can understand that in seeking some explanation of what appears to be a failure of local government it is a fairly small leap of the imagination.

In fact even now at the eleventh hour, when it is still possible to correct these failings you have adopted this pro-developer anti-comunity stance. Even amongst conservatively minded folk you have raised a few eyebrows.

I would say its a fair bet that your deserved state of 'mild irritation' is set to continue!

Stewart Nolan said...

Councillor Clifford, I certainly don't advocate the remarks that have been posted on the blog regarding alleged transfer of funds from McDonalds, and would go as far as condemning such disregard for the rules of open and fair debate on this blog. However I also don’t think for one minute that anyone seriously thinks that a member of RBC, who after all would be subject to audit and account, would be as divisive as to purposely scupper the actions of voting constituents. Moreover I think that such comments, as were made, go to highlight the frustrations felt by those in favour of an alternative use of the premises other than yet another fast food Restaurant against the backdrop of continued “obstacle politics”. A public debate rather than a closed council session would have been welcomed and may well have gone a long way to alleviate the mistrust aimed towards RBC by the campaign in general. The continued policy of closed door politics, which I have experienced in the past first hand, needs to be championed out of RBCs Modus Operandi – are you that champion?

DS10Portfolio said...

I would not bother auguring with this councillor chap, he will always have the last word and his views will always be RBC, that is why he does the job does.

Having lived in this borough all my 47 years I believe I have a right to comment on this chap and the rest of his council.

Cast your eyes over the architectural eyesore that is Farnborough what an utter mess, all voted through by RBC. I note another million quid is being spent on trees and paving in the Queensmead section of town, why don't we just pile up tax payers money and set it alight.

As I have said before RBC has no vision if they had they would have planned the redevelopment of Farnborough town centre in tandem with the building work that is going on within Farnborough airport, seamless architecture I know that is a bit of a stretch for RBC.

What they have achieved in Farnborough is to turn a rundown old slum Ito a swanky shiny new slum. 

And they want to get rid of the Tumble Down and leave that monster of a building behind it (Kingsmead) standing, the council must miss the Soviet Union because they have created their own little Soviet looking town here in Hampshire.

Well done.

claire marshall said...

Dear Mr Clifford,
In response to your argument that if members of our campaign had been weekly patrons then it would not of closed, I have this to say.
I moved back to this area at the age of 18, after work my friends and I would spend our evenings there and go to ever Friday night club night.
The pub was rarely quiet and a manager of it had told me that because of the club night, the pub could easily be closed half a week and still be profitable.
The Tumbledown was profitable and can be again.
Yes there will be people who jump on the band wagon, we have had support from people who would of been too young to go there when it closed but they want their music venue, the venue they don't have.
As to the rest of us, we have loved the pub, their bands have performed there, I met my future partner there as have many campaign members.
Interestingly, a lot of the supporters I didn't meet through the campaign, I met them at the Tumbledown before it closed.
May I ask with all due respect whether you just plain don't want the Tumbledown to reopen?
I for one would love a definitive answer as I am sure many of your pro and anti constituents do too.

David Clifford said...

Dear Claire,

Good question and an easy one to answer quickly in between work!

I want to see the site back in commercial use asap, and not funded by tax payers.

I care not what it is. Office, pub or restaurant. I have an open mind and like well run family friendly pubs. And love rock music in the right place...

I do not want to see anything judged to be of historic value destroyed.I remain, however, to be convinced there is value in the current building. (There is no question of course of the historic significance of the site.) I bow to the evidence of experts for that one, and I await with interest the decision on the Buildings of Local Importance review, which I very much welcome.

On another related matter - just for the record. I do not drink (alcohol) but love well run local pubs and visit them often. And I hate unhealthy food, but eat occasionally at fast food restaurants.

Hope this clears up where I stand for you.

- back to work and will try and catch up with other remarks from local people over the weekend.

Unknown said...

As you have said you just don't care what it is. Thats why Farnborough is such an embarrassment. Even you own party are trying to legislate to save pubs like the Tumbledown, and to consult with residents about what the want in there community.

I have realised in the last few weeks that there are an awful lot of people in Farnborough that care passionately, what we really need is to get some people on the council who care about Farnborough.
Perhaps public service is not quite your vocation in life?

David Clifford said...

Dear old friend Will,

You of all people will know how I care about Farnborough, and think what a great contribution pubs make. When I say i do not care what is there, I mean I do not care about what commercial activity goes on there - I care that it is brought back to life. And I do not want to be prescriptive about what is there.

Perhaps wee can meet up again and discuss it over a drink?
Hope you are well. We have lots to catch up on!

Claire Marshall said...

Thank you for responding to my question, I hope you had a good weekend in the sun?

I think we may disagree on a lot of one things but I like you, do not drink, I do enjoy the pub atmosphere though and was a bar maid shortly before I had my first child.

I like you would also like to see the Tumbledown as a self sufficient, non tax payer funded business and I believe that can be done through operating the downstairs as a pub and renting out rooms above for community uses.

I also believe that the draw of the premises as a good music venue will continue to be a fantastic way to draw new business not only to the Tumbledown but local businesses, especially the ones opposite it.

I do not know if you ever attended a Quarantine night but I assure you at 2am in the morning, you would not of found busier take-aways than the ones opposite the Tumbledown.

I also believe it would provide jobs, especially for students aged 18+ as this kind of work can be moulded to fit around a students time table.

I truly believe it can be done Cllr Clifford and be done in the way proposed by the FOTTD.

Nobody is saying it wont be difficult or a challenge, the first year(s) will be tough but it will be worth it.

It would be something the town could be proud of as I hate to tell you but I have met people who do not live here but have visited and they do not have a high opinion of Farnborough.

I hope that clears up where I stand but I wrote the above so you could see that although our methods may indeed be different that actually, you and I want the same things.

Unknown said...

Dear old friend David,

Indeed the person that I knew wast the champion of "the little guy" tireless pursuer of lost causes. Ready to stand up for personally held beliefs even if there was a high political price to pay. At the time you had a following of grateful constituents eager to sing your praises.

So what has happened??
...have you met your Mata Hari, or perhaps taken a blow to the head in a paragliding accident!!

Anyway now that I have had my couple of hilarious jibes I thinks its time to clean this argument up, if only because you are supposed to be representing us.

Firstly I know that you have worked hard to make local government transparent in terms of members interest so the accusation of taking bribes would have been extremely offensive to you. I would personally vouch for you if ever asked.

In the general argument I feel that you have jumped on viability band wagon, which is a constant red herring and in itself a source of frustration and offence to those who want to save the TD. Viability was questioned only because it was forced to operate in a "Dickensian" rigged market (see your governments press release below). The Swan on Farnborough Road would have been closed on the same grounds if it had not been for the deep pockets of the current licensee. The fact that the TD was profitable at all under such a regime means that it is likely that it could be very lucrative indeed in an area deprived of entertainment.

The current owners have a (not very well) hidden agenda. They want to demolish this building because it will increase massively the value of the plot. But where would we be if we sanctioned carte blanche demolition of buildings to line the pockets of developers?

Do hope that you will at least concede this point, and look forward to catching up in the near future!


Andy Clark said...

Cllr Clifford

I posted anonymously as I misunderstood the process, now rectified. however you have then ignored my question and more or less called me immature, which I find insulting.

How does posting this peice without any form of editorial or further comment from yourself in any way represent a balanced view for your ward or Rushmoor as a whole? The posting looks, in my opinion and due to the lack of aforementioned editoral, to be anti the work of the Friends of the Tumbledown, and therefore not striking a balance.

Unknown said...

The link I referred to in the earlier post is here:

E Arnold said...

I am delighted that this Asset of Community Value is now on the Local List of Buildings of Importance. The owners have shown their low regard for the building by disputing the nomination. Keith Holland has been very thorough in his assessment of both sides of the case, as I saw from his presentation to the Cabinet Meeting this evening.

David Clifford said...

No surprises. I have said that if this was reviewed it would get a honest hearing from the Cabinet. I am also glad to hear Mr Holland did a thorough job - again for me no surprise, and does show that there is no conspiracy and no collusion at Rushmoor with developers.

We are a good honest council.

David Clifford said...

Dear Andy,

I am not so much trying to strike a balance, as doing the right thing. I am not the BBC. We have to make decision which inevitably upset large sections (at times) of the community we represent. Doing the right thing when there is a big division of opinion is always going to be controversial with many. Sometimes the right thing is not the most popular policy. Do you want a popularist councillor or a principled councillor? Not always but on occasion these two come into conflict.
Whatever I decide to do or which ever way I decide to vote I have always attempted to be open and argue my corner. I have and think it good to change my mind. If after evaluating evidence it conflicts with what I believed. I think politicians at every level, should be honest with themselves as well as the public they represent.

Andy Clark said...

Thank you for the reply. I do not want a popularist concillor, I do want a principled one, however my definition and yours regarding principled seem somewhat different. You are voted in by people and, as you say, represent these people, it is my opinion that your actions in posting this message was not representing the people and therefore, in my opinion, does not appear to be principled, rather it shows bias and also it is not popularist to listen to the views of the thousands who have signed the petition, isn't it just 'evaluating evidence'? I also am interested in your point that you are not the BBC, that is true and you are aligned to a party and a set of policies, principles, rules (call them what you will) in that way, however you are required to represent the whole of your ward, and I a challenged as to how your original post does this.