Forum Topic

Ealing Council Pays £1.7 Million for YMCA Building

It's just dribbled out that on 11 February Ealing Council paid £1.7 millon to purchase the YMCA Building in Bond Street in Central Ealing. The Council hints that the purchase is somehow linked to the would-be cinema development immediately adjacent to the west.At a time of financial stringency when Ealing Council is firing all our Park Rangers, is closing down two drop-in centres for the disabled and threatening to close Public Libraries - how can the Council justify purchasing property?

Eric Alan Leach ● 5679d22 Comments

The cinema is a commercial enterprise; unless the Council intends to sell the land to Empire at a profit, I don't see how it all fits together.

Susan Kelly ● 5679d

Exactly so Susan. In a mature democracy you would expect these things because they would fit into a consistent plan that had been published by the Council. What on earth is going on "in our name" ? A question some of us have asked but to which no one has replied. Hey and where is the business plan?

Arthur Breens ● 5679d

I can't find where this was sanctioned. Any clues and where is that dribble?

George Knox ● 5679d

The dribble comes indirectly from a Council Officer.According to her, all the Ealing Political Party leaders 'sanctioned' this purchase.

Eric Alan Leach ● 5679d

At least it's an asset, rather than a £5MILLION Southall car park that very few will use!My guess is an hidden agenda if all of the party leaders actually agreed on something.

Nigel Brooks ● 5679d

See the story on the front page about this.

Susan Kelly ● 5679d

http://www2.ealing.gov.uk/ealing3/export/sites/ealingweb/services/council/committees/agendas_minutes_reports/cabinet/25may2010-23may2011/_11_january_2011/09_-_Part_1_-_PUBLIC_-_Cabinet_Minutes_-_11_Jan_11.docThese are the Minutes of the Cabinet meeting on 11 January.See item 17 on page 8.No reference to Bond Street is made. I call that sneaky.As Liberal Jon Ball has views about this perhaps he could shine a torch into what ideas the Council have.

George Knox ● 5679d

Just a thought - I read somewhere that Ealing Council wanted additional office space.Perhaps that's why they purchased the YMCA building.

Jean F Fernandez ● 5678d

Well spotted.This also occurred to me.If the Council is opening small Council Offices in Acton Southall and Greenford, the old YMCA would complement this trio with a fourth in central Ealing.Maybe the Estate Agents in Regeneration have found a potential buyer for Perceval House.

Eric Alan Leach ● 5678d

I cannot find detailed enough drawings at the moment which set out the vision for the Regeneration of Ealing. But Cinema Square is somewhere envisaged for this area of Ealing. I speculate that the YMCA building may well be knocked down. Eric. Do you have any detail?

George Knox ● 5678d

The YMCA site is not a Development Site according to the Ealing Council September 2010 Local Development Framework 'Ealing 2026 Development Sites Initial Proposals'.One can but see the irony in Ealing Council purchasing a site for which it has no development plans for whatsoever.

Eric Alan Leach ● 5678d

Thanks EricI don't understand Councillor Reen's comments.He says"The regeneration team at the council have provided the council with a strong lever over how the site may develop as cinema. The purchase of the YMCA building in my view gives Ealing a direct involvement in the development potential of the site."This language is opaque unless saying more to the public will in some way put off the Empire owners, whose stance of saying the purchase does not impact on their plans seems to be in question.As the Council has spent £1.7M of our money,is there any chance of us knowing what is going on?In the unlikely event of the Empire people reading this thread would they stop faffing about. Alternatively Brendon Walsh, go and get an agreement in principle from another group backed by a consortium of banks and serve a CPO.

George Knox ● 5675d

It may be difficult to find another group who would be interested.  The economics just doesn't feel right.  E.Q. Watermans shows top films at a very reasonable price, but everytime I have been, it has been mostly empty.  Empire would have to charge a substantial price for each ticket in order to recoup their outlay in a reasonable number of years. They may have determined that it isn't economically feasible at this point in time.  I could be wrong however.

Charles Campbell ● 5675d

Watermans cinema is normally well attended when I go. I go three times per month.But there is no certainty that a cinema complex in the centre of Ealing will be successful. Maybe Empire Cinemas now believe this themselves or quite simply they just can't raise the finance.On the basis of what I know about the situation, the Council's £1.7 million purchase seems reckless. But maybe there are circumstances unknown to me which make the purchase less risky. However if the latter is the case why is that information beng kept secret?

Eric Alan Leach ● 5675d

Eric,Everything the Degeneration Team does is secret. The whole jolly lot have been trained by watching James Bond movies. My feeling is that their actions if twer not secret would be pulled to pieces by public scutiny. Councillors generally collude with this modus operandi. Look at the way in which LDF discussions were excluded from Ward Forums. Recent questions to the council have gone unanswered. One question was recently answered by Pat Hayes himself about that other secret mission Mipim in Cannes. See next post for accurate quote.

Arthur Breens ● 5675d

Four members of the Regeneration Team went to MIPIM. (This whole exercise has been paid for by "sponsorship" so has cost us nothing). That worries me. In this very delicate area as a council tax payer I would have prefered to have paid. Yes paid for independence and paid for the master servant relationship. Naive for the council to have let key officers get "into bed" with developers (all expenses paid) and in Cannes of all places. Who agreed to this? Was there a debate at a full Council meeting? Is there a conflict of interest? When I was a civil servant and later when I worked for Barnet I was subject to a whole set of guidance notes regulating gifts and such partnerships. They were definitely not on. Perhaps that doesn't apply anymore in this Big Society. So who are these sponsors and what is their angle? Perhaps they would like to answer that here. Fat chance!  What sites were discussed? (A)"unlocking some of our more problematic sites"(B) Odeon(C) Arcadia(D) Cinema  (Is that the same as the Odeon?)(E) Acton town hallSo there we have it Eric and George it makes no sense because we don't understand the hidden agenda and we wouldn't like it and are unlikely to profit from it anyway. With Easter on the way I am not a happy bunny.

Arthur Breens ● 5675d

The Waterman's has been busier lately than it used to be, with a great schedule of films.

Susan Kelly ● 5675d

The costs start with the salaries of senior council officers and their office facilities but no doubt someone equipped with  the mumbo-jumbo of Economics will opt for their individual sponsorship before long - rather like the flower beds on roundabouts.PS Are Grimebusters t-shirts fashion accessories on the Riviera?

Robert Darke ● 5674d

Is buying at the very bottom of a housing cycle such a naff move???

Sean Scannell ● 5673d

Sean.In a financial crisis like this we are entitled to know why the Council has prioritized buying this property when money is short. It may be cheap, I don't know, What we don't know is what the plans are except in very opaque terms. It's your money as well. So what's your agenda and do you have one? Failure to respond may put a different angle on your comments.

George Knox ● 5673d

Could we suggest that the Ealing Labour Group open a day care centre that is "fit for purpose" in the YMCA building? Something that the residents of Ealing ACTUALLY need?

Maggie Tomlinson ● 5673d

I noticed in the Ealing property strategy that the Albert Dane centre was classified as not fit for purpose. The only evidence given were some photographs of the interior. It was a study of keeping the place in a mess because it was so incredibly untidy.That was a management issue. It may have been there were other reasons but they were not published in the report.So is the expression not fit fp something which can be bandied about by any old TomDick to justify anything?And who had management responsibility? Does make you wonder how many buildings have been allowed to go downhill simply because some line management is so incompetent.

George Knox ● 5672d