SHED Theatre OR a new library!

Sun 20 May 2007, 17:37

I find this exchange really depressing and would like people to return to the original posting by Mark Wilson. The issue surely is not the Shed or the Library but I would point out that the Library was opened when the population was a third of its present size and surprise, surprise, the Library should be three times larger. Those who were at the Annual Parish Meeting will recall that the discussion centred on the way the County Council has assest-stripped Charlbury. We have lost the Spendlove School and its playing fields(now the Ticknel Piece development), part of Wychwood Paddocks and the Old Primary School all sold by OCC to developers. The anger at the meeting was at our County Councillor's apparent defence of this postion. What we should be doing is to lobby her to act on our behalf to retain the Shed as well as provide new facilities for the Library and Adult Learning and a jointly used Arts space which a Town of this size deserves. We do the Town a dis-service if vested interest are arguing for their own patch and shows little has been learned from the recent history of the Community Centre.

Thu 17 May 2007, 16:10

To be fair, part of the argument for moving the library is to improve disabled access. But on my reckoning the library is open just 18 hours a week. This doesn't suggest much of a commitment by the County Council. If they get bigger (and presumably more expensive) premises, what will they do? Cut the hours still further and install more computers and DVDs, I expect. It may not be the sort of library that people imagine. Also, they're cutting the Central Library in Oxford, so why not here?
Local authorities are good at funding capital projects (jazzy and spectacular) and poor at providing ongoing revenue funding thereafter (boring and unsexy). That job will probably fall to the local community which, in addition to subsidising the school and performing heroic fundraising for the Corner House and Memorial Hall, will be expected to share the ongoing costs of the new hall. Or is all this covered in a document I haven't seen? Let's hope so!

Thu 17 May 2007, 00:19

Acutally a new community centre wouldnt mean that the Memorial Hall and Corner House would be under-used - it would mean that there would space for all the actiivities which happen at the moment to take place either more frequently, in larger spaces, with more amenities etc. Remember when we had the old school AND the Spendlove - as well as the Corner House and Memorial Hall? Nothing was under-used then, in fact more things were happenning then, than are now. We do need the Community Centre, however have to balance everything out. I just dont think we should loose such a valuable resource as the Shed, when the community centre does eventually get built - as I am sure it will. Lets not forget that the Shed is where the youth club was - and has been for time immemoriable. It's a place "just" for kids - and should be kept so. Graham, I don't think everyone "should have their own space" but on there is always the exception which proves the rule.

We must keep the Shed for the youngsters of today, and also build a new community centre for those of us who are not so young. For just one year with £4 extra on the rates per week, we could all buy the Shed!

As a community, Charlbury should both support the community centre and the Shed. And let all those "politicians" be aware of this - be they county, district or town councillors and the Thomas Gifford trustees.

Wed 16 May 2007, 22:56

There seems to be a probability that a new Community Centre equals loss of the SHED, which I'd very much regret, because it is a unique and characterful venue. And there is a likelihood that a new Centre would mean underutilisation of existing facilities in the Memorial Hall and the Corner House, which would be a waste. There are rare occasions when we need a performance space larger than the Memorial Hall, and there is some case for expanded indoor sports facilities -- and perhaps for somewhere that would allow the football and tennis clubs to share facilities. But, on balance, I am not convinced that we need a large and hugely expensive building on the Spendlove site. I would be happy to support a modest propoal that combined sports club facilities with low-cost housing. In the meantime, things should stay as they are.

Sat 12 May 2007, 17:01

I am a member of Shed, and though i have only been going for a Year, I feel part of the shed family, and part of that family is its home, the Shed, it is such a creative time of my week, and it is perfect how it is. It has been there for years, and we already have a library. Remember, although it may not seem like it, the grass if often not acctually greener on the otherside. I hope very much that the Shed stays standing.
Thankyou

Sat 12 May 2007, 16:49

Yes I know, but why can't all groups get together to consolidate thier cost so they can share ONE building instead of individual ones.

Sat 12 May 2007, 13:58

Graham - Not sure whether you are aware or not, but the Shed currently operates from land on Nineacres Lane!

Fri 11 May 2007, 22:34

On that principle then everyone should have their own space, but please tell where there is the land? Perhaps the old quarry!

Fri 11 May 2007, 21:15

Normally I would go along with Graham's point of view - however as far as the SHED is concerned, I am adamant that it should remain just for them, and no one else. Anyone who has anything to do with kids will realise that they need their own space, and not part of some "adult" building which they would have to share, tidy up (!!!) etc. We need both buildings. The community centre is needed to replace the old school, and the SHED just needs to remain. I would recommend everyone advocating this, and making sure that our county councillor realises this.

Fri 11 May 2007, 18:16

As far as local facilities such as this are concerned, I will tell you a FAR worse word ... Monopoly. When we had both the Spendlove Centre AND the Old Primary School, both facilities were used a lot, as I recall. They complemented each other, a good state of affairs. Otherwise I think all of Graham's comments are adequately covered in my previous message. Now ... if I win the lottery on Saturday ... !!

Fri 11 May 2007, 15:24

No I do not any spare space, but why does every group / organisation need to have their own space, especially when land / space is at premium. With multiple groups working together surely the cost are shared or is that a bad word.

Fri 11 May 2007, 14:18

Graham,in my posting I said "Organisations like SHED thrive in cheap, crap accommodation which they can make their own territory"
have you got any spare?!

Thu 10 May 2007, 22:28

Surely the ideal situation here is that all groups work together for a communial hall, what is the point of a hall here, The SHED over there, library there, Evergreen in there etc etc.... Why not concentrate all efforts for the community centre. its a lot more logical!

Thu 10 May 2007, 18:29

if feeding trolls keeps you quiet all well and good

Sun 6 May 2007, 09:54

Don't feed the Trolls!

Thu 3 May 2007, 22:10

ivan have you been upsetting people again what ever next.

Thu 3 May 2007, 20:37

dont worry about me richard you cant get blood out of a stone and she cant afford the bad publicty.

Tue 1 May 2007, 19:40

(potentially libellous comment deleted - sorry Ivan, I'm not a particular fan of the party in question but there's no way I can allow allegations like that... not unless you're prepared to pay for the lawyer! -- Richard)

Tue 1 May 2007, 18:42

I have long thought that whether or not we ever get a community centre, the SHED is needed AS WELL. It represents something that is independant of any future community centre. In the past, many things other than drama have taken place in the SHED, and the best example is probably the excellent live music nights. I presume that the SHED could also be made available for things such as band practices etc.
It seems likely that the facilities of the proposed community centre will soon be outgrown by the needs of the town, so I think it is essential that the SHED is kept in the hands of Charlbury people.
I agree totally with what Nick says about an alternative site for the SHED. The loss of the Old Primary School was a scandal, nothing less. I know it is no use raking over old coals at this stage, but it is still a fact.
I would like to see the SHED kept, and I will go further and say that for me, securing the future of the SHED should be our first priority.
Anyone got a spare £250K ?!?!?!?

Mon 30 Apr 2007, 22:20

I'm rather shocked that no one over the past 10 days has rallied to Mark's colours. Over the last 15 years, Charlbury Youth Theatre and its successor SHED Theatre have transformed childrens' lives in the town and provided brilliant entertainment. Organisations like SHED thrive in cheap, crap accommodation which they can make their own territory. They are extremely vulnerable to those euphemistically "realising value". They were evicted from the old primary school canteen on the promise of a community centre when the site was sold to Beechcroft, now it's happening again.Even if there were to be a place for Youth Theatre in the proposed new Centre, it won't be their own exclusive space.
I suspect that if we still had a wiser Councillor like Brian Hodgson, he would have persuaded the Council to go ahead ONLY if and when an acceptable alternative site had been found for the SHED.

Sat 21 Apr 2007, 18:11

I was shocked to discover at the Town Council's annual meeting last night that the County Council intend to sell off the SHED site in order to provide funds for the proposed new library/adult education centre on the Spendlove site. Councillor Sue Haffenden appeared to be in favour of this approach but it created widespread shock and opposition at the meeting. If this is the only way the County will fund the new library then surely keeping the existing one - even if it is a bit small - would be preferable to closing down the only really successful place for kids in Charlbury? The SHED organisers are apparently to be offered a chance to buy the site but at a likely valuation of approx £250k this seems hardly practical.