We were all told that the structure of the conservatory was unsafe.
This is a well-known technique (called Nudge Theory) to prepare the public for an unacceptable plan. If you call a building unsafe, then you can put a perimeter around it to prevent further public access and (following years of further decay) demolish it.
Pats all round for the council staff as they chant “We told you so”.
However. My interest in the conservatory was raised by exactly that approach.
Fundamentally, there was nothing wrong with the building: Apart from the terrible 1980s refurb that the council undertook on the cheap. Surely, it would be better to admit the mistakes of earlier generations and move on? Unfortunately it seems that Tameside Council had other ideas. Why?
The cause of the John Neild Conservatory was taken up by our chairwoman, Jane Whittaker. She has tirelessly pursued various representatives of the council who have:
- Ignored her
- Led her on a wild goose chase, and then ignored her
- Denied all knowledge of communicating with her, despite emails to the contrary and then; ignored her.
The rot set in at the start of the campaign. We were told by local councillors that we had their full support but, in a bare-faced lie; they voted against us instead.
Tameside has 57 councillors, 51 of them are Labour. We were told that a whip was applied to those particular Labour councillors which meant that a vote against thier party could end their political career.
It is also shows that the councellor that you voted for may not be interested in you. More likely they’re towing the line and following party policy to ensure an income for life.
Then there’s the question about funding.
We required a small level of funding to put forward plans for the Conservatory.
Quest Media Network (An online news channel with links to Tameside Council) offered £5,000 at a critical time in our campaign; only for that offer to be withdrawn without notice.
Fortunately, Jane had forged links to other organisations and had secured the full funding for the restoration from a national body.
It’s a bit of a kick in the teeth then, when Tameside Council rejected our application for Community Asset Transfer on the basis that the business plan was “flawed”. Come On Tameside, what’s more flawed than receiving a quarter of a million quid to preserve a much-loved historic building? Apart from you won’t be receiving it, and we’re not following your mantra.
The council lied right up to the very end.
Emails were sent stating “We have not instructed any demolition firm” or “We will sympathetically preserve the area” have been realised in a complete removal of the building – History has been erased.
Note: This synopsis have avoided naming individuals. Whilst several persons could be named I believe it is the political culture, not the individual , who is to blame here. Private Eye magazine has reported our plight and (true to form) shone the spotlight on one member of the council. Thanks Ian.