- Stay Connected
Socialize
Abraham Lincoln
If given the truth, the people can be depended upon to meet any national crisis...
Guildford news...
for Guildford people, brought to you by Guildford reporters - Guildford's own news service
Shipping Containers Removed From Unsuccessful Village Site In Guildford Town Centre
Published on: 16 May, 2018
Updated on: 16 May, 2018
Contractors were today (Wednesday, May 16) removing the steel shipping containers from the former Village site in Guildford town centre.
They arrived in a blaze of publicity in 2016, but the shipping containers of the unsuccessful Village project were being quietly removed in May 2018.
A crane was used to lift the containers on to lorries that were taking them away.
The containers had been used as shops for traders at the unsuccessful attraction that Guildford Borough Council pulled the plug on at the end of 2017.
Parking restriction notice in Commercial Road for May 15 and 16 while the shipping containers were being removed.
The site, between Woodbridge Road and Commercial Road, was used on February 24 this year for a Chinese new year event that had been booked in advance.
The council spent £1.2 million on the project, and within a letter published here from Cllr Tony Rooth (Con, Pilgrims) on December 6, 2017, he wrote: “I am pleased that the Executive has now decided to withdraw proposed funding of £224,903 for this project from the 2018/19 budget thereby to follow Cllr Spooner (who abstained) and Cllr Geoff Davis (who voted against) on the previous Executive decision to allocate such funding.
“I also welcome the discussions to be held with a third operator to take over the site at no further cost to our taxpayers and hopefully some return on the investment of £1,200,000 of public money to date.”
Contractors ready to lift one of the remaining containers on to a lorry to be taken away.
The site is owned by M&G Real Estate, who also own the Friary Shopping Centre. The council has a short-term lease on the land, and in our previous story published on February 23, it noted then that the council would be providing on-going maintenance only where required.
Share This Post
Responses to Shipping Containers Removed From Unsuccessful Village Site In Guildford Town Centre
Leave a Comment Please see our comments policy. All comments are moderated and may take time to appear.
See: E-Bikes for Hire Arrive in Guildford
Martin Elliott
May 16, 2018 at 8:51 pm
According to the report in the council meeting yesterday on The Corporate Plan, the council has made several financial improvements.
They even provided claimed amounts. Delivered savings of £4.1m since April 2013, additional income of £6.4m since April 2013.
However, whilst claiming improved income from property investment, there was no indication as to the current levels and the improvement.
A shame as they claim this will be a major contributor to the GBC budget with no support grants from central government.
I wonder with removing the village, as they seemed to be struggling in selling them a few months ago, what net profit they’ve made on these desirable shopping containers?
Wayne Smith
May 16, 2018 at 9:42 pm
We can only hope that GBC will have learned to never again get involved in running a commercial enterprise for which they have no experience nor talent.
An expensive lesson, paid for by the Guildford tax payers!
Bernard Parke
May 17, 2018 at 9:11 am
May I suggest that readers acquaint themselves with all such matters which involves spending large sums of council tax money. Several are currently in the pipe line.
Jim Allen
May 18, 2018 at 8:42 am
Perhaps an age of common sense will begin – with more housing on this town centre site, and removal of the accursed expedition into the green belt at Burpham.
Valerie Thompson
May 18, 2018 at 8:59 am
According to the Surrey Advertiser, GBC have made a loss of £162,000 on the containers, let alone the approximately £1.2 million loss on setting up and maintaining this wasteful exercise creating a miserable retail experience.
Everyone with common sense said this would be a failure as the site was unappealing and badly sited. GBC now have no idea of what will be put on this site, or when it might be properly developed.
Should the councillors who approved this disaster pay, personally, for some of these losses?
Should the public mount a campaign to try to recover some of this money, which could have been spent on much more urgent matters?
This council has spent millions on stupid and needless projects over the years and is still proposing an expensive new retail centre when shops are closing regularly at the moment.
There is mounting criticism of the Tunsgate development, still not fully occupied and lacking in local appeal, since the cafe closed. It has adversely affected other local businesses, whose rates have been increased.
Again the local paper mentions the failure of GBC to find enough money to repair the boating pond in Stoke Park, (for years a popular, but free facility). How much would this cost? A fraction of the money wasted by the present Executive!
Jim Allen
May 21, 2018 at 1:05 am
I believe we can’t charge (ie recover money) from relevant councillors because of a change in the law after the gerrymandering in London some years ago. Prior to that, councillors could, I believe, be held responsible for their spending decisions.
Recently, when offered the chance to discuss water shortages with the water companies, at the water companies’ expense, at the Mandalay hotel, one council officer’s substitute and myself attended to discover that by 2040 we will have no water – unless things change.
Not one elected member could be bothered to attend to discover the 4.5 million cubic metres of water shortage for the Local Plan they approved. Surely being a councillor on the Executive brings certain responsibilities and these should not include using guesswork, presumption and lack of knowledge when making decisions which seems to be the current standard.
Keith Reeves
May 22, 2018 at 4:15 pm
It’s conceivable that the council do meet third parties at Millmead, for example.
The difference between water shortages or no water is quite significant. Five minutes glancing through Thames Water’s current long-term strategy (2015 to 2040) confirms that population growth in certain areas will result in them having a shortfall by 2040 if nothing more is done other than reducing demand and continuing to tackle leakage.
Given that Thames Water goes on to state that in 2019 it will propose its recommended option for additional resources (and not just the obvious reservoir solution), and that they have a statutory duty to provide reliable supplies to all of their customers, I don’t think Jim Allen needs to worry just yet about sinking a well in his garden.
Keith Reeves
May 22, 2018 at 3:50 pm
Are you proposing an amendment to Local Government legislation so that you can sue councillors (or is it council employees) for the consequences of actions which you don’t agree with?
Better still, why don’t we have a referendum on every decision the council makes?