I thought people may be interested to see the very comprehensive letter the Friends of Abingdon presented to the Town Council last week objecting to their plans..... Dear Councillor Garrett Thank you very much for arranging the meeting and Guildhall tour in August. As we indicated at the time, we needed to take stock of what we had heard and seen before following it up. Here are our further thoughts. 1 Heritage issues We understand the Town Council’s motivation in relation to provision of inclusive access to the historic rooms of the Guildhall, but still have a number of serious concerns and questions: 1.1 You suggested that the Historic England response was based on erroneous statements in Pevsner and commented that they had not visited. However, Jane Bowen notes in her report that the Pevsner comment was corrected in the 2010 Berkshire Buildings of England book which refers to “the STAIRCASE also of 1731-3, with candlestick balusters and a swept end” and it seems reasonable to assume that HE were basing their comments on this, rather than earlier erroneous versions. We are advised that HE normally make their recommendations based on publicly recorded information about buildings: it is for the owners of those buildings to provide evidence to the contrary if they dispute that information. 1.2 We are surprised that you have not given more serious consideration to alternative means of providing more inclusive access: Historic England’s suggestions offer one solution, which while maybe not ideal, would provide a reasonable balance between the needs of those with limited mobility and the desirability of preserving this special building for the enjoyment of the whole community. Alternatively, since it appears that you are envisaging a severing of the link between the old and new parts of the building, there is the possibility of reconfiguring the divide between the two to create a new access route and we would urge you to consider this. 1.3 The listed Guildhall is a proud possession of the people of Abingdon and has been cared for on their behalf for many hundreds of years: we are most concerned that this care should continue for future generations. Normal practice for managing listed buildings is to have a conservation plan and for any alterations to be done under the guidance of conservation architects. Are you satisfied that your current advisers, Lee Longden & Co, who are Chartered Surveyors, are appropriately qualified to prepare a scheme for the conservation of this building? 2 Business case We note that you see this essentially as a revenue issue and plan to address it via your normal budgeting process. However, since you do not yet know either the dimensions of the proposed lift, or the materials to be used, we wonder how robust your cost estimates are? How can you be sure that you won’t be faced with the same problems as before i.e actual costs emerging at the tender stage turning out to be more than you have expected and therefore necessitating an additional injection of capital? 3 Community We remain very concerned about the loss of the community facilities provided by the Abbey Hall. It was built to replace the much-loved Corn Exchange; since then we have also lost the Old Gaol which for nearly 30 years provided spaces for a wide range of activities especially for young children, but also for younger teens: many middle-aged Abingdonians regret that there is nothing similar for their children. If such town centre spaces were needed in smaller late 20th century Abingdon, how can we say they are not needed now as the town continues to grow? We note your comments about the costs of major alterations to the fabric of the Abbey Hall, but believe that, even without those alterations, there is scope for it to provide a real community space for a much wider cross-section of the community than would ever use the historic rooms. At the meeting we asked whether there were lessons to be learned from the Beacon in Wantage: we have looked in to this and find that they have made very considerable progress in reducing the net running costs and have opened it up to a much wider range of community uses than has been the case in the Abbey Hall in recent years. We would be happy to share some of this information with you if it would help. 4. Consultation Before the meeting we had been puzzled by the difference between the feedback you said you had received and the comments which we have been receiving as the town’s Civic Society. We now understand that your conversations have largely been with representatives of groups such as the Vale Disability Access Group who would of course be supportive of this approach. As we said, we find it unfortunate that you have not held similar consultations with other interested parties and would urge you to do this now in the hope of finding a solution which balances the interests of a wide cross-section of the community, most particularly our younger members. Hopefully there will be an opportunity to do this within the scope of the “Abingdon for All” project. 5 In summary By pursuing a scheme which does not seem to have been well developed, without proper consideration of alternative solutions, without a clear idea of costs, and in the face of a firm objection from Historic England (who are the government's statutory advisers on the historic environment), you are liable to cause delays and to needlessly waste public money on abortive plans. We do not think your electorate will be very appreciative of this, given what has already happened over the Abbey Hall. We urge you to consult more widely, and to be prepared to think flexibly about how to achieve your objectives, rather than trying to press ahead regardless with what looks like a very problematical scheme. Yours sincerely Bryan Brown Bryan Brown Chairman, Friends of Abingdon