Trust's plea to public - help us buy Jumbo

Gazette: George Braithwaite at the top of Jumbo George Braithwaite at the top of Jumbo

A CHARITY which wants to buy Colchester's famous water tower and restore it has launched a public appeal for donations.

The Balkerne Tower Trust is appealing for cash to enable it to bid for Jumbo which is being sold at auction on May 29.

No reserve has been put on the Grade II* listed building which means it could be sold for as little as a penny.

However, the cost of repairing the building will run into hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Jumbo is being sold by developer George Braithwaite who has twice had his planning applications to convert the building refused by Colchester Council.

Mr Braithwaite has spent £1.5 million buying the water tower and paying for plans to be drawn up to transform it into flats, offices, a restaurant, museum and viewing tower.

The cost of converting it would have been in excess of a further £3 million - money Mr Braithwaite did not expect to recoup for 20 years.

However, after the latest refusal, he said he is now going to walk away from the project.

The trust, which onsistently opposed Mr Braithwaite's plans, says it wants to buy Jumbo and it has drawn up a business strategy.

For more on this story, see today's Gazette and tomorrow's Essex County Standard.

Comments (26)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:27pm Thu 1 May 14

André says...

This group wanting to buy it has strong links to the local MP Bob Russell as well as Libdem Councillors who opposed the planning application of Mr Braithwaite. His planning application was refused despite the planning officers recommending it be approved purely to snub Mr Braithwaite on the basis he had made a donation some years before to their political rivals the Conservative Party. Labour and Libdem opposed the developement for politically motivated reason and not for the best interest of the local community as they fervidly claim. The Balkerne Tower Trust ( which was originally a limited company and has subsequently applied for charity status) is little more than a front for a group opposed to innovation and development.
This group wanting to buy it has strong links to the local MP Bob Russell as well as Libdem Councillors who opposed the planning application of Mr Braithwaite. His planning application was refused despite the planning officers recommending it be approved purely to snub Mr Braithwaite on the basis he had made a donation some years before to their political rivals the Conservative Party. Labour and Libdem opposed the developement for politically motivated reason and not for the best interest of the local community as they fervidly claim. The Balkerne Tower Trust ( which was originally a limited company and has subsequently applied for charity status) is little more than a front for a group opposed to innovation and development. André
  • Score: -8

1:34pm Thu 1 May 14

André says...

Our Patron is Sir Bob Russell MP
Our Chairman is Brian Light
Our Secretary is Barry Donovan FCIB, MBE
(There are six members of the Board)
http://www.savejumbo
.org.uk

It would be interesting to know how much money has been donated to this limited company towards to its operating costs from those who were dirently involved in stopping Mr Braithwaite's planning application.

Perhaps this is something the Gazette could investigate... as local politics appears to be manifestly corrupt in Colchester.
Our Patron is Sir Bob Russell MP Our Chairman is Brian Light Our Secretary is Barry Donovan FCIB, MBE (There are six members of the Board) http://www.savejumbo .org.uk It would be interesting to know how much money has been donated to this limited company towards to its operating costs from those who were dirently involved in stopping Mr Braithwaite's planning application. Perhaps this is something the Gazette could investigate... as local politics appears to be manifestly corrupt in Colchester. André
  • Score: 7

1:35pm Thu 1 May 14

André says...

I apologies to the readers for the spelling mistakes in the above comments!
I apologies to the readers for the spelling mistakes in the above comments! André
  • Score: -5

2:40pm Thu 1 May 14

Say It As It Is OK? says...

Cronyism is alive and well in Colchester! But Andre those heavy closed doors of the town hall hide many a secret.
Those who objected to Mr Braithwaites excellent plans will now sit back and rejoice in the thought of buying Jumbo for a pittance. Then watch the same group, led by Bob Russell, submit their own planning application that will surely get full support.
Cronyism is alive and well in Colchester! But Andre those heavy closed doors of the town hall hide many a secret. Those who objected to Mr Braithwaites excellent plans will now sit back and rejoice in the thought of buying Jumbo for a pittance. Then watch the same group, led by Bob Russell, submit their own planning application that will surely get full support. Say It As It Is OK?
  • Score: 5

3:57pm Thu 1 May 14

Scoot says...

Be interesting to know where the 'trust' is going to get its money from to buy it. If its from a developer or anyone linked with developments then it could be argued that its a bung (especially if the said donor gets a contract to work on the jumbo if the trust buys it). then once they've bought it where will they raise the money to repair, renovate and develop it ? Again if its from a developer or anyone linked with the industry then it will be viewed as a bung if any of the donors gets the contract. I hope it is watched closely and if this should happen then those making the 'donation' and those taking the 'bung' feel the full force of the law.(which currently is 10 years...)
Be interesting to know where the 'trust' is going to get its money from to buy it. If its from a developer or anyone linked with developments then it could be argued that its a bung (especially if the said donor gets a contract to work on the jumbo if the trust buys it). then once they've bought it where will they raise the money to repair, renovate and develop it ? Again if its from a developer or anyone linked with the industry then it will be viewed as a bung if any of the donors gets the contract. I hope it is watched closely and if this should happen then those making the 'donation' and those taking the 'bung' feel the full force of the law.(which currently is 10 years...) Scoot
  • Score: 0

4:02pm Thu 1 May 14

Boris says...

André wrote:
Our Patron is Sir Bob Russell MP
Our Chairman is Brian Light
Our Secretary is Barry Donovan FCIB, MBE
(There are six members of the Board)
http://www.savejumbo

.org.uk

It would be interesting to know how much money has been donated to this limited company towards to its operating costs from those who were dirently involved in stopping Mr Braithwaite's planning application.

Perhaps this is something the Gazette could investigate... as local politics appears to be manifestly corrupt in Colchester.
André, you misrepresent BTT. On the same page of its website., just before the words that you quote, the Trust states that, with effect from July 2008, "We are registered charity No 1124778".
If you don't understand the term "Company Limited by Guarantee", look it up in Wikipedia.
[quote][p][bold]André[/bold] wrote: Our Patron is Sir Bob Russell MP Our Chairman is Brian Light Our Secretary is Barry Donovan FCIB, MBE (There are six members of the Board) http://www.savejumbo .org.uk It would be interesting to know how much money has been donated to this limited company towards to its operating costs from those who were dirently involved in stopping Mr Braithwaite's planning application. Perhaps this is something the Gazette could investigate... as local politics appears to be manifestly corrupt in Colchester.[/p][/quote]André, you misrepresent BTT. On the same page of its website., just before the words that you quote, the Trust states that, with effect from July 2008, "We are registered charity No 1124778". If you don't understand the term "Company Limited by Guarantee", look it up in Wikipedia. Boris
  • Score: 8

4:05pm Thu 1 May 14

Boris says...

Scoot wrote:
Be interesting to know where the 'trust' is going to get its money from to buy it. If its from a developer or anyone linked with developments then it could be argued that its a bung (especially if the said donor gets a contract to work on the jumbo if the trust buys it). then once they've bought it where will they raise the money to repair, renovate and develop it ? Again if its from a developer or anyone linked with the industry then it will be viewed as a bung if any of the donors gets the contract. I hope it is watched closely and if this should happen then those making the 'donation' and those taking the 'bung' feel the full force of the law.(which currently is 10 years...)
Scoot, your imagination is running away with you. I recommend a nice cup of camomile tea and an early night.
[quote][p][bold]Scoot[/bold] wrote: Be interesting to know where the 'trust' is going to get its money from to buy it. If its from a developer or anyone linked with developments then it could be argued that its a bung (especially if the said donor gets a contract to work on the jumbo if the trust buys it). then once they've bought it where will they raise the money to repair, renovate and develop it ? Again if its from a developer or anyone linked with the industry then it will be viewed as a bung if any of the donors gets the contract. I hope it is watched closely and if this should happen then those making the 'donation' and those taking the 'bung' feel the full force of the law.(which currently is 10 years...)[/p][/quote]Scoot, your imagination is running away with you. I recommend a nice cup of camomile tea and an early night. Boris
  • Score: 7

4:30pm Thu 1 May 14

Scoot says...

Boris, I've just had to do an update on corporate governance on the bribery laws. You basically can't take someone out for a burger prior to doing business with them without falling foul of the legislation. What I was trying to get at is where on earth is the trust going to get the hundreds of thousands of pounds (upto 3 million) from to repair, renovate and develop the site if its not going to come from someone who hopes to get something out of it ? And as each year passes the bill for renovation and repair will increase
Boris, I've just had to do an update on corporate governance on the bribery laws. You basically can't take someone out for a burger prior to doing business with them without falling foul of the legislation. What I was trying to get at is where on earth is the trust going to get the hundreds of thousands of pounds (upto 3 million) from to repair, renovate and develop the site if its not going to come from someone who hopes to get something out of it ? And as each year passes the bill for renovation and repair will increase Scoot
  • Score: 5

5:26pm Thu 1 May 14

stevedawson says...

They are a sad lot of got f**k alls.who between them have stopped the town getting an icon instead of an eyesore.all we can wait for now is a mass of safety scaffolding to be erected as health and safety measure.thanks mr. Light
and followers thanks a bunch.
They are a sad lot of got f**k alls.who between them have stopped the town getting an icon instead of an eyesore.all we can wait for now is a mass of safety scaffolding to be erected as health and safety measure.thanks mr. Light and followers thanks a bunch. stevedawson
  • Score: -7

5:37pm Thu 1 May 14

DL1970 says...

André wrote:
This group wanting to buy it has strong links to the local MP Bob Russell as well as Libdem Councillors who opposed the planning application of Mr Braithwaite. His planning application was refused despite the planning officers recommending it be approved purely to snub Mr Braithwaite on the basis he had made a donation some years before to their political rivals the Conservative Party. Labour and Libdem opposed the developement for politically motivated reason and not for the best interest of the local community as they fervidly claim. The Balkerne Tower Trust ( which was originally a limited company and has subsequently applied for charity status) is little more than a front for a group opposed to innovation and development.
Nonsense. I'm a trustee of BTT and I for one have no allegiance to any political party, in fact I don't even vote. My view of politics is pretty straightforward - no matter who you vote for, the Government still gets in. The only allegiance BTT has is to preserving Jumbo intact for future generations and the people of Colchester. You say we have strong links to Libdem councillors. I don't know who half of them are, do you? Mr Braithwaite says he blames Bob Russell for what has happened whilst conveniently overlooking the fact that English Heritage, The Victorian Society and other important heritage organisations were totally opposed to his scheme, the fact that Jumbo has a Grade 2* listed building status, putting it in the top 8% of all listed buildings in the UK in terms of architectural and historical importance, and the fact that it is standing in the middle of a conservation area. There was a strong case for refusal even before the plans came before the council. The Councillors, guided by planning law and English Heritage, refused Mr Braithwaite's scheme because of the considerable harm it would cause to the tower, coupled with the removal of historical pipework and fittings. If Mr Braithwaite was right and the council were wrong, why didn't he go to appeal. After all, if the reason was purely political, as you advocate, a planning inspector who is totally impartial and not from this area would have passed the scheme with flying colours and overturned the councillors' decision, right?
Wrong. Mr Braithwaite didn't go to appeal because the truth of the matter is, the council had a strong case for refusal which would have stood up in a court of law and its highly likely he would have lost. By the way, we ARE a charity and have been for several years. We are not a front for anyone - we represent ourselves. We are not opposed to innovation and development either. There's a right way and a wrong way to going about a building's preservation. Taking the easy way out and letting a developer spoil an historic building of such high profile for his own designs, just so it can be 'restored' is the wrong way.
[quote][p][bold]André[/bold] wrote: This group wanting to buy it has strong links to the local MP Bob Russell as well as Libdem Councillors who opposed the planning application of Mr Braithwaite. His planning application was refused despite the planning officers recommending it be approved purely to snub Mr Braithwaite on the basis he had made a donation some years before to their political rivals the Conservative Party. Labour and Libdem opposed the developement for politically motivated reason and not for the best interest of the local community as they fervidly claim. The Balkerne Tower Trust ( which was originally a limited company and has subsequently applied for charity status) is little more than a front for a group opposed to innovation and development.[/p][/quote]Nonsense. I'm a trustee of BTT and I for one have no allegiance to any political party, in fact I don't even vote. My view of politics is pretty straightforward - no matter who you vote for, the Government still gets in. The only allegiance BTT has is to preserving Jumbo intact for future generations and the people of Colchester. You say we have strong links to Libdem councillors. I don't know who half of them are, do you? Mr Braithwaite says he blames Bob Russell for what has happened whilst conveniently overlooking the fact that English Heritage, The Victorian Society and other important heritage organisations were totally opposed to his scheme, the fact that Jumbo has a Grade 2* listed building status, putting it in the top 8% of all listed buildings in the UK in terms of architectural and historical importance, and the fact that it is standing in the middle of a conservation area. There was a strong case for refusal even before the plans came before the council. The Councillors, guided by planning law and English Heritage, refused Mr Braithwaite's scheme because of the considerable harm it would cause to the tower, coupled with the removal of historical pipework and fittings. If Mr Braithwaite was right and the council were wrong, why didn't he go to appeal. After all, if the reason was purely political, as you advocate, a planning inspector who is totally impartial and not from this area would have passed the scheme with flying colours and overturned the councillors' decision, right? Wrong. Mr Braithwaite didn't go to appeal because the truth of the matter is, the council had a strong case for refusal which would have stood up in a court of law and its highly likely he would have lost. By the way, we ARE a charity and have been for several years. We are not a front for anyone - we represent ourselves. We are not opposed to innovation and development either. There's a right way and a wrong way to going about a building's preservation. Taking the easy way out and letting a developer spoil an historic building of such high profile for his own designs, just so it can be 'restored' is the wrong way. DL1970
  • Score: 14

6:45pm Thu 1 May 14

Pixlink says...

Read the options appraisals and the valuation reports; Jumbo is fairly useless for any kind of viable development / conversion without entirely destroying its visual and historic integrity. It sits in a place where such a development would be wholly inappropriate and very risky financially. Who would want to operate a hotel with no parking? The only use Jumbo potentially has is that which the Balkerne Tower Trust and its backers have stated from day one: opening it up for tours with a small museum in the tank as the last intact and greatest example of a Victorian water tower. The funds needed to be raised are for restoration, not development, so not impossible. As a development proposition, Jumbo is a non-starter which is why Braithwaite is selling. All over the world there are examples of water towers that are magnets for visitors and contribute footfall to their surrounding area.
Read the options appraisals and the valuation reports; Jumbo is fairly useless for any kind of viable development / conversion without entirely destroying its visual and historic integrity. It sits in a place where such a development would be wholly inappropriate and very risky financially. Who would want to operate a hotel with no parking? The only use Jumbo potentially has is that which the Balkerne Tower Trust and its backers have stated from day one: opening it up for tours with a small museum in the tank as the last intact and greatest example of a Victorian water tower. The funds needed to be raised are for restoration, not development, so not impossible. As a development proposition, Jumbo is a non-starter which is why Braithwaite is selling. All over the world there are examples of water towers that are magnets for visitors and contribute footfall to their surrounding area. Pixlink
  • Score: 10

7:22pm Thu 1 May 14

William George says...

Much better ideas of design should have been suggested than the ones by Mr. Braithewaite's suggestion. For the Jumbo Water Tower.
His designs were not suitable for the Tower.

The Council made their decision not to accept his application for reasons, and one of the main reasons was the designs he offered for the famous landmark of Colchester would make a loss in valuation in Colchester and its history.
A choice of a better suggested designs for the Jumbo Water Tower can still be made by someone else but not by Mr. Braithewaite, then they can give a wider chance for the public to see and compare.
Much better ideas of design should have been suggested than the ones by Mr. Braithewaite's suggestion. For the Jumbo Water Tower. His designs were not suitable for the Tower. The Council made their decision not to accept his application for reasons, and one of the main reasons was the designs he offered for the famous landmark of Colchester would make a loss in valuation in Colchester and its history. A choice of a better suggested designs for the Jumbo Water Tower can still be made by someone else but not by Mr. Braithewaite, then they can give a wider chance for the public to see and compare. William George
  • Score: 10

9:11pm Thu 1 May 14

jut1972 says...

Good luck to them but unfortunately I think the BTT are deluded. A developer is going to have deeper pockets and will be able to propose a less contentious scheme as they will have less to lose. So Jumbo gets converted anyway. The tragedy being we could have had something spectacular instead of mundane.

The whole idea of a museum is a non starter who is going to pay for that more than once? It's a niche interest at best.
Good luck to them but unfortunately I think the BTT are deluded. A developer is going to have deeper pockets and will be able to propose a less contentious scheme as they will have less to lose. So Jumbo gets converted anyway. The tragedy being we could have had something spectacular instead of mundane. The whole idea of a museum is a non starter who is going to pay for that more than once? It's a niche interest at best. jut1972
  • Score: -5

9:30pm Thu 1 May 14

stackerman says...

if i was him i would just keep it an unrestored eye sore its just how the people wanted it to be by refusing planning applications . keep it as a giant pigeon loft ready to punish the objectors cars .
if i was him i would just keep it an unrestored eye sore its just how the people wanted it to be by refusing planning applications . keep it as a giant pigeon loft ready to punish the objectors cars . stackerman
  • Score: -5

9:42pm Thu 1 May 14

DL1970 says...

stackerman wrote:
if i was him i would just keep it an unrestored eye sore its just how the people wanted it to be by refusing planning applications . keep it as a giant pigeon loft ready to punish the objectors cars .
And if I were the council I would be serving Urgent Works Notices on him if that were the case.
[quote][p][bold]stackerman[/bold] wrote: if i was him i would just keep it an unrestored eye sore its just how the people wanted it to be by refusing planning applications . keep it as a giant pigeon loft ready to punish the objectors cars .[/p][/quote]And if I were the council I would be serving Urgent Works Notices on him if that were the case. DL1970
  • Score: 6

9:55pm Thu 1 May 14

DL1970 says...

jut1972 wrote:
Good luck to them but unfortunately I think the BTT are deluded. A developer is going to have deeper pockets and will be able to propose a less contentious scheme as they will have less to lose. So Jumbo gets converted anyway. The tragedy being we could have had something spectacular instead of mundane.

The whole idea of a museum is a non starter who is going to pay for that more than once? It's a niche interest at best.
BTT are deluded?

Any property developer who bids for Jumbo at the auction without first reading the report by Savills, looking at its listed building status, and planning history are deluded if they think there's any money to be made. Jumbo is a pig in a poke as far as commercial development is concerned.

Jumbo IS spectacular even as it stands. It is a one of a kind. Its far from mundane.

The museum is a non-starter?

How many times have you visited Colchester Castle museum in your lifetime? Colchester has a massive number of tourists and visitors every rear, and that's where the main income could be made.
[quote][p][bold]jut1972[/bold] wrote: Good luck to them but unfortunately I think the BTT are deluded. A developer is going to have deeper pockets and will be able to propose a less contentious scheme as they will have less to lose. So Jumbo gets converted anyway. The tragedy being we could have had something spectacular instead of mundane. The whole idea of a museum is a non starter who is going to pay for that more than once? It's a niche interest at best.[/p][/quote]BTT are deluded? Any property developer who bids for Jumbo at the auction without first reading the report by Savills, looking at its listed building status, and planning history are deluded if they think there's any money to be made. Jumbo is a pig in a poke as far as commercial development is concerned. Jumbo IS spectacular even as it stands. It is a one of a kind. Its far from mundane. The museum is a non-starter? How many times have you visited Colchester Castle museum in your lifetime? Colchester has a massive number of tourists and visitors every rear, and that's where the main income could be made. DL1970
  • Score: 10

11:34pm Thu 1 May 14

stackerman says...

DL1970 wrote:
stackerman wrote:
if i was him i would just keep it an unrestored eye sore its just how the people wanted it to be by refusing planning applications . keep it as a giant pigeon loft ready to punish the objectors cars .
And if I were the council I would be serving Urgent Works Notices on him if that were the case.
i would seriously recommend he does not sell it and just retains Jumbo. After spending the amount of money that if he was to sell in this current market would not be any where near the moneys laid out for purchase proposed developments etc. Just stick another fence around to prevent the free parking and let it slip into a state where one day it can be pulled down and a nice set of flats can be built on the land .
Mr. Braithewaite's idea and enthusiasm to develop this was met with closed doors and rejected so as i have said before let it be a pigeon loft and annoy the rejectors of the development and DO NOT SELL !!! to anybody .
[quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stackerman[/bold] wrote: if i was him i would just keep it an unrestored eye sore its just how the people wanted it to be by refusing planning applications . keep it as a giant pigeon loft ready to punish the objectors cars .[/p][/quote]And if I were the council I would be serving Urgent Works Notices on him if that were the case.[/p][/quote]i would seriously recommend he does not sell it and just retains Jumbo. After spending the amount of money that if he was to sell in this current market would not be any where near the moneys laid out for purchase proposed developments etc. Just stick another fence around to prevent the free parking and let it slip into a state where one day it can be pulled down and a nice set of flats can be built on the land . Mr. Braithewaite's idea and enthusiasm to develop this was met with closed doors and rejected so as i have said before let it be a pigeon loft and annoy the rejectors of the development and DO NOT SELL !!! to anybody . stackerman
  • Score: -8

11:35pm Thu 1 May 14

Boris says...

DL1970 wrote:
stackerman wrote:
if i was him i would just keep it an unrestored eye sore its just how the people wanted it to be by refusing planning applications . keep it as a giant pigeon loft ready to punish the objectors cars .
And if I were the council I would be serving Urgent Works Notices on him if that were the case.
DL1970, you are spot on here, as you are with your other comments.
Stackerman and others who complain about the unsightly state of Jumbo should direct their anger at:
1. George Braithwaite, who for the last 8 years has wilfully failed to maintain his property.
2. Colchester Borough Council, which has a duty to ensure that owners of listed buildings keep them in good repair, but which has up till now failed to serve the required Urgent Works notices on him.
[quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stackerman[/bold] wrote: if i was him i would just keep it an unrestored eye sore its just how the people wanted it to be by refusing planning applications . keep it as a giant pigeon loft ready to punish the objectors cars .[/p][/quote]And if I were the council I would be serving Urgent Works Notices on him if that were the case.[/p][/quote]DL1970, you are spot on here, as you are with your other comments. Stackerman and others who complain about the unsightly state of Jumbo should direct their anger at: 1. George Braithwaite, who for the last 8 years has wilfully failed to maintain his property. 2. Colchester Borough Council, which has a duty to ensure that owners of listed buildings keep them in good repair, but which has up till now failed to serve the required Urgent Works notices on him. Boris
  • Score: 11

11:47pm Thu 1 May 14

Boris says...

stackerman wrote:
DL1970 wrote:
stackerman wrote:
if i was him i would just keep it an unrestored eye sore its just how the people wanted it to be by refusing planning applications . keep it as a giant pigeon loft ready to punish the objectors cars .
And if I were the council I would be serving Urgent Works Notices on him if that were the case.
i would seriously recommend he does not sell it and just retains Jumbo. After spending the amount of money that if he was to sell in this current market would not be any where near the moneys laid out for purchase proposed developments etc. Just stick another fence around to prevent the free parking and let it slip into a state where one day it can be pulled down and a nice set of flats can be built on the land .
Mr. Braithewaite's idea and enthusiasm to develop this was met with closed doors and rejected so as i have said before let it be a pigeon loft and annoy the rejectors of the development and DO NOT SELL !!! to anybody .
There are only three flies in your ointment, stackerman.
1. CBC may, one day, grow a pair of b a l l s and order Mr Braithwaite to carry out the repairs required by law to a listed property.
2. Jumbo is so well built that it is not going to fall down, or become a dangerous structure, for at least the next 500 years.
3. Jumbo has very little inflammable material in its construction (its wooden door has already been destroyed under Mr Braithwaite's neglectful stewardship), and thus it cannot be destroyed by fire, as has "mysteriously" happened to several historic Colchester buildings in recent years.
[quote][p][bold]stackerman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stackerman[/bold] wrote: if i was him i would just keep it an unrestored eye sore its just how the people wanted it to be by refusing planning applications . keep it as a giant pigeon loft ready to punish the objectors cars .[/p][/quote]And if I were the council I would be serving Urgent Works Notices on him if that were the case.[/p][/quote]i would seriously recommend he does not sell it and just retains Jumbo. After spending the amount of money that if he was to sell in this current market would not be any where near the moneys laid out for purchase proposed developments etc. Just stick another fence around to prevent the free parking and let it slip into a state where one day it can be pulled down and a nice set of flats can be built on the land . Mr. Braithewaite's idea and enthusiasm to develop this was met with closed doors and rejected so as i have said before let it be a pigeon loft and annoy the rejectors of the development and DO NOT SELL !!! to anybody .[/p][/quote]There are only three flies in your ointment, stackerman. 1. CBC may, one day, grow a pair of b a l l s and order Mr Braithwaite to carry out the repairs required by law to a listed property. 2. Jumbo is so well built that it is not going to fall down, or become a dangerous structure, for at least the next 500 years. 3. Jumbo has very little inflammable material in its construction (its wooden door has already been destroyed under Mr Braithwaite's neglectful stewardship), and thus it cannot be destroyed by fire, as has "mysteriously" happened to several historic Colchester buildings in recent years. Boris
  • Score: 13

9:46am Fri 2 May 14

romantic says...

jut1972 wrote:
Good luck to them but unfortunately I think the BTT are deluded. A developer is going to have deeper pockets and will be able to propose a less contentious scheme as they will have less to lose. So Jumbo gets converted anyway. The tragedy being we could have had something spectacular instead of mundane.

The whole idea of a museum is a non starter who is going to pay for that more than once? It's a niche interest at best.
By your logic, we should let the Castle be developed into flats. After all, who is going to go there twice? The Castle gets about 70,000 visitors a year. Marketed well, Jumbo could aim for similar numbers. I think most people who visit the Castle would not baulk at paying a fiver to get the view from the top of Jumbo. Not sure about the practicalities, but if you could get a bar and/or restaurant up there and open in the evenings, it could do well.

We have to move away from this idea that Jumbo is just a decaying pile of bricks. It is the building you see from the train which says "This is Colchester". Places like York, Chester, Lincoln would have this as a central part of their visitor attractions. But sadly, we live in a town which seems to view its heritage as an inconvenience. We're a quick train ride from London, with things that visitors would flock to see if only we looked after them and marketed them correctly. If we allow them to decay and stick up yet another block of flats, we end up like Chelmsford. And who wants that?!
[quote][p][bold]jut1972[/bold] wrote: Good luck to them but unfortunately I think the BTT are deluded. A developer is going to have deeper pockets and will be able to propose a less contentious scheme as they will have less to lose. So Jumbo gets converted anyway. The tragedy being we could have had something spectacular instead of mundane. The whole idea of a museum is a non starter who is going to pay for that more than once? It's a niche interest at best.[/p][/quote]By your logic, we should let the Castle be developed into flats. After all, who is going to go there twice? The Castle gets about 70,000 visitors a year. Marketed well, Jumbo could aim for similar numbers. I think most people who visit the Castle would not baulk at paying a fiver to get the view from the top of Jumbo. Not sure about the practicalities, but if you could get a bar and/or restaurant up there and open in the evenings, it could do well. We have to move away from this idea that Jumbo is just a decaying pile of bricks. It is the building you see from the train which says "This is Colchester". Places like York, Chester, Lincoln would have this as a central part of their visitor attractions. But sadly, we live in a town which seems to view its heritage as an inconvenience. We're a quick train ride from London, with things that visitors would flock to see if only we looked after them and marketed them correctly. If we allow them to decay and stick up yet another block of flats, we end up like Chelmsford. And who wants that?! romantic
  • Score: 9

5:46pm Fri 2 May 14

Jess Jephcott says...

I am prepared to support BTT with a sum of money, as I did the last time they tried to buy Jumbo. I hope they can do it this time but they will need a lot of money. So come on you moaners, put your hands in your pockets.
I am prepared to support BTT with a sum of money, as I did the last time they tried to buy Jumbo. I hope they can do it this time but they will need a lot of money. So come on you moaners, put your hands in your pockets. Jess Jephcott
  • Score: 7

8:23pm Fri 2 May 14

DL1970 says...

Jess Jephcott wrote:
I am prepared to support BTT with a sum of money, as I did the last time they tried to buy Jumbo. I hope they can do it this time but they will need a lot of money. So come on you moaners, put your hands in your pockets.
Jess, we don't always see eye to eye, but you are absolutely right. Its time for Colchester to get behind BTT.
[quote][p][bold]Jess Jephcott[/bold] wrote: I am prepared to support BTT with a sum of money, as I did the last time they tried to buy Jumbo. I hope they can do it this time but they will need a lot of money. So come on you moaners, put your hands in your pockets.[/p][/quote]Jess, we don't always see eye to eye, but you are absolutely right. Its time for Colchester to get behind BTT. DL1970
  • Score: 5

9:25am Sat 3 May 14

common sense or not says...

Let's imagine we can go back 10 years and have my vision for Colchester. Money spent on the VAF is spent on turning Jumbo in to an Arts hub located alongside the Mercury. The ground level around both forming a lovely open space for pavement dining in the summer. In close proximity St Marys Arts Centre, the Cinema and maybe even the old Odeon becoming an indoor craft and collectables market with a hotel above. I think I'd visit Colchester for that. There is even good parking at St Mary's and better shopping facilities , coffee houses etc. than the other end of town. Come on Colchester planners and council work with what you have already and make the most of it. You could even still havehad a decent bus park.
Let's imagine we can go back 10 years and have my vision for Colchester. Money spent on the VAF is spent on turning Jumbo in to an Arts hub located alongside the Mercury. The ground level around both forming a lovely open space for pavement dining in the summer. In close proximity St Marys Arts Centre, the Cinema and maybe even the old Odeon becoming an indoor craft and collectables market with a hotel above. I think I'd visit Colchester for that. There is even good parking at St Mary's and better shopping facilities , coffee houses etc. than the other end of town. Come on Colchester planners and council work with what you have already and make the most of it. You could even still havehad a decent bus park. common sense or not
  • Score: 10

12:44am Sun 4 May 14

Boris says...

DL1970 wrote:
Jess Jephcott wrote:
I am prepared to support BTT with a sum of money, as I did the last time they tried to buy Jumbo. I hope they can do it this time but they will need a lot of money. So come on you moaners, put your hands in your pockets.
Jess, we don't always see eye to eye, but you are absolutely right. Its time for Colchester to get behind BTT.
Agree with you both. Anyone wishing to donate simply has to google "save jumbo" and then follow the instructions to make a donation, either by cheque or (shortly) on line. If BTT fails to buy Jumbo, you get your money back.
[quote][p][bold]DL1970[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jess Jephcott[/bold] wrote: I am prepared to support BTT with a sum of money, as I did the last time they tried to buy Jumbo. I hope they can do it this time but they will need a lot of money. So come on you moaners, put your hands in your pockets.[/p][/quote]Jess, we don't always see eye to eye, but you are absolutely right. Its time for Colchester to get behind BTT.[/p][/quote]Agree with you both. Anyone wishing to donate simply has to google "save jumbo" and then follow the instructions to make a donation, either by cheque or (shortly) on line. If BTT fails to buy Jumbo, you get your money back. Boris
  • Score: 5

1:05am Sun 4 May 14

Boris says...

Scoot wrote:
Boris, I've just had to do an update on corporate governance on the bribery laws. You basically can't take someone out for a burger prior to doing business with them without falling foul of the legislation. What I was trying to get at is where on earth is the trust going to get the hundreds of thousands of pounds (upto 3 million) from to repair, renovate and develop the site if its not going to come from someone who hopes to get something out of it ? And as each year passes the bill for renovation and repair will increase
Sorry Scoot, I forgot to reply to this one of yours. The point is that in the charity sector not everyone is seeking a profit. Yes, the trust will need a lot of money, not least to carry out the essential repairs which Mr Braithwaite neglected to do. it will take time to get Jumbo ready for visitors, but with some goodwill it will happen. Join the effort by making your own donation (google "save jumbo" and follow the instructions).
[quote][p][bold]Scoot[/bold] wrote: Boris, I've just had to do an update on corporate governance on the bribery laws. You basically can't take someone out for a burger prior to doing business with them without falling foul of the legislation. What I was trying to get at is where on earth is the trust going to get the hundreds of thousands of pounds (upto 3 million) from to repair, renovate and develop the site if its not going to come from someone who hopes to get something out of it ? And as each year passes the bill for renovation and repair will increase[/p][/quote]Sorry Scoot, I forgot to reply to this one of yours. The point is that in the charity sector not everyone is seeking a profit. Yes, the trust will need a lot of money, not least to carry out the essential repairs which Mr Braithwaite neglected to do. it will take time to get Jumbo ready for visitors, but with some goodwill it will happen. Join the effort by making your own donation (google "save jumbo" and follow the instructions). Boris
  • Score: 5

1:46pm Tue 6 May 14

wardyt says...

BTT - Bob's Tower Trust?
BTT - Bob's Tower Trust? wardyt
  • Score: -2

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree