WALTHAMSTOW: EMD cinema plans unveiled

A FUNDAMENTALIST christian church will try for the second time to gain permission to turn a historic cinema building into a place of worship.

A previous attempt by the The Universal Church of the Kingdom of God (UCKG) to convert the EMD in Hoe Street in 2002 was refused and the iconic building has been empty ever since.

But the now the church is ready to submit a new application following discussions with council planning officers.

UCKG hope to use the main auditorium as a church and create a 250-seat auditorium as a community space for theatre productions, conferences and cinema screenings.

Under the plans, the adjoining Victoria Pub, and Carpet Factory Outlet, which are both on short-term leases, would be closed and converted, along with the building’s lobby, into training rooms and a youth centre.

The McGuffin Film Society, which has campaigned to keep the Grade II listed building in use as a cinema, has said it welcomes efforts to revive the cinema but are “sceptical” that the venue will be available to the community.

The society is calling for an independent body answerable directly to the community to “steward” rooms designated for community use.

High Street ward councillors Cllr James O’Rourke and Cllr Johar Khan were at a meeting with UKCG where they presented their proposals.

Cllr O’Rourke said he “cautiously” welcomed the plans. He said: “My view is that we have to take the church on face value and give them the opportunity to refurbish the building.

If it sits there any longer it will deteriorate, and they have the funding.

“My job now is to ensure that the promises of community access are honoured.”

UKCG is expected to submit the planning application to Waltham Forest Council shortly.

Comments (87)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:45am Fri 6 Feb 09

Claridger says...

This is great news as this eyesaw can at last be put in to use. A succession of failure by the Council, Loakes the MP Gerrard, Macguffins, Walthamstow Preservation Society, Walthamstow Historical Society, Hornbeams, and all the other people involved has left this building empty and at least the church will spend money on it. We are having a nice brand new cinema built next door which will be modern and warm. The church have done a lovely job on the old bingo hall at the Bakers Arms and at least they have a track record in spending money and putting money where their mouth is instead of the 'empty vessel making the most noise approach' by the other groups. We done to the KICC for being brave. I hope nobody objects to the application and drag this thing for more years.
This is great news as this eyesaw can at last be put in to use. A succession of failure by the Council, Loakes the MP Gerrard, Macguffins, Walthamstow Preservation Society, Walthamstow Historical Society, Hornbeams, and all the other people involved has left this building empty and at least the church will spend money on it. We are having a nice brand new cinema built next door which will be modern and warm. The church have done a lovely job on the old bingo hall at the Bakers Arms and at least they have a track record in spending money and putting money where their mouth is instead of the 'empty vessel making the most noise approach' by the other groups. We done to the KICC for being brave. I hope nobody objects to the application and drag this thing for more years. Claridger
  • Score: 0

12:36pm Fri 6 Feb 09

Market walker says...

I'm glad we can always rely on Councillor O'Rourke to sell us down the river. From the man who supported the closure of St James St Library and erecting the giant TV screen comes the best yet, supporting plans that will ensure that our beloved and last remaining cinema is finally and definitively closed. As for Claridger, when you say "We are having a nice brand new cinema built next door which will be modern and warm," is this piece of wishful thinking based on anything? Community rooms do not and never can equal a cinema.
I'm glad we can always rely on Councillor O'Rourke to sell us down the river. From the man who supported the closure of St James St Library and erecting the giant TV screen comes the best yet, supporting plans that will ensure that our beloved and last remaining cinema is finally and definitively closed. As for Claridger, when you say "We are having a nice brand new cinema built next door which will be modern and warm," is this piece of wishful thinking based on anything? Community rooms do not and never can equal a cinema. Market walker
  • Score: 0

12:43pm Fri 6 Feb 09

Touchwood says...

Once again religion has reared it's ugly head and spoilt peoples pleasure!!
Once again religion has reared it's ugly head and spoilt peoples pleasure!! Touchwood
  • Score: 0

12:51pm Fri 6 Feb 09

The Singing Postman says...

I guess plans like this are always going to be shot down in flames, but exactly how many formal funded planning applications were submitted by those who wanted to keep it as a cinema? I've not lived in the area long enough to know the details.

t seems to me that, sadly, the idea of a cinema on Hoe St when so many newer multiplex facilities are being built within kicking distance is simply not economically viable - not saying that's a good thing.

Surely it's best to try and work with and not against these planners to try and ensure local residents are happy with what actually happens? Maybe I'm wrong, but it sends a mixed message to campaign about the lack of development at the Arcade and then lash out at plans to use what is unfortunately now a long-term derelict building.
I guess plans like this are always going to be shot down in flames, but exactly how many formal funded planning applications were submitted by those who wanted to keep it as a cinema? I've not lived in the area long enough to know the details. t seems to me that, sadly, the idea of a cinema on Hoe St when so many newer multiplex facilities are being built within kicking distance is simply not economically viable - not saying that's a good thing. Surely it's best to try and work with and not against these planners to try and ensure local residents are happy with what actually happens? Maybe I'm wrong, but it sends a mixed message to campaign about the lack of development at the Arcade and then lash out at plans to use what is unfortunately now a long-term derelict building. The Singing Postman
  • Score: 0

12:53pm Fri 6 Feb 09

andychurchill says...

I think Claridger is referring to the St Modwen plans for the arcade site, "Our Vision:
Two large retail stores, a multiplex cinema, a lodge type hotel and new homes including a tall residential tower of architectural distinction."

Awaiting a planning submission this year. That plot itself has dragged on far too long, but if they do come up with the goods then it will be a welcome improvement.

The original EMD cinema, while steeped in history, has struggled to keep up with the times, and lost a lot of regular attendances due to the more modern picture house in Stratford. Lack of attendances meant that it no longer became profitable, and the owners weren't prepared to spend the money to fix it up both in terms of modern technlogy and the maintenance upkeep for heating and so on, on the off chance that they could attract more people to visit, and be able to recoup their costs.

I don't mind them using it for something other than a cinema, providing they give us an alternative. The proposals for the arcade site have been around long enough, but that's as much to blame as the EMD Cinema owners themselves. If St Modwen's and the council pulled their finger out, the EMD Cinema could be put out of it's misery.

I think Claridger is referring to the St Modwen plans for the arcade site, "Our Vision: Two large retail stores, a multiplex cinema, a lodge type hotel and new homes including a tall residential tower of architectural distinction." Awaiting a planning submission this year. That plot itself has dragged on far too long, but if they do come up with the goods then it will be a welcome improvement. The original EMD cinema, while steeped in history, has struggled to keep up with the times, and lost a lot of regular attendances due to the more modern picture house in Stratford. Lack of attendances meant that it no longer became profitable, and the owners weren't prepared to spend the money to fix it up both in terms of modern technlogy and the maintenance upkeep for heating and so on, on the off chance that they could attract more people to visit, and be able to recoup their costs. I don't mind them using it for something other than a cinema, providing they give us an alternative. The proposals for the arcade site have been around long enough, but that's as much to blame as the EMD Cinema owners themselves. If St Modwen's and the council pulled their finger out, the EMD Cinema could be put out of it's misery. andychurchill
  • Score: 0

1:14pm Fri 6 Feb 09

Janet1 says...

This is a disaster. We've already seen how the UCKG, a very wealthy organisation, has treated this listed building: owned for six years, it's now almost derelict. And they've promised similar 'facilities' in a cinema they bought in Catford, but never provided them.
If we fall for this, we can expect the same dismal surroundings and traffic-clogged streets the UCKG have created around the Rainbow Theatre in Finsbury Park.
This is a disaster. We've already seen how the UCKG, a very wealthy organisation, has treated this listed building: owned for six years, it's now almost derelict. And they've promised similar 'facilities' in a cinema they bought in Catford, but never provided them. If we fall for this, we can expect the same dismal surroundings and traffic-clogged streets the UCKG have created around the Rainbow Theatre in Finsbury Park. Janet1
  • Score: 0

1:26pm Fri 6 Feb 09

thestow says...

I think that this is utterly spineless capitulation worthy of Neville Chamberlain and I find I have come the end of my tether with this excuse for elected democratic representation, we are all, the whole community, poorly served by these arrogant, virtually corrupt fools. This was the cinema of my youth and that of my Grandfather how dear they sell our needs and desires short in such a cowardly way.

no before you say it I’m not a McGuffin, I don’t belong to them nor do I even go to there quiz night, I’m just that poor creature a born and bred 3rd generation Walthamstow resident who has had enough of being treated like this, I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore.
I think that this is utterly spineless capitulation worthy of Neville Chamberlain and I find I have come the end of my tether with this excuse for elected democratic representation, we are all, the whole community, poorly served by these arrogant, virtually corrupt fools. This was the cinema of my youth and that of my Grandfather how dear they sell our needs and desires short in such a cowardly way. no before you say it I’m not a McGuffin, I don’t belong to them nor do I even go to there quiz night, I’m just that poor creature a born and bred 3rd generation Walthamstow resident who has had enough of being treated like this, I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore. thestow
  • Score: 0

1:59pm Fri 6 Feb 09

Hogwasher says...

A 250-seat auditorium for theatre productions, conferences and cinema screenings is better than a delapidated building everyone has been fighting over for years but no-one but the pigeons has been able to use. I am fed up with the delays and bickering.

Those who want the building used differently have had years in which to raise the money and come up with alternatives. How about people looking at the possibilities rather than only at the down-sides for a change?
A 250-seat auditorium for theatre productions, conferences and cinema screenings is better than a delapidated building everyone has been fighting over for years but no-one but the pigeons has been able to use. I am fed up with the delays and bickering. Those who want the building used differently have had years in which to raise the money and come up with alternatives. How about people looking at the possibilities rather than only at the down-sides for a change? Hogwasher
  • Score: 0

2:16pm Fri 6 Feb 09

Claridger says...

Exactly Hogwasher! Spot on! All these people have all mouth and little substance. They would not put any cash in themselves and many are not even from Walthamstow. At least the Church have put the money up.
Exactly Hogwasher! Spot on! All these people have all mouth and little substance. They would not put any cash in themselves and many are not even from Walthamstow. At least the Church have put the money up. Claridger
  • Score: 0

2:24pm Fri 6 Feb 09

Lucifer1 says...

What a sell-out!

It is painfully obvious that this nonsense is only being considered because there are local elections due next year. Certain councillors want to be able to say that they brought cinema back to the borough and solved the EMD problem at the same time. They think the residents of Walthamstow will be stupid enough to believe this and vote them back into office!

NO WAY !!!

What a sell-out! It is painfully obvious that this nonsense is only being considered because there are local elections due next year. Certain councillors want to be able to say that they brought cinema back to the borough and solved the EMD problem at the same time. They think the residents of Walthamstow will be stupid enough to believe this and vote them back into office! NO WAY !!! Lucifer1
  • Score: 0

2:38pm Fri 6 Feb 09

Janet1 says...

Hogwasher and Claridger, no one has been able to buy and reopen the cinema because the UCKG have refused to sell it.

The council promised to do a compulsory purchase order, which it has the right to do, but failed to do so. That's why no one can do anything with it, except the UCKG, which has let it become derelict.
Hogwasher and Claridger, no one has been able to buy and reopen the cinema because the UCKG have refused to sell it. The council promised to do a compulsory purchase order, which it has the right to do, but failed to do so. That's why no one can do anything with it, except the UCKG, which has let it become derelict. Janet1
  • Score: 0

2:47pm Fri 6 Feb 09

Claridger says...

But with all the hot air by the council, Gerrard, Loakes, Macgaffins, Hornbeam Society etc it is refreshing to see that a church has put some money in and actually want to do the place up into a spectacular venue
But with all the hot air by the council, Gerrard, Loakes, Macgaffins, Hornbeam Society etc it is refreshing to see that a church has put some money in and actually want to do the place up into a spectacular venue Claridger
  • Score: 0

3:04pm Fri 6 Feb 09

Market walker says...

I despair. UKCG bought the site to use as a church. Planning permission was refused and the church then refuse all offers to sell. A few years later they come back with the same plan plus an ambiguous bit in the hope it will be enough to get them planning permission this time, and some people applaud them for wanting to invest in the site. It's pathetic. I'd love to look on the bright side, but I'm not really seeing any if our council climb down in such a craven manner.
I despair. UKCG bought the site to use as a church. Planning permission was refused and the church then refuse all offers to sell. A few years later they come back with the same plan plus an ambiguous bit in the hope it will be enough to get them planning permission this time, and some people applaud them for wanting to invest in the site. It's pathetic. I'd love to look on the bright side, but I'm not really seeing any if our council climb down in such a craven manner. Market walker
  • Score: 0

3:49pm Fri 6 Feb 09

The Singing Postman says...

But compulsory purchase it for what purpose? A small, loss making cinema which will have to compete with the numerous luxury multiplexes? If it's the building itself that needs saving, then maybe this is the way to go - I honestly don't know who will want to fund a small independent cinema in Walthamstow.
But compulsory purchase it for what purpose? A small, loss making cinema which will have to compete with the numerous luxury multiplexes? If it's the building itself that needs saving, then maybe this is the way to go - I honestly don't know who will want to fund a small independent cinema in Walthamstow. The Singing Postman
  • Score: 0

4:03pm Fri 6 Feb 09

Janet1 says...

Claridger, the UCKG hasn't put money in! This was a beautiful building when the UCKG bought it six years ago. The UCKG has let it go derelict out of spite, because they weren't allowed to hold their fund-raising meetings there.

Another cinema chain wanted to buy it and reopen it. The council promised to do a compulsory purchase order, then broke its promise. The UCKG has refused to sell it to several other cinema operators who wanted to reopen it.

The council meanwhile offered a huge sum of money to St Modwen's, the developers who are supposedly building on the arcade site next door, to include a multiscreen cinema in the new building. We've no idea if this will ever happen.

We could have had the Granada reopened at no public cost if the council had done a CPO and sold it to cinema operators who wanted it.

Blame the council and the UCKG for preventing anyone buying and reopening the cinema, and for letting it become an eyesore instead.
Claridger, the UCKG hasn't put money in! This was a beautiful building when the UCKG bought it six years ago. The UCKG has let it go derelict out of spite, because they weren't allowed to hold their fund-raising meetings there. Another cinema chain wanted to buy it and reopen it. The council promised to do a compulsory purchase order, then broke its promise. The UCKG has refused to sell it to several other cinema operators who wanted to reopen it. The council meanwhile offered a huge sum of money to St Modwen's, the developers who are supposedly building on the arcade site next door, to include a multiscreen cinema in the new building. We've no idea if this will ever happen. We could have had the Granada reopened at no public cost if the council had done a CPO and sold it to cinema operators who wanted it. Blame the council and the UCKG for preventing anyone buying and reopening the cinema, and for letting it become an eyesore instead. Janet1
  • Score: 0

4:04pm Fri 6 Feb 09

Hogwasher says...

The alternative being offered is what? I see nothing credible from the critics of this which does not involve relying on a council we all know is incapable of delivering on this or any other 'regeneration' project.

It is no use bemoaning the Church not selling. Were they ever offered any money by anyone credible who had any? If they were I do not recall it.

Why should they be criticised for declining to waste their time talking to people who didn't have any money to buy? If they were not a Church they would not be criticised for declining to waste time on people who could not get their act together.

Now they have come up with a solution. I would bet that from their point of view it is a compromise to offer space for theatre productions, conferences and cinema screenings by people who on the whole reject the things they stand for. In that light, people should welcome their offer in the spirit it is offered and be positive and constructive about it.
The alternative being offered is what? I see nothing credible from the critics of this which does not involve relying on a council we all know is incapable of delivering on this or any other 'regeneration' project. It is no use bemoaning the Church not selling. Were they ever offered any money by anyone credible who had any? If they were I do not recall it. Why should they be criticised for declining to waste their time talking to people who didn't have any money to buy? If they were not a Church they would not be criticised for declining to waste time on people who could not get their act together. Now they have come up with a solution. I would bet that from their point of view it is a compromise to offer space for theatre productions, conferences and cinema screenings by people who on the whole reject the things they stand for. In that light, people should welcome their offer in the spirit it is offered and be positive and constructive about it. Hogwasher
  • Score: 0

4:11pm Fri 6 Feb 09

Lucifer1 says...

The Singing Postman wrote:
But compulsory purchase it for what purpose? A small, loss making cinema which will have to compete with the numerous luxury multiplexes? If it's the building itself that needs saving, then maybe this is the way to go - I honestly don't know who will want to fund a small independent cinema in Walthamstow.
The way I heard it was that more than one experienced cinema operator was interested in operating the EMD. If it was marketed properly, then it would not be loss making.

Claridger - get real. It is all very well a church putting some money up to renovate the place, but remember it was THEM who let the building decay in the first place! Also, if it is only church members who are allowed access to see this new "spectacular venue" it is not much use to the wider community, is it??

UCKG offered the same "shared use" for their premises in Catford. Guess what? The building is now a church. End of story. The people of Catford were taken in by this nonsense, there is no reason we should fall for it in Walthamstow!
[quote][p][bold]The Singing Postman[/bold] wrote: But compulsory purchase it for what purpose? A small, loss making cinema which will have to compete with the numerous luxury multiplexes? If it's the building itself that needs saving, then maybe this is the way to go - I honestly don't know who will want to fund a small independent cinema in Walthamstow.[/p][/quote]The way I heard it was that more than one experienced cinema operator was interested in operating the EMD. If it was marketed properly, then it would not be loss making. Claridger - get real. It is all very well a church putting some money up to renovate the place, but remember it was THEM who let the building decay in the first place! Also, if it is only church members who are allowed access to see this new "spectacular venue" it is not much use to the wider community, is it?? UCKG offered the same "shared use" for their premises in Catford. Guess what? The building is now a church. End of story. The people of Catford were taken in by this nonsense, there is no reason we should fall for it in Walthamstow! Lucifer1
  • Score: 0

4:15pm Fri 6 Feb 09

Claridger says...

People like Janet are pipe dreamers viewing the area with rose tinted specs. If the Council had asked her for a hundred pound on top of her council tax to help buy it, she would run a mile. The place is defunct. It will be much better off as a community centre/place of worship than a cold shabby cinema.
People like Janet are pipe dreamers viewing the area with rose tinted specs. If the Council had asked her for a hundred pound on top of her council tax to help buy it, she would run a mile. The place is defunct. It will be much better off as a community centre/place of worship than a cold shabby cinema. Claridger
  • Score: 0

4:28pm Fri 6 Feb 09

Janet1 says...

Claridger, please read this carefully.

A cinema chain asks to buy the building, and signs a contract agreeing to pay the council for it.

The council puts a compulsory purchase order (CPO) on the building, buys it from the UCKG and sells it on to the operator.

This costs us nothing.

The cinema reopens, and if the operators can't make it work that's their tough luck. But the chains who have asked to do this are all successfully running cinemas elsewhere. They are businesspeople, so they would not put their money into something they thought would fail.

That is how the CPO system works. It just needs the council to be willing to make a CPO, which it has had every opprtunity to do over the past 6 years.
Claridger, please read this carefully. A cinema chain asks to buy the building, and signs a contract agreeing to pay the council for it. The council puts a compulsory purchase order (CPO) on the building, buys it from the UCKG and sells it on to the operator. This costs us nothing. The cinema reopens, and if the operators can't make it work that's their tough luck. But the chains who have asked to do this are all successfully running cinemas elsewhere. They are businesspeople, so they would not put their money into something they thought would fail. That is how the CPO system works. It just needs the council to be willing to make a CPO, which it has had every opprtunity to do over the past 6 years. Janet1
  • Score: 0

4:37pm Fri 6 Feb 09

G. Tingey says...

We've already got more than enough fundamentalist christian churches, thank you very much.
Even one buliding full of these lying priests and their gullible folowers is one too many.

Now, how about a CINEMA at EMD/Granada, and not the one the Coucil and its corrupt friends want to put in the hideous thing they are hoping to build at the top of High Street?
We've already got more than enough fundamentalist christian churches, thank you very much. Even one buliding full of these lying priests and their gullible folowers is one too many. Now, how about a CINEMA at EMD/Granada, and not the one the Coucil and its corrupt friends want to put in the hideous thing they are hoping to build at the top of High Street? G. Tingey
  • Score: 0

5:10pm Fri 6 Feb 09

Market walker says...

Another thought... if UKCG need / want a large building in the centre of Walthamstow to use as a church, what's wrong with using the old bingo hall just off the High Street / Buxton Road, which is equally sizeable I would think, has no particular specific historic features that would be lost, and where there is no other viable plan on offer? Or is that all a bit advanced for our councillors to fathom?
Another thought... if UKCG need / want a large building in the centre of Walthamstow to use as a church, what's wrong with using the old bingo hall just off the High Street / Buxton Road, which is equally sizeable I would think, has no particular specific historic features that would be lost, and where there is no other viable plan on offer? Or is that all a bit advanced for our councillors to fathom? Market walker
  • Score: 0

5:58pm Fri 6 Feb 09

Janet1 says...

That's given me a wonderful idea, Market Walker. The UCKG take over the Jasmine (I think that's the one you describe), and leave their cars parked up all the surrounding streets whenever they hold a meeting.

Every misparked UCKG car gets clamped. The traffic wardens have a field day and all get bonuses. They're so happy that they don't hassle anyone who lives here. Local people outside that area get a chance to park without being fined.

But local residents are so angry about the choked-up streets that they stand for council and throw Loakes and his cronies out. They CPO the Granada and sell it on to an operator who makes Walthamstow the famous centre of independent cinema.

Meanwhile, these new councillors discover the council has made a fortune from the parking fines. So they buy the dog track, open the long-promised art centre, reopen St James Street Library, put books back in the other libraries and revive all the other facilities we've lost over the past few years ....

Oh well, I can dream!
That's given me a wonderful idea, Market Walker. The UCKG take over the Jasmine (I think that's the one you describe), and leave their cars parked up all the surrounding streets whenever they hold a meeting. Every misparked UCKG car gets clamped. The traffic wardens have a field day and all get bonuses. They're so happy that they don't hassle anyone who lives here. Local people outside that area get a chance to park without being fined. But local residents are so angry about the choked-up streets that they stand for council and throw Loakes and his cronies out. They CPO the Granada and sell it on to an operator who makes Walthamstow the famous centre of independent cinema. Meanwhile, these new councillors discover the council has made a fortune from the parking fines. So they buy the dog track, open the long-promised art centre, reopen St James Street Library, put books back in the other libraries and revive all the other facilities we've lost over the past few years .... Oh well, I can dream! Janet1
  • Score: 0

6:37pm Fri 6 Feb 09

garym says...

My view of the UKCG is that they are not a church at all, but a cult that brings in vulnrerable people and fleeces money from them. Worse still they have young people brainwashed into collecting money for them. I know very well that they have recruited people frrom abroad who came to the UK, had problems with benefits that were resolved and were renting property from members of the church. This is a scam.

If further proof were needed of the depths of the scam, when protesters leafletted in the High St they were threatened by rather large gentlemnt from the church.
My view of the UKCG is that they are not a church at all, but a cult that brings in vulnrerable people and fleeces money from them. Worse still they have young people brainwashed into collecting money for them. I know very well that they have recruited people frrom abroad who came to the UK, had problems with benefits that were resolved and were renting property from members of the church. This is a scam. If further proof were needed of the depths of the scam, when protesters leafletted in the High St they were threatened by rather large gentlemnt from the church. garym
  • Score: 0

7:41pm Fri 6 Feb 09

EmmaB E17 says...

Saving the cinema is something which has really united the local community over the last few years. It would be a tragedy if the council threw it all away for short term political gain.
Saving the cinema is something which has really united the local community over the last few years. It would be a tragedy if the council threw it all away for short term political gain. EmmaB E17
  • Score: 0

7:58pm Fri 6 Feb 09

E17006 says...

Will this decision be made by the planning committee? I would have thought that the previous decision to reject the church must set a pretty strong precedent. Do the McGuffins have any legal clout?
Will this decision be made by the planning committee? I would have thought that the previous decision to reject the church must set a pretty strong precedent. Do the McGuffins have any legal clout? E17006
  • Score: 0

7:59pm Fri 6 Feb 09

E-number says...

Good on you Janet! At least you remember the recent history of the EMD with some clarity. Can't believe there is anyone with an interest in the future of the cinema who is STILL spouting all that rubbish about how the EMD was run down/a failure etc and how no-one would buy it and how the UCKG has restored it. Unbelievable!
As well as all the fantasy stuff about a lovely new cinema next door. Puhleeze.

Good on you Janet! At least you remember the recent history of the EMD with some clarity. Can't believe there is anyone with an interest in the future of the cinema who is STILL spouting all that rubbish about how the EMD was run down/a failure etc and how no-one would buy it and how the UCKG has restored it. Unbelievable! As well as all the fantasy stuff about a lovely new cinema next door. Puhleeze. E-number
  • Score: 0

8:23pm Fri 6 Feb 09

EmmaB E17 says...

I now see there's a lot more detail and background on the McGuffin website www.mcguffin.info

Is it me or does the Guardian article seem a little too biased towards the council and church? And the councillor's comments about taking the church "at face value" seems absurd given their track record.
I now see there's a lot more detail and background on the McGuffin website www.mcguffin.info Is it me or does the Guardian article seem a little too biased towards the council and church? And the councillor's comments about taking the church "at face value" seems absurd given their track record. EmmaB E17
  • Score: 0

8:47pm Fri 6 Feb 09

RichieA70 says...

Thank you Janet for giving the actual facts which Hogwasher & Claridger appear not to care for or understand. The UCKG are entirely responsible for the EMDs derelict condition after owning it for 6 years, and this latest watered down version of the original plan will kill off the possibility of the EMDs use for the whole community. This is quite simply one of the finest cinemas in Britain with a unique cinema organ and must return first and foremost as a cinema.
Thank you Janet for giving the actual facts which Hogwasher & Claridger appear not to care for or understand. The UCKG are entirely responsible for the EMDs derelict condition after owning it for 6 years, and this latest watered down version of the original plan will kill off the possibility of the EMDs use for the whole community. This is quite simply one of the finest cinemas in Britain with a unique cinema organ and must return first and foremost as a cinema. RichieA70
  • Score: 0

9:18pm Fri 6 Feb 09

Brisbane says...

Just what the borough needs, primitive backward fundamentalists parading their hatred of scientific truth and poisoning the minds of the gullible and naive.
Just what the borough needs, primitive backward fundamentalists parading their hatred of scientific truth and poisoning the minds of the gullible and naive. Brisbane
  • Score: 0

10:24pm Fri 6 Feb 09

Hogwasher says...

People who do not agree with the Church, who may feel they exploit people's ignorance, could be campaigning for better education in our schools so that there is less ignorance about, and working to ensure that the people who turn to such Churches for social support in times of despair are adequately cared for in our selfish society.

Disliking the Church is not in itself a sufficient reason to deny them such rights that they inherently have by virtue of being the owners of the building.

Yes, the building has been neglected. There are many reasons for that, and the church must take a large part of the blame. But not all of the delay has been the church's fault. The posturing of various people that they would buy out their property from them, by various means, which they then didn't follow through on and the threats of protracted and expensive planning processes cannot be just swept aside and ignored as a cause for the church's indecision about spending their money to end the neglect.

The church also should not be criticised now that they come forard with suggested solutions which will preserve the building and its interior, which is what many people ostensibly claim is their ultimate aim.

There are some people who say the church can't betrusted to do what they say. Fair enough. Don't trust them. Watch and verify.

If they don't do what they say, preserve the interior properly and provide the space they promice, then this will be obvious. If the space is provided and then used by the community, it will not be possible for the church to prevent access. Only if people fail to use it over time, would it be possible for the church to slyly renage on their public commitment.

By taking the attitude that the space will be lost to the community are really giving the game away that they fear there may not be the demand for the cinema and other community facilities that is claimed.

I don't want to single her out, but EmmaB really did shed a lot of light on the cause of much of this bickering when she said that "Saving the cinema is something which has really united the local community over the last few years. It would be a tragedy if the council threw it all away for short term political gain."

It seems that there are people who have had so much fun and put so much energy into the cause of 'fighting' for the EMD that they really don't want a practical compromise solution to this issue at all. They would rather have something they can centre themselves on in an otherwise uncertain and unconvivial world. A bit like some of the people who go to the church, I suspect.
People who do not agree with the Church, who may feel they exploit people's ignorance, could be campaigning for better education in our schools so that there is less ignorance about, and working to ensure that the people who turn to such Churches for social support in times of despair are adequately cared for in our selfish society. Disliking the Church is not in itself a sufficient reason to deny them such rights that they inherently have by virtue of being the owners of the building. Yes, the building has been neglected. There are many reasons for that, and the church must take a large part of the blame. But not all of the delay has been the church's fault. The posturing of various people that they would buy out their property from them, by various means, which they then didn't follow through on and the threats of protracted and expensive planning processes cannot be just swept aside and ignored as a cause for the church's indecision about spending their money to end the neglect. The church also should not be criticised now that they come forard with suggested solutions which will preserve the building and its interior, which is what many people ostensibly claim is their ultimate aim. There are some people who say the church can't betrusted to do what they say. Fair enough. Don't trust them. Watch and verify. If they don't do what they say, preserve the interior properly and provide the space they promice, then this will be obvious. If the space is provided and then used by the community, it will not be possible for the church to prevent access. Only if people fail to use it over time, would it be possible for the church to slyly renage on their public commitment. By taking the attitude that the space will be lost to the community are really giving the game away that they fear there may not be the demand for the cinema and other community facilities that is claimed. I don't want to single her out, but EmmaB really did shed a lot of light on the cause of much of this bickering when she said that "Saving the cinema is something which has really united the local community over the last few years. It would be a tragedy if the council threw it all away for short term political gain." It seems that there are people who have had so much fun and put so much energy into the cause of 'fighting' for the EMD that they really don't want a practical compromise solution to this issue at all. They would rather have something they can centre themselves on in an otherwise uncertain and unconvivial world. A bit like some of the people who go to the church, I suspect. Hogwasher
  • Score: 0

11:30pm Fri 6 Feb 09

Janet1 says...

Hogwasher, your idea that people so enjoy battling to save local amenities that they don't really want to save them can only be called, er, hogwash.

You really cannot be serious. As I'm a freelance, I'm having to make up the time I spent blogging about this today by working till midnight. Meanwhile my friends are having a few drinks and singing karaoke at the Old Rose & Crown. Guess what Id rather be doing.

And in what way is this a compromise? It hardly differs from the UCKG's original plan, in which there was also a vague talk of a possible community space.

Now that we know they promised a cinema in Catford but didn't deliver it, why should we believe them when they try the same tactic here?
Hogwasher, your idea that people so enjoy battling to save local amenities that they don't really want to save them can only be called, er, hogwash. You really cannot be serious. As I'm a freelance, I'm having to make up the time I spent blogging about this today by working till midnight. Meanwhile my friends are having a few drinks and singing karaoke at the Old Rose & Crown. Guess what Id rather be doing. And in what way is this a compromise? It hardly differs from the UCKG's original plan, in which there was also a vague talk of a possible community space. Now that we know they promised a cinema in Catford but didn't deliver it, why should we believe them when they try the same tactic here? Janet1
  • Score: 0

11:34pm Fri 6 Feb 09

Lucifer1 says...

Hogwasher wrote:
People who do not agree with the Church, who may feel they exploit people's ignorance, could be campaigning for better education in our schools so that there is less ignorance about, and working to ensure that the people who turn to such Churches for social support in times of despair are adequately cared for in our selfish society. Disliking the Church is not in itself a sufficient reason to deny them such rights that they inherently have by virtue of being the owners of the building. Yes, the building has been neglected. There are many reasons for that, and the church must take a large part of the blame. But not all of the delay has been the church's fault. The posturing of various people that they would buy out their property from them, by various means, which they then didn't follow through on and the threats of protracted and expensive planning processes cannot be just swept aside and ignored as a cause for the church's indecision about spending their money to end the neglect. The church also should not be criticised now that they come forard with suggested solutions which will preserve the building and its interior, which is what many people ostensibly claim is their ultimate aim. There are some people who say the church can't betrusted to do what they say. Fair enough. Don't trust them. Watch and verify. If they don't do what they say, preserve the interior properly and provide the space they promice, then this will be obvious. If the space is provided and then used by the community, it will not be possible for the church to prevent access. Only if people fail to use it over time, would it be possible for the church to slyly renage on their public commitment. By taking the attitude that the space will be lost to the community are really giving the game away that they fear there may not be the demand for the cinema and other community facilities that is claimed. I don't want to single her out, but EmmaB really did shed a lot of light on the cause of much of this bickering when she said that "Saving the cinema is something which has really united the local community over the last few years. It would be a tragedy if the council threw it all away for short term political gain." It seems that there are people who have had so much fun and put so much energy into the cause of 'fighting' for the EMD that they really don't want a practical compromise solution to this issue at all. They would rather have something they can centre themselves on in an otherwise uncertain and unconvivial world. A bit like some of the people who go to the church, I suspect.
Hogwasher, you are completely missing the point. There are so many holes in your argument that they need to be addressed individually.

The opposition to UCKG turning the building into a church is not due to dislike of the church itself. It is solely due to the desire of local people that the building be retained as a place of entertainment.

You state that people who do not trust the church to do what they promise should "watch and verify." The point is - we have already done this! UCKG obtained planning permission for their Catford premises on just such 'shared use' proposals, after which their promises turned out to be not worth the paper they were written on. That building is now used solely as a church. There is absolutely no reason to believe the same would not happen in Walthamstow if this ridiculous scheme was to be voted through by the council.

You state that if the church fails to provide the space they promise "this will be obvious." Well, yes. But we would then be powerless to change the situation as UCKG would already have their planning permission.

You state that if the space is provided and used, "it will not be possible for the church to prevent access." Oh yes it will! Why do you think there is no longer a cinema at the Catford building? UCKG simply made access to the building so difficult that the cinema operator was left with little choice than to give up.

You state that "there may not be the demand for the cinema and other community facilities that is claimed." In that case, why would several experienced cinema operators have expressed such interest in working at the EMD? These are experienced businesspeople, and as such would recognise profit potential when they saw it.

You state that one reason for the Church not selling the building is "the posturing of various people that they would buy out their property from them, by various means, which they then didn't follow through on." The problem with this statement is that in actual fact the church took the building off the market AFTER receiving several bids for it!

As I said before, the whole thing reeks of political expediency. The council have screwed up the whole business of the EMD and the Arcade site, and are desperately clutching at any straw that would allow them to put some sort of positive spin to the electorate in time for the local elections next year. The council is gambling that if they vote the scheme through and it goes pear-shaped within a year or two, everyone would have forgotten about it by the time of the following election, allowing the council to carry on as normal!

Some of us are not so easily fooled!
[quote][p][bold]Hogwasher[/bold] wrote: People who do not agree with the Church, who may feel they exploit people's ignorance, could be campaigning for better education in our schools so that there is less ignorance about, and working to ensure that the people who turn to such Churches for social support in times of despair are adequately cared for in our selfish society. Disliking the Church is not in itself a sufficient reason to deny them such rights that they inherently have by virtue of being the owners of the building. Yes, the building has been neglected. There are many reasons for that, and the church must take a large part of the blame. But not all of the delay has been the church's fault. The posturing of various people that they would buy out their property from them, by various means, which they then didn't follow through on and the threats of protracted and expensive planning processes cannot be just swept aside and ignored as a cause for the church's indecision about spending their money to end the neglect. The church also should not be criticised now that they come forard with suggested solutions which will preserve the building and its interior, which is what many people ostensibly claim is their ultimate aim. There are some people who say the church can't betrusted to do what they say. Fair enough. Don't trust them. Watch and verify. If they don't do what they say, preserve the interior properly and provide the space they promice, then this will be obvious. If the space is provided and then used by the community, it will not be possible for the church to prevent access. Only if people fail to use it over time, would it be possible for the church to slyly renage on their public commitment. By taking the attitude that the space will be lost to the community are really giving the game away that they fear there may not be the demand for the cinema and other community facilities that is claimed. I don't want to single her out, but EmmaB really did shed a lot of light on the cause of much of this bickering when she said that "Saving the cinema is something which has really united the local community over the last few years. It would be a tragedy if the council threw it all away for short term political gain." It seems that there are people who have had so much fun and put so much energy into the cause of 'fighting' for the EMD that they really don't want a practical compromise solution to this issue at all. They would rather have something they can centre themselves on in an otherwise uncertain and unconvivial world. A bit like some of the people who go to the church, I suspect. [/p][/quote]Hogwasher, you are completely missing the point. There are so many holes in your argument that they need to be addressed individually. The opposition to UCKG turning the building into a church is not due to dislike of the church itself. It is solely due to the desire of local people that the building be retained as a place of entertainment. You state that people who do not trust the church to do what they promise should "watch and verify." The point is - we have already done this! UCKG obtained planning permission for their Catford premises on just such 'shared use' proposals, after which their promises turned out to be not worth the paper they were written on. That building is now used solely as a church. There is absolutely no reason to believe the same would not happen in Walthamstow if this ridiculous scheme was to be voted through by the council. You state that if the church fails to provide the space they promise "this will be obvious." Well, yes. But we would then be powerless to change the situation as UCKG would already have their planning permission. You state that if the space is provided and used, "it will not be possible for the church to prevent access." Oh yes it will! Why do you think there is no longer a cinema at the Catford building? UCKG simply made access to the building so difficult that the cinema operator was left with little choice than to give up. You state that "there may not be the demand for the cinema and other community facilities that is claimed." In that case, why would several experienced cinema operators have expressed such interest in working at the EMD? These are experienced businesspeople, and as such would recognise profit potential when they saw it. You state that one reason for the Church not selling the building is "the posturing of various people that they would buy out their property from them, by various means, which they then didn't follow through on." The problem with this statement is that in actual fact the church took the building off the market AFTER receiving several bids for it! As I said before, the whole thing reeks of political expediency. The council have screwed up the whole business of the EMD and the Arcade site, and are desperately clutching at any straw that would allow them to put some sort of positive spin to the electorate in time for the local elections next year. The council is gambling that if they vote the scheme through and it goes pear-shaped within a year or two, everyone would have forgotten about it by the time of the following election, allowing the council to carry on as normal! Some of us are not so easily fooled! Lucifer1
  • Score: 0

3:15am Sat 7 Feb 09

E-number says...

Yes - that's exactly it. And for the record one more time for posterity:

The EMD would be in operation now as a cinema if the UCKG had not REFUSED all the bids that were made for it by cinema operators.

And yes- these were credible bids to buy the cinema at the market price which was pretty hefty.

The UCKG didn't sell because they didn't want to. They were clearly waiting for exactly the right moment to reapply for planning permission.

They don't have a church in this part of east London so clearly this is an important purchase for them.

They're also rich enough to have been able to hang on to a loss-making building for the past few years.

This is not a small, poor community organisation that all the protestors have been battling with. I can't imagine that any of them would give themselves such a hard time for years for fun. How insulting.
Yes - that's exactly it. And for the record one more time for posterity: The EMD would be in operation now as a cinema if the UCKG had not REFUSED all the bids that were made for it by cinema operators. And yes- these were credible bids to buy the cinema at the market price which was pretty hefty. The UCKG didn't sell because they didn't want to. They were clearly waiting for exactly the right moment to reapply for planning permission. They don't have a church in this part of east London so clearly this is an important purchase for them. They're also rich enough to have been able to hang on to a loss-making building for the past few years. This is not a small, poor community organisation that all the protestors have been battling with. I can't imagine that any of them would give themselves such a hard time for years for fun. How insulting. E-number
  • Score: 0

10:20am Sat 7 Feb 09

Hogwasher says...

So Lucifer1, what you are saying is that because the local authority in Catford was weak, and the local community failed to hold the church to account, the people are Walthamstow are not going to learn from that and are also going to be weak and that the council is also going to fail to hold the council to the deal. Sometimes when I see the council, I also despair, but I do not accept that my neighbours are so incapable.

The thing to do is to vote for councillors who will put some back-bone into planning enforcement, and make sure that the deal is such that the church can't go back on it. In other words, learn from what you see as having happened in Catford.

But if the lesson you have learned is that there are no circumstances, ever, under which you would ever enter into a compromise with the church and share the facility, then we are condemning the building to its inevitable doom, because there is no prospect the church will walk away and turn it into a house of fun.

The only thing opponents can credibly do is raise the money and make them an offer they can't refuse. Yes, its frustrating if the place was once on the market and was taken off it. That does not necessarily mean bad faith by the church. It just means that the offers made in the past were not good enough, to pursuade the church to give up its rights ovr their property. The offers could have been improved if the scheme would have been still economically viable. That they were not suggests that the business model was not sound enough at that time. Since then, land prices have dropped. It could be bought, but the church is going to want to make a profit.

For people to buy a building of this kind and do the work on it means millions of pounds must be raised. If banks can be persuaded to lend in the current climate, interest rates are low, so there is hope. However trying to get hold of the building on the cheap by getting the council to use compulsory purchase powers does not resolve the underlying issue of the costs of restoration and being able to operate the place in accordance on a realistic scale and with a sensible budget. People suggest there may been years in the past in which this could have been done, but I am not so sure.

The trouble is that there is also presently no evidence that the proponents of the compulsory purchase have the financial wherwithal or acumen to carry out such a scheme. I hope they can prove me wrong, but they need to get their fingers out to do so, because it looks like the doors are closing.

People who say there are potential commercial operators are out there or that they can do it themselves should not waste time. Now is the time to stop the bickering and produce the White Knights, not once the planning consent has been given.

Be aware though that the economy a few years ago is not the same as the economy now. Nor is the entertainment market. DVDs are being sold for a pittance in the High Street. I suspect times have changed and there would not be the commercial interest. There may not be the demand for a large 'pure' cinema that people think. A combined community conference space, smaller cinema and theatre might, however, work. They work in other places, so why not here? Are we uniquely inept in Walthamstow?
So Lucifer1, what you are saying is that because the local authority in Catford was weak, and the local community failed to hold the church to account, the people are Walthamstow are not going to learn from that and are also going to be weak and that the council is also going to fail to hold the council to the deal. Sometimes when I see the council, I also despair, but I do not accept that my neighbours are so incapable. The thing to do is to vote for councillors who will put some back-bone into planning enforcement, and make sure that the deal is such that the church can't go back on it. In other words, learn from what you see as having happened in Catford. But if the lesson you have learned is that there are no circumstances, ever, under which you would ever enter into a compromise with the church and share the facility, then we are condemning the building to its inevitable doom, because there is no prospect the church will walk away and turn it into a house of fun. The only thing opponents can credibly do is raise the money and make them an offer they can't refuse. Yes, its frustrating if the place was once on the market and was taken off it. That does not necessarily mean bad faith by the church. It just means that the offers made in the past were not good enough, to pursuade the church to give up its rights ovr their property. The offers could have been improved if the scheme would have been still economically viable. That they were not suggests that the business model was not sound enough at that time. Since then, land prices have dropped. It could be bought, but the church is going to want to make a profit. For people to buy a building of this kind and do the work on it means millions of pounds must be raised. If banks can be persuaded to lend in the current climate, interest rates are low, so there is hope. However trying to get hold of the building on the cheap by getting the council to use compulsory purchase powers does not resolve the underlying issue of the costs of restoration and being able to operate the place in accordance on a realistic scale and with a sensible budget. People suggest there may been years in the past in which this could have been done, but I am not so sure. The trouble is that there is also presently no evidence that the proponents of the compulsory purchase have the financial wherwithal or acumen to carry out such a scheme. I hope they can prove me wrong, but they need to get their fingers out to do so, because it looks like the doors are closing. People who say there are potential commercial operators are out there or that they can do it themselves should not waste time. Now is the time to stop the bickering and produce the White Knights, not once the planning consent has been given. Be aware though that the economy a few years ago is not the same as the economy now. Nor is the entertainment market. DVDs are being sold for a pittance in the High Street. I suspect times have changed and there would not be the commercial interest. There may not be the demand for a large 'pure' cinema that people think. A combined community conference space, smaller cinema and theatre might, however, work. They work in other places, so why not here? Are we uniquely inept in Walthamstow? Hogwasher
  • Score: 0

11:05am Sat 7 Feb 09

Claridger says...

It all boils down to the fact that the building was put up for sale to the man Mr Emd who had a large ego and changed the name to his own from the very famous Granada Cinema. The building was left to go to ruin under his name and he only showed Bollywood Films and 'Video Nasty's like 'I spit on your grave' , 'Enter the Dragon' and Texan Chainsaws Massacres and the clientile dropped like a lead balloon. The the owner offered it for sale having bought it for a million. The Council did not buy it and the only people who made a bid was the KICC church who I think bought it for 4 million. The McGuffins, the Council, The Walthamstow Preservation Society, The Hornbeams Association and anyone else could have bought it but did not have the bottle to and for the past 8 years have all been whinging and tried to bully the Church into a) parting with their legally owned property b) telling them what to do with it by asking a Religious Group to show films, a business that they are not interested in c) tried gaining access to it (how would you like someone trudging round your front room who you did not know and d) tried getting the council to spend hard earned taxpayers money on a defunct derelict building that is past its normal use. the area is now very diversified and most people do not want to sit in a damp cold pigeon filled building watching a film, when they can get a dvd out and not have to listen to idiots on their mobile phone and having overpriced popcorn thrown at them. I wish people would just get real and leave the church alone to do what they want with THEIR property.
It all boils down to the fact that the building was put up for sale to the man Mr Emd who had a large ego and changed the name to his own from the very famous Granada Cinema. The building was left to go to ruin under his name and he only showed Bollywood Films and 'Video Nasty's like 'I spit on your grave' , 'Enter the Dragon' and Texan Chainsaws Massacres and the clientile dropped like a lead balloon. The the owner offered it for sale having bought it for a million. The Council did not buy it and the only people who made a bid was the KICC church who I think bought it for 4 million. The McGuffins, the Council, The Walthamstow Preservation Society, The Hornbeams Association and anyone else could have bought it but did not have the bottle to and for the past 8 years have all been whinging and tried to bully the Church into a) parting with their legally owned property b) telling them what to do with it by asking a Religious Group to show films, a business that they are not interested in c) tried gaining access to it (how would you like someone trudging round your front room who you did not know and d) tried getting the council to spend hard earned taxpayers money on a defunct derelict building that is past its normal use. the area is now very diversified and most people do not want to sit in a damp cold pigeon filled building watching a film, when they can get a dvd out and not have to listen to idiots on their mobile phone and having overpriced popcorn thrown at them. I wish people would just get real and leave the church alone to do what they want with THEIR property. Claridger
  • Score: 0

12:03pm Sat 7 Feb 09

Janet1 says...

Claridger, your ignorance about this issue is quite stunning! You are wrong on all important points.

The very obvious reason the McGuffins or other community groups didn't offer to buy the Granada is that they haven't got two million pounds. Official community groups sometimes receive small grants. The others have only the money their members can raise through events like small concerts in pubs. That's a few hundred pounds at best. Not millions.

The UCKG refused all offers by businesses that did have money to buy the Granada.

Claims that it was left to go to ruin are easy to disprove. The McGuffins and other film-lovers put on a special performance on the last night, when the cinema had been spruced up into mint condition. The McGuffins have film and photos of that night, easily available from their website.

And it was not in bad condition before then, nor reduced to showing rubbish. I regularly saw mainstream films there such as Lord of the Rings right up till the end of 2002, plus some excellent Bollywood films with English sub-titles.

The owner is not the KICC but the UCKG, as has been pointed out several times. Totally different organisations.

You refuse to read what anyone else has written. But I repeat that the compulsory purchase that the council promised to do (yet another broken promise) WOULD COST THE PUBLIC NOTHING. The building was to have been sold on to an operator who had already put in an offer to buy it.

The council has, on the other hand, offered a developer some 700,000 OF OUR MONEY to put a multiscreen on the arcade site.

To repeat: a compulsory purchase of the Granada would cost us nothing and return Walthamstow's cinema to public use at once. But instead, the council has been THROWING OUR MNEY AWAY on trying to get a new cinema built next door.
Claridger, your ignorance about this issue is quite stunning! You are wrong on all important points. The very obvious reason the McGuffins or other community groups didn't offer to buy the Granada is that they haven't got two million pounds. Official community groups sometimes receive small grants. The others have only the money their members can raise through events like small concerts in pubs. That's a few hundred pounds at best. Not millions. The UCKG refused all offers by businesses that did have money to buy the Granada. Claims that it was left to go to ruin are easy to disprove. The McGuffins and other film-lovers put on a special performance on the last night, when the cinema had been spruced up into mint condition. The McGuffins have film and photos of that night, easily available from their website. And it was not in bad condition before then, nor reduced to showing rubbish. I regularly saw mainstream films there such as Lord of the Rings right up till the end of 2002, plus some excellent Bollywood films with English sub-titles. The owner is not the KICC but the UCKG, as has been pointed out several times. Totally different organisations. You refuse to read what anyone else has written. But I repeat that the compulsory purchase that the council promised to do (yet another broken promise) WOULD COST THE PUBLIC NOTHING. The building was to have been sold on to an operator who had already put in an offer to buy it. The council has, on the other hand, offered a developer some 700,000 OF OUR MONEY to put a multiscreen on the arcade site. To repeat: a compulsory purchase of the Granada would cost us nothing and return Walthamstow's cinema to public use at once. But instead, the council has been THROWING OUR MNEY AWAY on trying to get a new cinema built next door. Janet1
  • Score: 0

1:08pm Sat 7 Feb 09

RichieA70 says...

It's quite obvious that the UCKG are playing the waiting game and hope that the council will relent after 6 years without a cinema. Having been rejected for church use twice already, it will be an appalling u-turn if they finally allow the EMD to become a church.

The new proposals, if accepted would probably result in exactly what the UCKG would have used the EMD for if their original plans had been allowed, with the exception of giving over the rear stalls area for 'community use' (a fraction of the entire building). Clearly from the situation at the ABC Catford, this minor concession by the UCKG would be dropped once they secured planning consent.

It is also absolute nonsense to suggest that the EMD is no longer viable for cinema use. The Odeons at S.Woodford, Barnet, Muswell Hill & Holloway are a tiny example of the numerous cinemas like the EMD that are still operating successfully.

I have got nothing against churches but this building was built as a place of entertainment for all, and must remain so. Waiting a bit longer is better than allowing a change of use after so many battles. The council must throw out this latest proposal by the UCKG or return to their commitment of a CPO. It is not only the UCKG that has the money to restore it - there is evidence of several large cinema operators who would buy it from either the UCKG or the council.
It's quite obvious that the UCKG are playing the waiting game and hope that the council will relent after 6 years without a cinema. Having been rejected for church use twice already, it will be an appalling u-turn if they finally allow the EMD to become a church. The new proposals, if accepted would probably result in exactly what the UCKG would have used the EMD for if their original plans had been allowed, with the exception of giving over the rear stalls area for 'community use' (a fraction of the entire building). Clearly from the situation at the ABC Catford, this minor concession by the UCKG would be dropped once they secured planning consent. It is also absolute nonsense to suggest that the EMD is no longer viable for cinema use. The Odeons at S.Woodford, Barnet, Muswell Hill & Holloway are a tiny example of the numerous cinemas like the EMD that are still operating successfully. I have got nothing against churches but this building was built as a place of entertainment for all, and must remain so. Waiting a bit longer is better than allowing a change of use after so many battles. The council must throw out this latest proposal by the UCKG or return to their commitment of a CPO. It is not only the UCKG that has the money to restore it - there is evidence of several large cinema operators who would buy it from either the UCKG or the council. RichieA70
  • Score: 0

7:27pm Sat 7 Feb 09

E-number says...

I absolutely agree with Ritchie but am very confused about Hogwasher who seems to be still clinging to the spurious notion that the current owners of the building would have sold it if the offers were higher.

They had many opportunities to sell to cinema operatos which saw the potential in the cinema, and being experienced businesses, had already factored the restoration costs etc into their financial plans.

They did not want to hand control over to cinemas - they wanted to keep the building for future use as church - and have waited till the time was right to do so.

Why should they sell
I absolutely agree with Ritchie but am very confused about Hogwasher who seems to be still clinging to the spurious notion that the current owners of the building would have sold it if the offers were higher. They had many opportunities to sell to cinema operatos which saw the potential in the cinema, and being experienced businesses, had already factored the restoration costs etc into their financial plans. They did not want to hand control over to cinemas - they wanted to keep the building for future use as church - and have waited till the time was right to do so. Why should they sell E-number
  • Score: 0

7:44pm Sat 7 Feb 09

Hogwasher says...

I sort of agree with you E-number: I was just considering the point that others have made that somehow there were a load of people queueing up to buy the place and the Church had somehow proved what rotters they are by not shaking their hands off at the offers.

If someone owns something, they do not have to sell it just because someone else makes them an offer. That is the nature of property. If I went round to my neighbour and said - sell me your house for two hundred thousand quid - they can't be criticised for deciding not to take me up on it - whether or not the house is worth that or not.

If anyone else wants to buy the cinema, they have to make an offer which the owners find attractive. That is the way of the world.
I sort of agree with you E-number: I was just considering the point that others have made that somehow there were a load of people queueing up to buy the place and the Church had somehow proved what rotters they are by not shaking their hands off at the offers. If someone owns something, they do not have to sell it just because someone else makes them an offer. That is the nature of property. If I went round to my neighbour and said - sell me your house for two hundred thousand quid - they can't be criticised for deciding not to take me up on it - whether or not the house is worth that or not. If anyone else wants to buy the cinema, they have to make an offer which the owners find attractive. That is the way of the world. Hogwasher
  • Score: 0

8:17pm Sat 7 Feb 09

Market walker says...

Hogwasher, I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head - the UKCG have clearly been holding out from selling in the belief that if they do, they will eventually set planning permission. And therefore, I think the bottom line is that the plans must be opposed strenuously, on the grounds that were effective 6 years ago, and with the belief that the church will take a commercial offer as soon as they know there is no chance they will get planning permission, however long they wait.

So far only 2 councillors have spoken, apparently broadly in favour of UKCG's plans. Naively, I now hope that the other 58, or at least enough of them, will oppose the plans and bury the scheme.
Hogwasher, I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head - the UKCG have clearly been holding out from selling in the belief that if they do, they will eventually set planning permission. And therefore, I think the bottom line is that the plans must be opposed strenuously, on the grounds that were effective 6 years ago, and with the belief that the church will take a commercial offer as soon as they know there is no chance they will get planning permission, however long they wait. So far only 2 councillors have spoken, apparently broadly in favour of UKCG's plans. Naively, I now hope that the other 58, or at least enough of them, will oppose the plans and bury the scheme. Market walker
  • Score: 0

1:09pm Sun 8 Feb 09

RichieA70 says...

I hope that enough residents show their opposition of these proposals to our councillors. Another planning rejection may finally provide the incentive for the UCKG to sell the building. Their latest application for church use is a strong indicator that they had no wish to sell the building all along.

It was no one but the UCKG's problem that they bought a building which could not be altered for church use, and their decision alone to buy it at well over the market value.

It's not just the EMD's archictectural and historical importance that resulted in the public enquiry preventing a change of use. It was the belief that the building should remain open to the wider community and not just followers of a particular religion.

The EMD's peeling frontage do not mean the building is in imminent danger of collapse. It's surely better that we continue to have an eyesore for a bit longer than accept a short-term restoration that benefits only members of the UCKG and not the general public.
I hope that enough residents show their opposition of these proposals to our councillors. Another planning rejection may finally provide the incentive for the UCKG to sell the building. Their latest application for church use is a strong indicator that they had no wish to sell the building all along. It was no one but the UCKG's problem that they bought a building which could not be altered for church use, and their decision alone to buy it at well over the market value. It's not just the EMD's archictectural and historical importance that resulted in the public enquiry preventing a change of use. It was the belief that the building should remain open to the wider community and not just followers of a particular religion. The EMD's peeling frontage do not mean the building is in imminent danger of collapse. It's surely better that we continue to have an eyesore for a bit longer than accept a short-term restoration that benefits only members of the UCKG and not the general public. RichieA70
  • Score: 0

2:07pm Sun 8 Feb 09

Claridger says...

I cannot understand why some people think it will 'COST NOTHING' to compulsory purchase the EMD. Of course it will cost millions which the council have not got.

It is a foregone conclusion now anyhow and all the protesters can crawl away and find some other excuse to protest against.

Look at the latest edition of WFC the council free newsletter, it is all in there.

That place will be up and running as a church within the next 3 years. The area has changed. The locals are not interested in a cinema anymore.
I cannot understand why some people think it will 'COST NOTHING' to compulsory purchase the EMD. Of course it will cost millions which the council have not got. It is a foregone conclusion now anyhow and all the protesters can crawl away and find some other excuse to protest against. Look at the latest edition of WFC the council free newsletter, it is all in there. That place will be up and running as a church within the next 3 years. The area has changed. The locals are not interested in a cinema anymore. Claridger
  • Score: 0

3:38pm Sun 8 Feb 09

Market walker says...

She's not a councillor any more but at least one local Labour politician has expressed concerns - Stella Creasy has posted on her blog that "I cannot welcome these developments because at present we have few details to judge whether the UCKG's plans really would work for Walthamstow" She's called for a public meeting at which the church could present their plans to local residents. It's a start, and better then throwing the towel in. I hope that this happens, as many people as possible turn up and express outright opposition to the plans, and then perhaps councillors will be persuaded... there is after all a local election next year.

That will also prove Claridger right or wrong as to whether the locals are interested in a cinema any more.
She's not a councillor any more but at least one local Labour politician has expressed concerns - Stella Creasy has posted on her blog that "I cannot welcome these developments because at present we have few details to judge whether the UCKG's plans really would work for Walthamstow" She's called for a public meeting at which the church could present their plans to local residents. It's a start, and better then throwing the towel in. I hope that this happens, as many people as possible turn up and express outright opposition to the plans, and then perhaps councillors will be persuaded... there is after all a local election next year. That will also prove Claridger right or wrong as to whether the locals are interested in a cinema any more. Market walker
  • Score: 0

4:05pm Sun 8 Feb 09

The Singing Postman says...

Didn't the local councillors ask the church for a public meeting on this week's ago? Still, I suppose it's not a surprise that this is already being used as a political football by the same old faces - and apparently also by the posters on here!
Didn't the local councillors ask the church for a public meeting on this week's ago? Still, I suppose it's not a surprise that this is already being used as a political football by the same old faces - and apparently also by the posters on here! The Singing Postman
  • Score: 0

4:43pm Sun 8 Feb 09

E-number says...

Re Claridger's point about a CPO costing millions which the council hasn't got.. I don't think there was ever a suggestion, was there? (perhaps someone can clarify this) that the council would take possession of the cinema. I believe that the idea was that the council would take out the Order and then pass on the cinema to the operators - thereby recouping the money.
Re Claridger's point about a CPO costing millions which the council hasn't got.. I don't think there was ever a suggestion, was there? (perhaps someone can clarify this) that the council would take possession of the cinema. I believe that the idea was that the council would take out the Order and then pass on the cinema to the operators - thereby recouping the money. E-number
  • Score: 0

6:06pm Sun 8 Feb 09

Market walker says...

The Singing Postman wrote:
Didn't the local councillors ask the church for a public meeting on this week's ago? Still, I suppose it's not a surprise that this is already being used as a political football by the same old faces - and apparently also by the posters on here!
If they did, they appear to have subsequently decided a private briefing followed by cautious welcome was more appropriate. And as for being a political football, that's because it matters to the local community, and I for one am pleased to welcome any and all political support.
[quote][p][bold]The Singing Postman[/bold] wrote: Didn't the local councillors ask the church for a public meeting on this week's ago? Still, I suppose it's not a surprise that this is already being used as a political football by the same old faces - and apparently also by the posters on here![/p][/quote]If they did, they appear to have subsequently decided a private briefing followed by cautious welcome was more appropriate. And as for being a political football, that's because it matters to the local community, and I for one am pleased to welcome any and all political support. Market walker
  • Score: 0

6:19pm Sun 8 Feb 09

The Singing Postman says...

You say "If they did, they appear to have subsequently decided a private briefing followed by cautious welcome was more appropriate."

With all due respect, that appears to be rubbish. If you actually read the sources from which this news has appeared, the local councillors are waiting for a reply from the church regarding a public meeting and expressly said how uncomfortable they were with this being a councillor-only briefing.

It does nobody - or the future of the EMD - any favours to start scoring points and laying the blame before we even have a clue as to the full story here.
You say "If they did, they appear to have subsequently decided a private briefing followed by cautious welcome was more appropriate." With all due respect, that appears to be rubbish. If you actually read the sources from which this news has appeared, the local councillors are waiting for a reply from the church regarding a public meeting and expressly said how uncomfortable they were with this being a councillor-only briefing. It does nobody - or the future of the EMD - any favours to start scoring points and laying the blame before we even have a clue as to the full story here. The Singing Postman
  • Score: 0

6:44pm Sun 8 Feb 09

Market walker says...

Sorry Singing Postman you are wrong. The exact text I am taking my story from (the councillor's blog) is below and does not contain anything about public consultation, indeed Councillor O'Rourke's comment makes the assumption that the plans will be approved. I very much hope he is wrong, and if he wishes to join the campaign against the plans, his support would be very much welcomed.

High Street Lib Dem Councillors, James ’Rourke and Joha
r Khan, recently received a briefing from the owners of the former EMD cinema, UK Church of God (UKCG), outlining their vision for this historic building. Cllrs O’Rourke and Kha
n listened intently whilst representatives of the UKCG outlined their Granada Conference Rooms proposals. UKCG have plans for a 250 seat auditorium which could have dual purpose for theatre productions, conferences and cinema screening, two meeting rooms and a gallery all on the upper level.
The entrance lobby and pub would be transformed into a cafe, carpet shop converted to training rooms with a youth club above. The main auditorium would be restored to its former glory and used by the Church.
Cllrs O’Rourke and Kha
n gave a cautious welcome to the proposals saying:
“This building has served the community of Walthamstow for the last 80 years and must continue to do so. We will work to ensure the promises of community access are honoured.”
UKCG hope to submit a planning application in the near future.
Sorry Singing Postman you are wrong. The exact text I am taking my story from (the councillor's blog) is below and does not contain anything about public consultation, indeed Councillor O'Rourke's comment makes the assumption that the plans will be approved. I very much hope he is wrong, and if he wishes to join the campaign against the plans, his support would be very much welcomed. High Street Lib Dem Councillors, James ’Rourke and Joha r Khan, recently received a briefing from the owners of the former EMD cinema, UK Church of God (UKCG), outlining their vision for this historic building. Cllrs O’Rourke and Kha n listened intently whilst representatives of the UKCG outlined their Granada Conference Rooms proposals. UKCG have plans for a 250 seat auditorium which could have dual purpose for theatre productions, conferences and cinema screening, two meeting rooms and a gallery all on the upper level. The entrance lobby and pub would be transformed into a cafe, carpet shop converted to training rooms with a youth club above. The main auditorium would be restored to its former glory and used by the Church. Cllrs O’Rourke and Kha n gave a cautious welcome to the proposals saying: “This building has served the community of Walthamstow for the last 80 years and must continue to do so. We will work to ensure the promises of community access are honoured.” UKCG hope to submit a planning application in the near future. Market walker
  • Score: 0

6:57pm Sun 8 Feb 09

The Singing Postman says...

Sorry to be a nuisance, but this is from the same website:


Cllr O’Rourke said: “I welcome the fact the UKCG will be presenting their proposals. However, I believe engaging with the wider community, on such key matters, rather than just Councillors would enable us to hear the widest range of views.”

Cllr O’Rourke has offered UKCG the opportunity to present their proposals at a public meeting and is awaiting their response.
Sorry to be a nuisance, but this is from the same website: Cllr O’Rourke said: “I welcome the fact the UKCG will be presenting their proposals. However, I believe engaging with the wider community, on such key matters, rather than just Councillors would enable us to hear the widest range of views.” Cllr O’Rourke has offered UKCG the opportunity to present their proposals at a public meeting and is awaiting their response. The Singing Postman
  • Score: 0

9:47pm Sun 8 Feb 09

Janet1 says...

Claridger, you have distorted the facts so many times on this thead that I now have to presume you are doing it deliberately.

To repeat what I have now written many times:

A compulsory purchase order (CPO) should COST THE COUNCIL NOTHING
because they would be buying the cinema IN ORDER TO SELL IT ON
to a cinema operator who has already AGREED TGO BUY IT.
Total cost to the council: NOTHING.

OK?

So the CPO would cost us nothing and would get the cinema reopened quickly.

Instead the council has been offering 700,000 of our money to developers to put a new cinema in the tower block they're planning to build next door.

Why should we pay a developer to build a new cinema, when we can have the old one back FREE OF CHARGE, and immediately?
Claridger, you have distorted the facts so many times on this thead that I now have to presume you are doing it deliberately. To repeat what I have now written many times: A compulsory purchase order (CPO) should COST THE COUNCIL NOTHING because they would be buying the cinema IN ORDER TO SELL IT ON to a cinema operator who has already AGREED TGO BUY IT. Total cost to the council: NOTHING. OK? So the CPO would cost us nothing and would get the cinema reopened quickly. Instead the council has been offering 700,000 of our money to developers to put a new cinema in the tower block they're planning to build next door. Why should we pay a developer to build a new cinema, when we can have the old one back FREE OF CHARGE, and immediately? Janet1
  • Score: 0

11:02pm Sun 8 Feb 09

JonathanB says...

"It all boils down to the fact that the building was put up for sale to the man Mr Emd who had a large ego and changed the name to his own from the very famous Granada Cinema."

Actually it's E.M.D. which were the initials of the owner's children. The owner being Mr Sharma. Who was very nice.
"It all boils down to the fact that the building was put up for sale to the man Mr Emd who had a large ego and changed the name to his own from the very famous Granada Cinema." Actually it's E.M.D. which were the initials of the owner's children. The owner being Mr Sharma. Who was very nice. JonathanB
  • Score: 0

11:20pm Sun 8 Feb 09

stellacreasy says...

Hello everyone,

Neil and I have proposed a public meeting to the UCKG so that we can all put our questions to them regarding their latest ideas for the EMD that Neil as our local MP will chair. As someone who has been involved in the campaigns regarding the EMD I hope we can all work together as a community to decide what we feel is best for this landmark so I hope councillors will participate in the discussion too. However, there are many questions, many concerns and many points that need answering and only the UCKG can speak for their intentions so its right we engage directly with them. It would be very helpful in organising such an event for people who would be interested in participating in such a meeting for people to email me so we can work out what size venue we will need. My email is stella@workingforwal
thamstow.org.uk.

best wishes to you all,

Stella
Hello everyone, Neil and I have proposed a public meeting to the UCKG so that we can all put our questions to them regarding their latest ideas for the EMD that Neil as our local MP will chair. As someone who has been involved in the campaigns regarding the EMD I hope we can all work together as a community to decide what we feel is best for this landmark so I hope councillors will participate in the discussion too. However, there are many questions, many concerns and many points that need answering and only the UCKG can speak for their intentions so its right we engage directly with them. It would be very helpful in organising such an event for people who would be interested in participating in such a meeting for people to email me so we can work out what size venue we will need. My email is stella@workingforwal thamstow.org.uk. best wishes to you all, Stella stellacreasy
  • Score: 0

1:27am Mon 9 Feb 09

Redfox says...

WHilst I acknowledge Stella's last post at 11.20 : would she & the Guardian make this request prominent in next edition!!!!, she is standing at next General Election to replace the local MP will she stand up for the community needs or just get headlines for herself?
Meantime I feel the issue is such importance the venue should be nothing less than the council's flagship auditorium of the Assembly Hall. If the council, councillors and prospective local MPs really want to sort all this out, do it properly and get in some efficient PA system with roving microphones so the public can speak and be heard by everyone.
ps. Also make sure the council's pathetic excuse for a conservation officer for over 25 years (Guy Osborne) is present to answer why it happens to be that he, under charge of English Heritage, carries out for them a yearly inspection but doesn't publish any details into the public domain. It still remains the sole Grade 2 listed property in Waltham Forest that has not received one of his tacky, blue plastic heritage plaques.
Strange that Hogwasher, or whoever, omits to name this person in his list as responsible for the sorry state of affairs for this delapidated building. I would have thought he was the most prominent of them all and should summarily resign his position AFTER the public meeting.
WHilst I acknowledge Stella's last post at 11.20 : would she & the Guardian make this request prominent in next edition!!!!, she is standing at next General Election to replace the local MP will she stand up for the community needs or just get headlines for herself? Meantime I feel the issue is such importance the venue should be nothing less than the council's flagship auditorium of the Assembly Hall. If the council, councillors and prospective local MPs really want to sort all this out, do it properly and get in some efficient PA system with roving microphones so the public can speak and be heard by everyone. ps. Also make sure the council's pathetic excuse for a conservation officer for over 25 years (Guy Osborne) is present to answer why it happens to be that he, under charge of English Heritage, carries out for them a yearly inspection but doesn't publish any details into the public domain. It still remains the sole Grade 2 listed property in Waltham Forest that has not received one of his tacky, blue plastic heritage plaques. Strange that Hogwasher, or whoever, omits to name this person in his list as responsible for the sorry state of affairs for this delapidated building. I would have thought he was the most prominent of them all and should summarily resign his position AFTER the public meeting. Redfox
  • Score: 0

9:36am Mon 9 Feb 09

Claridger says...

A compulsory purchase order (CPO) should COST THE COUNCIL NOTHING
because they would be buying the cinema IN ORDER TO SELL IT ON
to a cinema operator who has already AGREED TGO BUY IT.
Total cost to the council: NOTHING.

Janet, you have clearly no knowledge of a Compulsory Purchase Order by the comments made. Before you continue to show your ignorance and further embarrass yourself, I suggest that you consult a lawyer, competent in property law. This person will detail the limitations of a CPO and explain the process as you are way off mark here.
A compulsory purchase order (CPO) should COST THE COUNCIL NOTHING because they would be buying the cinema IN ORDER TO SELL IT ON to a cinema operator who has already AGREED TGO BUY IT. Total cost to the council: NOTHING. Janet, you have clearly no knowledge of a Compulsory Purchase Order by the comments made. Before you continue to show your ignorance and further embarrass yourself, I suggest that you consult a lawyer, competent in property law. This person will detail the limitations of a CPO and explain the process as you are way off mark here. Claridger
  • Score: 0

11:37am Mon 9 Feb 09

Hogwasher says...

Redfox wrote:
WHilst I acknowledge Stella's last post at 11.20 : would she & the Guardian make this request prominent in next edition!!!!, she is standing at next General Election to replace the local MP will she stand up for the community needs or just get headlines for herself? Meantime I feel the issue is such importance the venue should be nothing less than the council's flagship auditorium of the Assembly Hall. If the council, councillors and prospective local MPs really want to sort all this out, do it properly and get in some efficient PA system with roving microphones so the public can speak and be heard by everyone. ps. Also make sure the council's pathetic excuse for a conservation officer for over 25 years (Guy Osborne) is present to answer why it happens to be that he, under charge of English Heritage, carries out for them a yearly inspection but doesn't publish any details into the public domain. It still remains the sole Grade 2 listed property in Waltham Forest that has not received one of his tacky, blue plastic heritage plaques. Strange that Hogwasher, or whoever, omits to name this person in his list as responsible for the sorry state of affairs for this delapidated building. I would have thought he was the most prominent of them all and should summarily resign his position AFTER the public meeting.
Hi, Redfox, I don't mention him because I don't know him and frankly, don't care who he is in particular. He is probably a very nice guy, but obviously working withing the framework of expectations and resources set up by his bosses and the cabinet members of Mr Loakes's Administration. While he should of course be aware of public expectations and not be unaccountable, I didn't feel it fair to single him out in what is clearly a saga involving one poor choice after another by a whole raft of our local political representatives.
[quote][p][bold]Redfox[/bold] wrote: WHilst I acknowledge Stella's last post at 11.20 : would she & the Guardian make this request prominent in next edition!!!!, she is standing at next General Election to replace the local MP will she stand up for the community needs or just get headlines for herself? Meantime I feel the issue is such importance the venue should be nothing less than the council's flagship auditorium of the Assembly Hall. If the council, councillors and prospective local MPs really want to sort all this out, do it properly and get in some efficient PA system with roving microphones so the public can speak and be heard by everyone. ps. Also make sure the council's pathetic excuse for a conservation officer for over 25 years (Guy Osborne) is present to answer why it happens to be that he, under charge of English Heritage, carries out for them a yearly inspection but doesn't publish any details into the public domain. It still remains the sole Grade 2 listed property in Waltham Forest that has not received one of his tacky, blue plastic heritage plaques. Strange that Hogwasher, or whoever, omits to name this person in his list as responsible for the sorry state of affairs for this delapidated building. I would have thought he was the most prominent of them all and should summarily resign his position AFTER the public meeting.[/p][/quote]Hi, Redfox, I don't mention him because I don't know him and frankly, don't care who he is in particular. He is probably a very nice guy, but obviously working withing the framework of expectations and resources set up by his bosses and the cabinet members of Mr Loakes's Administration. While he should of course be aware of public expectations and not be unaccountable, I didn't feel it fair to single him out in what is clearly a saga involving one poor choice after another by a whole raft of our local political representatives. Hogwasher
  • Score: 0

11:41am Mon 9 Feb 09

Janet1 says...

Claridger, the CPO as I described it (simplified version) is what the council promised to do six years ago. It has never given any reason why this could not be done as promised. Can you?
Claridger, the CPO as I described it (simplified version) is what the council promised to do six years ago. It has never given any reason why this could not be done as promised. Can you? Janet1
  • Score: 0

12:08pm Mon 9 Feb 09

Claridger says...

Claridger, the CPO as I described it (simplified version) is what the council promised to do six years ago. It has never given any reason why this could not be done as promised. Can you?
Claridger, the CPO as I described it (simplified version) is what the council promised to do six years ago. It has never given any reason why this could not be done as promised. Can you?

Promised? Janet, Show me where (in writing) they have promised? Have they sent a letter to this effect anywhere? Of course not! A minor official may have commented ill advisably to that effect but in no way would the Council commit to such. The Council would have to have total agreement to do such. Where did you get your information from? Please post the evidence here because at the moment it is all hot air and heresay at the moment. Name of person and date and in what context this 'promise'. My shortened response to your question janet, and I really do not want to insult you here, honest, but you do not know what the legalities are here and you should look up a CPO on the internet or something. It is a very lengthy process and it will never happen in this case as the Council and certainly a 'big operator will never commit to this amount of money especially in this depressed market. Who is this operator? Again all vague and hot air.
Claridger, the CPO as I described it (simplified version) is what the council promised to do six years ago. It has never given any reason why this could not be done as promised. Can you? Claridger, the CPO as I described it (simplified version) is what the council promised to do six years ago. It has never given any reason why this could not be done as promised. Can you? Promised? Janet, Show me where (in writing) they have promised? Have they sent a letter to this effect anywhere? Of course not! A minor official may have commented ill advisably to that effect but in no way would the Council commit to such. The Council would have to have total agreement to do such. Where did you get your information from? Please post the evidence here because at the moment it is all hot air and heresay at the moment. Name of person and date and in what context this 'promise'. My shortened response to your question janet, and I really do not want to insult you here, honest, but you do not know what the legalities are here and you should look up a CPO on the internet or something. It is a very lengthy process and it will never happen in this case as the Council and certainly a 'big operator will never commit to this amount of money especially in this depressed market. Who is this operator? Again all vague and hot air. Claridger
  • Score: 0

12:20pm Mon 9 Feb 09

Lucifer1 says...

Claridger wrote:
Claridger, the CPO as I described it (simplified version) is what the council promised to do six years ago. It has never given any reason why this could not be done as promised. Can you? Claridger, the CPO as I described it (simplified version) is what the council promised to do six years ago. It has never given any reason why this could not be done as promised. Can you? Promised? Janet, Show me where (in writing) they have promised? Have they sent a letter to this effect anywhere? Of course not! A minor official may have commented ill advisably to that effect but in no way would the Council commit to such. The Council would have to have total agreement to do such. Where did you get your information from? Please post the evidence here because at the moment it is all hot air and heresay at the moment. Name of person and date and in what context this 'promise'. My shortened response to your question janet, and I really do not want to insult you here, honest, but you do not know what the legalities are here and you should look up a CPO on the internet or something. It is a very lengthy process and it will never happen in this case as the Council and certainly a 'big operator will never commit to this amount of money especially in this depressed market. Who is this operator? Again all vague and hot air.
Claridger, I can answer your question. The "minor official" who committed the council to using their CPO powers with regard to the EMD Cinema was.......Clyde Loakes!

This from the McGuffin website:

In November 2004 council leader Clyde Loakes wrote to the McGuffin Film Society and stated “The council is committed to seeing the EMD Cinema coming back into use as a cinema providing that it can be developed as a viable entity. It will use its CPO powers to purchase the building should this become necessary”. The local authority appointed Anthony Williams / Capita Symonds Consultants to explore a range of options for the future of cinema in Waltham Forest. The consultants concluded the EMD could be revived as a viable cinema business.

[quote][p][bold]Claridger[/bold] wrote: Claridger, the CPO as I described it (simplified version) is what the council promised to do six years ago. It has never given any reason why this could not be done as promised. Can you? Claridger, the CPO as I described it (simplified version) is what the council promised to do six years ago. It has never given any reason why this could not be done as promised. Can you? Promised? Janet, Show me where (in writing) they have promised? Have they sent a letter to this effect anywhere? Of course not! A minor official may have commented ill advisably to that effect but in no way would the Council commit to such. The Council would have to have total agreement to do such. Where did you get your information from? Please post the evidence here because at the moment it is all hot air and heresay at the moment. Name of person and date and in what context this 'promise'. My shortened response to your question janet, and I really do not want to insult you here, honest, but you do not know what the legalities are here and you should look up a CPO on the internet or something. It is a very lengthy process and it will never happen in this case as the Council and certainly a 'big operator will never commit to this amount of money especially in this depressed market. Who is this operator? Again all vague and hot air. [/p][/quote]Claridger, I can answer your question. The "minor official" who committed the council to using their CPO powers with regard to the EMD Cinema was.......Clyde Loakes! This from the McGuffin website: In November 2004 council leader Clyde Loakes wrote to the McGuffin Film Society and stated “The council is committed to seeing the EMD Cinema coming back into use as a cinema providing that it can be developed as a viable entity. It will use its CPO powers to purchase the building should this become necessary”. The local authority appointed Anthony Williams / Capita Symonds Consultants to explore a range of options for the future of cinema in Waltham Forest. The consultants concluded the EMD could be revived as a viable cinema business. Lucifer1
  • Score: 0

12:28pm Mon 9 Feb 09

Claridger says...

he McGuffin Film Society and stated “The council is committed to seeing the EMD Cinema coming back into use as a cinema providing that it can be developed as a viable entity. It will use its CPO powers to purchase the building should this become necessary”.

As evidence this is useless. So the McGuffins have said it? Put Loakes' letter to them on here as proof as there must be continuity in this. I notice that if it is true, there are overriding conditions viz: 'providing it can be developed as a viable entity'.

If this is all you have you can forget it as there is a massive difference between the council 'promising' and what you have here. Of course many people are 'committed' to seeing it put back as a cinema but it is economically dead in the water.
he McGuffin Film Society and stated “The council is committed to seeing the EMD Cinema coming back into use as a cinema providing that it can be developed as a viable entity. It will use its CPO powers to purchase the building should this become necessary”. As evidence this is useless. So the McGuffins have said it? Put Loakes' letter to them on here as proof as there must be continuity in this. I notice that if it is true, there are overriding conditions viz: 'providing it can be developed as a viable entity'. If this is all you have you can forget it as there is a massive difference between the council 'promising' and what you have here. Of course many people are 'committed' to seeing it put back as a cinema but it is economically dead in the water. Claridger
  • Score: 0

12:59pm Mon 9 Feb 09

GavinQ says...

How about converting the Regal in Highams Park back into a cinema, closing down all the crappy fast food outlets and having somewhere nice to go, before it becomes a slum like Hoe Street etc?
How about converting the Regal in Highams Park back into a cinema, closing down all the crappy fast food outlets and having somewhere nice to go, before it becomes a slum like Hoe Street etc? GavinQ
  • Score: 0

2:17pm Mon 9 Feb 09

Janet1 says...

Claridger (or whoever is posting under the Claridger name at the moment, at they seem to vary in coherence), why not read what people are posting here instead of constantly distorting other people's comments?

Who promised to COP the cinema 'if necessary'? Clyde Loakes, leader of the council.

Who says the cinema could be revived? An independent firm of consultants hired by the council who investigated all different options.

As stated by others above.
Claridger (or whoever is posting under the Claridger name at the moment, at they seem to vary in coherence), why not read what people are posting here instead of constantly distorting other people's comments? Who promised to COP the cinema 'if necessary'? Clyde Loakes, leader of the council. Who says the cinema could be revived? An independent firm of consultants hired by the council who investigated all different options. As stated by others above. Janet1
  • Score: 0

2:27pm Mon 9 Feb 09

Claridger says...

Who promised to COP the cinema 'if necessary'? Clyde Loakes, leader of the council.

Prove it! And if you are referring to the alleged article to the McGuffins, look at the conditions attached to this so called 'offer' regarding viability.

You are living in a dream world Janet. It will never happen!
Who promised to COP the cinema 'if necessary'? Clyde Loakes, leader of the council. Prove it! And if you are referring to the alleged article to the McGuffins, look at the conditions attached to this so called 'offer' regarding viability. You are living in a dream world Janet. It will never happen! Claridger
  • Score: 0

2:34pm Mon 9 Feb 09

Lucifer1 says...

Claridger wrote:
he McGuffin Film Society and stated “The council is committed to seeing the EMD Cinema coming back into use as a cinema providing that it can be developed as a viable entity. It will use its CPO powers to purchase the building should this become necessary”. As evidence this is useless. So the McGuffins have said it? Put Loakes' letter to them on here as proof as there must be continuity in this. I notice that if it is true, there are overriding conditions viz: 'providing it can be developed as a viable entity'. If this is all you have you can forget it as there is a massive difference between the council 'promising' and what you have here. Of course many people are 'committed' to seeing it put back as a cinema but it is economically dead in the water.
Claridger, you remind me of a drowning man clutching at a straw! You ask for information other than heresay, and then try desperately to find a reason for dismissing it when given!

Even to my knowledge, that statement about Loakes has been on the McGuffin website for a number of years. If it was in any way untrue they would certainly have been pulled up on it by now. We can therefore safely assume that the statement IS the truth - unless you have any solid evidence to the contrary, in which case I'm sure we would all be interested to see it.

Yes, there is the condition that a CPO would only be used "providing that it can be developed as a viable entity." But, if you read the remainder you will see that the council-appointed consultants supported the view that it CAN be revived as a viable entity!

There really is no argument here. The council should CPO the building as promised.
[quote][p][bold]Claridger[/bold] wrote: he McGuffin Film Society and stated “The council is committed to seeing the EMD Cinema coming back into use as a cinema providing that it can be developed as a viable entity. It will use its CPO powers to purchase the building should this become necessary”. As evidence this is useless. So the McGuffins have said it? Put Loakes' letter to them on here as proof as there must be continuity in this. I notice that if it is true, there are overriding conditions viz: 'providing it can be developed as a viable entity'. If this is all you have you can forget it as there is a massive difference between the council 'promising' and what you have here. Of course many people are 'committed' to seeing it put back as a cinema but it is economically dead in the water. [/p][/quote]Claridger, you remind me of a drowning man clutching at a straw! You ask for information other than heresay, and then try desperately to find a reason for dismissing it when given! Even to my knowledge, that statement about Loakes has been on the McGuffin website for a number of years. If it was in any way untrue they would certainly have been pulled up on it by now. We can therefore safely assume that the statement IS the truth - unless you have any solid evidence to the contrary, in which case I'm sure we would all be interested to see it. Yes, there is the condition that a CPO would only be used "providing that it can be developed as a viable entity." But, if you read the remainder you will see that the council-appointed consultants supported the view that it CAN be revived as a viable entity! There really is no argument here. The council should CPO the building as promised. Lucifer1
  • Score: 0

2:53pm Mon 9 Feb 09

mumsy12 says...

Bert Small where are you when we need you and your poppycock
Bert Small where are you when we need you and your poppycock mumsy12
  • Score: 0

3:10pm Mon 9 Feb 09

Claridger says...

Lucifer, I certainly am not the drowning man here and nor are the Church Owners as they are in command as they OWN the Cinema. The McGuffins, Council and everyone else have an expensive mountain to climb to take the UKCG's building from them.

Your 'even to my knowledge' views are worthless. Prove that the Council said they will buy it.

The council are now obviously wanting to put this matter to bed as they have (in their own) newsletter published an article covering the latest planning application. Regrettably, it will never be a cinema again because market forces prevent it and the OWNERS do not want it either. Show me an example anywhere else where a Council in recent years have compulsory purchased a building on this scale except for the Olympics. There are no examples because it is too expensive and the legal implications are a minefield.

I asked for evidence other than heresay and there still is none other than 'he said this and he said that' rubbish. Post the letter that Loakes allegedly sent. Nobody has as yet and if you examine them, assuming the words are true, Loakes' words are as useful as a one legged man at a bottom kicking contest.

If they were 'pledged' six years ago, it is even more dire as we are now in the biggest recession for years and nobody is spending money on expensive pipe dream projects.
Lucifer, I certainly am not the drowning man here and nor are the Church Owners as they are in command as they OWN the Cinema. The McGuffins, Council and everyone else have an expensive mountain to climb to take the UKCG's building from them. Your 'even to my knowledge' views are worthless. Prove that the Council said they will buy it. The council are now obviously wanting to put this matter to bed as they have (in their own) newsletter published an article covering the latest planning application. Regrettably, it will never be a cinema again because market forces prevent it and the OWNERS do not want it either. Show me an example anywhere else where a Council in recent years have compulsory purchased a building on this scale except for the Olympics. There are no examples because it is too expensive and the legal implications are a minefield. I asked for evidence other than heresay and there still is none other than 'he said this and he said that' rubbish. Post the letter that Loakes allegedly sent. Nobody has as yet and if you examine them, assuming the words are true, Loakes' words are as useful as a one legged man at a bottom kicking contest. If they were 'pledged' six years ago, it is even more dire as we are now in the biggest recession for years and nobody is spending money on expensive pipe dream projects. Claridger
  • Score: 0

4:38pm Mon 9 Feb 09

E-number says...

Wouldn't it be libel if the McGuffins made this claim on their website and it wasn't true? You'd think they'd have cleared it with a lawyer or something wouldn't you?Maybe it is true?
Wouldn't it be libel if the McGuffins made this claim on their website and it wasn't true? You'd think they'd have cleared it with a lawyer or something wouldn't you?Maybe it is true? E-number
  • Score: 0

4:50pm Mon 9 Feb 09

Lucifer1 says...

Claridger wrote:
Lucifer, I certainly am not the drowning man here and nor are the Church Owners as they are in command as they OWN the Cinema. The McGuffins, Council and everyone else have an expensive mountain to climb to take the UKCG's building from them. Your 'even to my knowledge' views are worthless. Prove that the Council said they will buy it. The council are now obviously wanting to put this matter to bed as they have (in their own) newsletter published an article covering the latest planning application. Regrettably, it will never be a cinema again because market forces prevent it and the OWNERS do not want it either. Show me an example anywhere else where a Council in recent years have compulsory purchased a building on this scale except for the Olympics. There are no examples because it is too expensive and the legal implications are a minefield. I asked for evidence other than heresay and there still is none other than 'he said this and he said that' rubbish. Post the letter that Loakes allegedly sent. Nobody has as yet and if you examine them, assuming the words are true, Loakes' words are as useful as a one legged man at a bottom kicking contest. If they were 'pledged' six years ago, it is even more dire as we are now in the biggest recession for years and nobody is spending money on expensive pipe dream projects.
Claridger, I think you must be doing this on purpose.

Regardless of whether you think the statement on the McGuffin website is 'heresay' or not, the fact remains that has been accepted as the truth due to there being no evidence to the contrary. A website statement may not be enough evidence for a Court of Law, but this is NOT a Court of Law! For our purposes the balance of probability is sufficient, and the balance of probability is HEAVILY in favour of the statement being true. Under these circumstances, it is not for the McGuffins or anyone else to prove this. It is up to you to DISPROVE it. We have had nothing from you except the "this evidence is insufficient" rubbish. For most of us, it is perfectly sufficient!

What the owners want to do with the building is only part of the story. They have to prove that their plans are not to the detriment of the area. This is why planning permission exists. Some buildings are also listed by English Heritage expressly to prevent owners doing what they want with them.


[quote][p][bold]Claridger[/bold] wrote: Lucifer, I certainly am not the drowning man here and nor are the Church Owners as they are in command as they OWN the Cinema. The McGuffins, Council and everyone else have an expensive mountain to climb to take the UKCG's building from them. Your 'even to my knowledge' views are worthless. Prove that the Council said they will buy it. The council are now obviously wanting to put this matter to bed as they have (in their own) newsletter published an article covering the latest planning application. Regrettably, it will never be a cinema again because market forces prevent it and the OWNERS do not want it either. Show me an example anywhere else where a Council in recent years have compulsory purchased a building on this scale except for the Olympics. There are no examples because it is too expensive and the legal implications are a minefield. I asked for evidence other than heresay and there still is none other than 'he said this and he said that' rubbish. Post the letter that Loakes allegedly sent. Nobody has as yet and if you examine them, assuming the words are true, Loakes' words are as useful as a one legged man at a bottom kicking contest. If they were 'pledged' six years ago, it is even more dire as we are now in the biggest recession for years and nobody is spending money on expensive pipe dream projects. [/p][/quote]Claridger, I think you must be doing this on purpose. Regardless of whether you think the statement on the McGuffin website is 'heresay' or not, the fact remains that has been accepted as the truth due to there being no evidence to the contrary. A website statement may not be enough evidence for a Court of Law, but this is NOT a Court of Law! For our purposes the balance of probability is sufficient, and the balance of probability is HEAVILY in favour of the statement being true. Under these circumstances, it is not for the McGuffins or anyone else to prove this. It is up to you to DISPROVE it. We have had nothing from you except the "this evidence is insufficient" rubbish. For most of us, it is perfectly sufficient! What the owners want to do with the building is only part of the story. They have to prove that their plans are not to the detriment of the area. This is why planning permission exists. Some buildings are also listed by English Heritage expressly to prevent owners doing what they want with them. Lucifer1
  • Score: 0

5:41pm Mon 9 Feb 09

E-number says...

What I don't understand is why the council won't publicly discuss their reasons for not doing the CPO> Something must have changed their minds since they made those promises. What? Why won't they discuss it with us?
What I don't understand is why the council won't publicly discuss their reasons for not doing the CPO> Something must have changed their minds since they made those promises. What? Why won't they discuss it with us? E-number
  • Score: 0

10:54pm Mon 9 Feb 09

RichieA70 says...

Several councillors last year confirmed that a CPO was planned. Here is part of a reply from cllr Naz Sarkar to me on the subject:

"We have tried to compulsory purchase the cinema but the UK Kingdom of God (it's owners) have played cat and mouse with us and the council's lawyers assure me that it would cost a large amount of money to CPO the building."

Clyde Loakes confirmed exactly the same thing to me, and whatever the views are regarding cost grounds, it does the council no favours to have made this commitment in writing and subsequently break it.

The council rejected a change of use originally, and the UCKG's appeal on this decision was thrown out by the government. For the benefit of the wider community and in the long-term interest I feel this decision MUST stand.
Several councillors last year confirmed that a CPO was planned. Here is part of a reply from cllr Naz Sarkar to me on the subject: "We have tried to compulsory purchase the cinema but the UK Kingdom of God (it's owners) have played cat and mouse with us and the council's lawyers assure me that it would cost a large amount of money to CPO the building." Clyde Loakes confirmed exactly the same thing to me, and whatever the views are regarding cost grounds, it does the council no favours to have made this commitment in writing and subsequently break it. The council rejected a change of use originally, and the UCKG's appeal on this decision was thrown out by the government. For the benefit of the wider community and in the long-term interest I feel this decision MUST stand. RichieA70
  • Score: 0

9:18am Wed 11 Feb 09

Lucifer1 says...

Claridger - you asked for the letter from Loakes to be published? Well, the McGuffins HAVE published it on their website! What have you got to say now??
Claridger - you asked for the letter from Loakes to be published? Well, the McGuffins HAVE published it on their website! What have you got to say now?? Lucifer1
  • Score: 0

4:40pm Wed 11 Feb 09

Claridger says...

Claridger - you asked for the letter from Loakes to be published? Well, the McGuffins HAVE published it on their website! What have you got to say now??
Claridger - you asked for the letter from Loakes to be published? Well, the McGuffins HAVE published it on their website! What have you got to say now??

Ok, so the letter has been posted and like I mentioned in previous postings, that letter is not worth a carrot and talks of viability. The site and the cinema is not viable and that is why the Council and everyone else have thrown in the towel. Bearing in mind the time that has lapsed and the current economy, only a fool would by that now and try and refurbish it. It will never be a cinema again, watch this space. Like the old Cinema at the Bakers Arms, the Church have won the war of Attrition.
Claridger - you asked for the letter from Loakes to be published? Well, the McGuffins HAVE published it on their website! What have you got to say now?? Claridger - you asked for the letter from Loakes to be published? Well, the McGuffins HAVE published it on their website! What have you got to say now?? Ok, so the letter has been posted and like I mentioned in previous postings, that letter is not worth a carrot and talks of viability. The site and the cinema is not viable and that is why the Council and everyone else have thrown in the towel. Bearing in mind the time that has lapsed and the current economy, only a fool would by that now and try and refurbish it. It will never be a cinema again, watch this space. Like the old Cinema at the Bakers Arms, the Church have won the war of Attrition. Claridger
  • Score: 0

5:43pm Wed 11 Feb 09

Claridger says...

Something must have changed their minds since they made those promises

Duh? The current property crash dimwit? What promise? The council said they would if it was viable and it obviously is not.
Something must have changed their minds since they made those promises Duh? The current property crash dimwit? What promise? The council said they would if it was viable and it obviously is not. Claridger
  • Score: 0

6:43pm Wed 11 Feb 09

Lucifer1 says...

Claridger wrote:
Claridger - you asked for the letter from Loakes to be published? Well, the McGuffins HAVE published it on their website! What have you got to say now?? Claridger - you asked for the letter from Loakes to be published? Well, the McGuffins HAVE published it on their website! What have you got to say now?? Ok, so the letter has been posted and like I mentioned in previous postings, that letter is not worth a carrot and talks of viability. The site and the cinema is not viable and that is why the Council and everyone else have thrown in the towel. Bearing in mind the time that has lapsed and the current economy, only a fool would by that now and try and refurbish it. It will never be a cinema again, watch this space. Like the old Cinema at the Bakers Arms, the Church have won the war of Attrition.
Ha Ha, I thought so!

First of all we hear that the council said they would CPO the building. 'Have they sent a letter? No, it could only have been a minor official' says Claridger.
Then we hear that a letter WAS sent to this effect - from council leader Clyde Loakes. 'Not good enough - publish the letter as proof' says Claridger.
Now that letter HAS been published, and guess what? 'It STILL isn't good enough' says Claridger!

The old saying "when you're in a hole, stop digging" springs to mind.

Claridger, either you simply do not fully comprehend what is going on, or else you are a wind-up merchant, or else a member of the Church!

Clyde Loakes sent that letter in November 2004. I doubt that even you can now dismiss this fact, seeing that it has been published for all to see. A public consultation was undertaken the following year, the result of which was overwhelmingly in favour of reopening the EMD as a cinema A public meeting was held in the summer of 2005 which was attended by over 400 local residents, and also by various councillors and the Walthamstow MP. This meeting overwhelmingly reaffirmed the findings of the public consultation - to reopen the EMD as a cinema. The council's own commissioned study then reported that it would be viable to do so. The council should have kept their promise at that time. They should do so now!

Also, the old cinema building near Bakers Arms was purchased by KICC which is a totally different organisation to UCKG.
[quote][p][bold]Claridger[/bold] wrote: Claridger - you asked for the letter from Loakes to be published? Well, the McGuffins HAVE published it on their website! What have you got to say now?? Claridger - you asked for the letter from Loakes to be published? Well, the McGuffins HAVE published it on their website! What have you got to say now?? Ok, so the letter has been posted and like I mentioned in previous postings, that letter is not worth a carrot and talks of viability. The site and the cinema is not viable and that is why the Council and everyone else have thrown in the towel. Bearing in mind the time that has lapsed and the current economy, only a fool would by that now and try and refurbish it. It will never be a cinema again, watch this space. Like the old Cinema at the Bakers Arms, the Church have won the war of Attrition. [/p][/quote]Ha Ha, I thought so! First of all we hear that the council said they would CPO the building. 'Have they sent a letter? No, it could only have been a minor official' says Claridger. Then we hear that a letter WAS sent to this effect - from council leader Clyde Loakes. 'Not good enough - publish the letter as proof' says Claridger. Now that letter HAS been published, and guess what? 'It STILL isn't good enough' says Claridger! The old saying "when you're in a hole, stop digging" springs to mind. Claridger, either you simply do not fully comprehend what is going on, or else you are a wind-up merchant, or else a member of the Church! Clyde Loakes sent that letter in November 2004. I doubt that even you can now dismiss this fact, seeing that it has been published for all to see. A public consultation was undertaken the following year, the result of which was overwhelmingly in favour of reopening the EMD as a cinema A public meeting was held in the summer of 2005 which was attended by over 400 local residents, and also by various councillors and the Walthamstow MP. This meeting overwhelmingly reaffirmed the findings of the public consultation - to reopen the EMD as a cinema. The council's own commissioned study then reported that it would be viable to do so. The council should have kept their promise at that time. They should do so now! Also, the old cinema building near Bakers Arms was purchased by KICC which is a totally different organisation to UCKG. Lucifer1
  • Score: 0

10:12pm Wed 11 Feb 09

Claridger says...

Yes Lucifer, the McGuffins have posted the letter from Loakes who has not committed himself or the local authority to purchase the Cinema but has experessed support and said that CPO was a possibilty if it is a viable proposition. It is a meaningless document and has no standing in law. It is not a contract to purchase the premises.

You and all the McGuffins are on a hiding to nothing if you are relying on that to take the Council to court over it. Your case is hopeless. It has no legs. The property has probably less value now but there is very little cash around and available for the council to justify even attempting a CPO. You are all failing to grasp the point that the Cinema belongs to the church and they can, subject to planning and listed building laws, do what they like with it. None of you so called supporters would put any money towards backing a campaign as you would not take any risk. You are all trying to spend other peoples money on a fruitless cause.

The council will now take the easy option and back the plans submitted by the church as they are fed up with the eyesore as it exists.

Their plans will be finely tuned and they will get what they want and even if it is rejected locally, they will win the application when the appeal to the Planning Inspector.

Perhaps Loakes was speaking out of turn making bold statements but he never committed himself or thecouncil to buy the place and nothing has been done since. Loakes is trying to become an MP in a different part of the Country so he has no long term committment here anyhow.

The cinema is a fine building but the area has changed and a smaller, warmer, nicer, manageable place next door would be best.

The church wil get what they want and then of course the fears will be justified, especially over the parking. I wish the zeal the McGuffins and supporters put in to this old building could be transferred to the general shabbyness of the surrounding streets. Maybe that would be a better cause?
Yes Lucifer, the McGuffins have posted the letter from Loakes who has not committed himself or the local authority to purchase the Cinema but has experessed support and said that CPO was a possibilty if it is a viable proposition. It is a meaningless document and has no standing in law. It is not a contract to purchase the premises. You and all the McGuffins are on a hiding to nothing if you are relying on that to take the Council to court over it. Your case is hopeless. It has no legs. The property has probably less value now but there is very little cash around and available for the council to justify even attempting a CPO. You are all failing to grasp the point that the Cinema belongs to the church and they can, subject to planning and listed building laws, do what they like with it. None of you so called supporters would put any money towards backing a campaign as you would not take any risk. You are all trying to spend other peoples money on a fruitless cause. The council will now take the easy option and back the plans submitted by the church as they are fed up with the eyesore as it exists. Their plans will be finely tuned and they will get what they want and even if it is rejected locally, they will win the application when the appeal to the Planning Inspector. Perhaps Loakes was speaking out of turn making bold statements but he never committed himself or thecouncil to buy the place and nothing has been done since. Loakes is trying to become an MP in a different part of the Country so he has no long term committment here anyhow. The cinema is a fine building but the area has changed and a smaller, warmer, nicer, manageable place next door would be best. The church wil get what they want and then of course the fears will be justified, especially over the parking. I wish the zeal the McGuffins and supporters put in to this old building could be transferred to the general shabbyness of the surrounding streets. Maybe that would be a better cause? Claridger
  • Score: 0

1:04am Thu 12 Feb 09

E-number says...

Claridger wrote:
Something must have changed their minds since they made those promises Duh? The current property crash dimwit? What promise? The council said they would if it was viable and it obviously is not.
Did the council know about the impending property crash before the Chancellor then? This is all so confusing.Also I've looked on the McGuffin website and I can't see anything about taking the council to court...

Claridger is getting weirdly hysterical over something that clearly has nothing to do with him/her.
[quote][p][bold]Claridger[/bold] wrote: Something must have changed their minds since they made those promises Duh? The current property crash dimwit? What promise? The council said they would if it was viable and it obviously is not. [/p][/quote]Did the council know about the impending property crash before the Chancellor then? This is all so confusing.Also I've looked on the McGuffin website and I can't see anything about taking the council to court... Claridger is getting weirdly hysterical over something that clearly has nothing to do with him/her. E-number
  • Score: 0

11:32am Thu 12 Feb 09

Claridger says...

Did the council know about the impending property crash before the Chancellor then? This is all so confusing.Also I've looked on the McGuffin website and I can't see anything about taking the council to court...

Claridger is getting weirdly hysterical over something that clearly has nothing to do with him/her.
Claridger wrote: Something must have changed their minds since they made those promises Duh? The current property crash dimwit? What promise? The council said they would if it was viable and it obviously is not.
Did the council know about the impending property crash before the Chancellor then? This is all so confusing.Also I've looked on the McGuffin website and I can't see anything about taking the council to court... Claridger is getting weirdly hysterical over something that clearly has nothing to do with him/her.

E number (says it all!) I am not getting 'weirdly hysterical' but many others seem to be. I have been a resident of Waltham Forest since 1950, born in the house I own in Walthamstow and pay Council Tax so I think it does have 'something to do' with me. I notice that many of the McGuffins are not from London and are a 'rent a cause'.

If you read todays local Guardian you will see that the final nails are in the coffin as far as the EMD is concerned. The Planning Officers have advised the church to submit altered plans and this is always an indication that they will not object to them. They have asked for a Cinema to be included. However, if this does materialise, I doubt if there will be an usher selling ice creams in the deal. Probably religious films to compliment the main services.

I am all for a Cinema there also, but there is no money about. banks are not lending either. You have added to my argument. Of course nobody forecast the current turmoil. the Council were not committed to buy the place and are not.
Did the council know about the impending property crash before the Chancellor then? This is all so confusing.Also I've looked on the McGuffin website and I can't see anything about taking the council to court... Claridger is getting weirdly hysterical over something that clearly has nothing to do with him/her. [quote][p][bold]Claridger[/bold] wrote: Something must have changed their minds since they made those promises Duh? The current property crash dimwit? What promise? The council said they would if it was viable and it obviously is not. [/p][/quote]Did the council know about the impending property crash before the Chancellor then? This is all so confusing.Also I've looked on the McGuffin website and I can't see anything about taking the council to court... Claridger is getting weirdly hysterical over something that clearly has nothing to do with him/her. E number (says it all!) I am not getting 'weirdly hysterical' but many others seem to be. I have been a resident of Waltham Forest since 1950, born in the house I own in Walthamstow and pay Council Tax so I think it does have 'something to do' with me. I notice that many of the McGuffins are not from London and are a 'rent a cause'. If you read todays local Guardian you will see that the final nails are in the coffin as far as the EMD is concerned. The Planning Officers have advised the church to submit altered plans and this is always an indication that they will not object to them. They have asked for a Cinema to be included. However, if this does materialise, I doubt if there will be an usher selling ice creams in the deal. Probably religious films to compliment the main services. I am all for a Cinema there also, but there is no money about. banks are not lending either. You have added to my argument. Of course nobody forecast the current turmoil. the Council were not committed to buy the place and are not. Claridger
  • Score: 0

12:39pm Thu 12 Feb 09

Lucifer1 says...

Claridger says:
"I notice that many of the McGuffins are not from London and are a 'rent a cause'."

How do you know this? I heard this rumour last year, and it was shown to be nonsense because all their organisers are long-term Waltham Forest residents.

For someone who constantly asks for proof rather than heresay, you seem remarkably prepared to accept unsubstantiated rumours when it suits you!

The Planning Officers are perfectly at liberty to 'accept' whatever plans are shown to them, but it is the council that has the final say. Councillors can be swayed by the weight of public opinion, which is why your assertion that the "final nails are in the coffin" is ludicrously premature. I would remind you that many people thought the original campaign to prevent change of use for the EMD building was doomed to failure. However, public opinion prevailed. It can do so again.
Claridger says: "I notice that many of the McGuffins are not from London and are a 'rent a cause'." How do you know this? I heard this rumour last year, and it was shown to be nonsense because all their organisers are long-term Waltham Forest residents. For someone who constantly asks for proof rather than heresay, you seem remarkably prepared to accept unsubstantiated rumours when it suits you! The Planning Officers are perfectly at liberty to 'accept' whatever plans are shown to them, but it is the council that has the final say. Councillors can be swayed by the weight of public opinion, which is why your assertion that the "final nails are in the coffin" is ludicrously premature. I would remind you that many people thought the original campaign to prevent change of use for the EMD building was doomed to failure. However, public opinion prevailed. It can do so again. Lucifer1
  • Score: 0

1:38pm Thu 12 Feb 09

Claridger says...

'How do you know this? I heard this rumour last year, and it was shown to be nonsense because all their organisers are long-term Waltham Forest residents'.

The spokesman in the paper today Mr Hodgkins (or similar) is from up North as I have heard him speak at an event! I am FOR a Cinema not against but all the so called supporters are looking at things through blackcurrant tinted specs. People keep mentioning this big film operator who is interested. Who is this? Where is the letter? Why did the Granada sell it in the first place? The answer is that the population is not as it was 50 years ago and we now need and it was unsustainable and not cost effective.
'How do you know this? I heard this rumour last year, and it was shown to be nonsense because all their organisers are long-term Waltham Forest residents'. The spokesman in the paper today Mr Hodgkins (or similar) is from up North as I have heard him speak at an event! I am FOR a Cinema not against but all the so called supporters are looking at things through blackcurrant tinted specs. People keep mentioning this big film operator who is interested. Who is this? Where is the letter? Why did the Granada sell it in the first place? The answer is that the population is not as it was 50 years ago and we now need and it was unsustainable and not cost effective. Claridger
  • Score: 0

2:02pm Thu 12 Feb 09

Claridger says...

'The Planning Officers are perfectly at liberty to 'accept' whatever plans are shown to them, but it is the council that has the final say'

The planning officers have been in consultation with the Church which implies that they are anxious to put this matter to rest and come to a compromise. Further evidence of this is where they have requested 'a cinema' included in the application. What a lot of the contributors to this thread have failed to realise is that The Planning Department and in turn The Planning Inspectorate cannot unreasonably refuse an application and should endeavour to allow the granting of all applications. They must also advise applicants. These recommendations are written into the working practice guidelines and are available to see on the internet. Look it up! The truth surely seems to hurt by the tone of some of the reactions to my comments. Again, am for the Cinema not against but I am being realistic, it is all now dead and buried.
'The Planning Officers are perfectly at liberty to 'accept' whatever plans are shown to them, but it is the council that has the final say' The planning officers have been in consultation with the Church which implies that they are anxious to put this matter to rest and come to a compromise. Further evidence of this is where they have requested 'a cinema' included in the application. What a lot of the contributors to this thread have failed to realise is that The Planning Department and in turn The Planning Inspectorate cannot unreasonably refuse an application and should endeavour to allow the granting of all applications. They must also advise applicants. These recommendations are written into the working practice guidelines and are available to see on the internet. Look it up! The truth surely seems to hurt by the tone of some of the reactions to my comments. Again, am for the Cinema not against but I am being realistic, it is all now dead and buried. Claridger
  • Score: 0

7:31pm Thu 12 Feb 09

EmmaB E17 says...

Quote
"The spokesman in the paper today Mr Hodgkins (or similar) is from up North as I have heard him speak at an event!"

And therefore less trustworthy than a multimillion pound quasi-religious organisation from Brazil ?

Quote
"People keep mentioning this big film operator who is interested. Who is this? Where is the letter?"

On the Mcguffins website, maybe?
Quote "The spokesman in the paper today Mr Hodgkins (or similar) is from up North as I have heard him speak at an event!" And therefore less trustworthy than a multimillion pound quasi-religious organisation from Brazil ? Quote "People keep mentioning this big film operator who is interested. Who is this? Where is the letter?" On the Mcguffins website, maybe? EmmaB E17
  • Score: 0

9:54am Fri 13 Feb 09

Claridger says...

Get a letter from them the operator (up to date) as proof that they are still interested. The would run a mile in this economic situation.

The McGuffins seem to be full of hot air and without substance in this matter. They are not even a pressure group as they seem to have run out of steam and ideas now.

I think the best thing would be for them to work with the church group so that if they do include a cinema in their church, they may have an in road to hire the place for some of their events.
Get a letter from them the operator (up to date) as proof that they are still interested. The would run a mile in this economic situation. The McGuffins seem to be full of hot air and without substance in this matter. They are not even a pressure group as they seem to have run out of steam and ideas now. I think the best thing would be for them to work with the church group so that if they do include a cinema in their church, they may have an in road to hire the place for some of their events. Claridger
  • Score: 0

10:19am Fri 13 Feb 09

Market walker says...

Claridger wrote:
'The Planning Officers are perfectly at liberty to 'accept' whatever plans are shown to them, but it is the council that has the final say'

The planning officers have been in consultation with the Church which implies that they are anxious to put this matter to rest and come to a compromise. Further evidence of this is where they have requested 'a cinema' included in the application. What a lot of the contributors to this thread have failed to realise is that The Planning Department and in turn The Planning Inspectorate cannot unreasonably refuse an application and should endeavour to allow the granting of all applications. They must also advise applicants. These recommendations are written into the working practice guidelines and are available to see on the internet. Look it up! The truth surely seems to hurt by the tone of some of the reactions to my comments. Again, am for the Cinema not against but I am being realistic, it is all now dead and buried.
Indeed, but what I am curious about is that in 2002 the refusal of planning permission for a similar scheme was appealed, and the Planning Inspectorate and the government refused the appeal, predominantly on the grounds that the best use for a listed building is its original use. Given this, I would have thought that the church has to prove why something has changed since then (clearly the economy has, but I doubt that is sufficient) to get approval.

Incidentally, the line that 'something has to be done to save the building' is not, I think, a very sensible one. Firstly, there are laws in operation which mean one can force owners to maintain a building properly, secondly this implies we need to do things quickly rather than the right things even if it takes time. It seems to me that the church has relied on the 'something must be done' line to rather cynically put in the same plans as last time in the hope enough people will be fobbed off. My guess is that they might just be right.
[quote][p][bold]Claridger[/bold] wrote: 'The Planning Officers are perfectly at liberty to 'accept' whatever plans are shown to them, but it is the council that has the final say' The planning officers have been in consultation with the Church which implies that they are anxious to put this matter to rest and come to a compromise. Further evidence of this is where they have requested 'a cinema' included in the application. What a lot of the contributors to this thread have failed to realise is that The Planning Department and in turn The Planning Inspectorate cannot unreasonably refuse an application and should endeavour to allow the granting of all applications. They must also advise applicants. These recommendations are written into the working practice guidelines and are available to see on the internet. Look it up! The truth surely seems to hurt by the tone of some of the reactions to my comments. Again, am for the Cinema not against but I am being realistic, it is all now dead and buried. [/p][/quote]Indeed, but what I am curious about is that in 2002 the refusal of planning permission for a similar scheme was appealed, and the Planning Inspectorate and the government refused the appeal, predominantly on the grounds that the best use for a listed building is its original use. Given this, I would have thought that the church has to prove why something has changed since then (clearly the economy has, but I doubt that is sufficient) to get approval. Incidentally, the line that 'something has to be done to save the building' is not, I think, a very sensible one. Firstly, there are laws in operation which mean one can force owners to maintain a building properly, secondly this implies we need to do things quickly rather than the right things even if it takes time. It seems to me that the church has relied on the 'something must be done' line to rather cynically put in the same plans as last time in the hope enough people will be fobbed off. My guess is that they might just be right. Market walker
  • Score: 0

10:57am Fri 13 Feb 09

Sprocket says...

"Claridger", give it a break, please. You go to campaign meetings but never put much work in. You soon start complaining that the people who do the work are useless, because they can't work miracles. You insult them, in public forums, for failing to stop the council closing everything down. But you are undermining their efforts by playing these games, spreading disinformation and tying up people's time in trying to correct it. Your voice is easy to recognise. Stop this, please. It doesn't do anyone any good.
"Claridger", give it a break, please. You go to campaign meetings but never put much work in. You soon start complaining that the people who do the work are useless, because they can't work miracles. You insult them, in public forums, for failing to stop the council closing everything down. But you are undermining their efforts by playing these games, spreading disinformation and tying up people's time in trying to correct it. Your voice is easy to recognise. Stop this, please. It doesn't do anyone any good. Sprocket
  • Score: 0

11:32am Fri 13 Feb 09

Claridger says...

'there are laws in operation which mean one can force owners to maintain a building properly, secondly this implies we need to do things quickly rather than the right things even if it takes time'

Yes, very true and the church have been maintaining it and will argue that they want to bring the building into use. The claim to be paying nearly 20 thousand pound per year on maintenance. (read this weeks Guardian article).

The Council though via the planning department have now given the impression that they are working with the church rather than against them to achieve a settlement.
'there are laws in operation which mean one can force owners to maintain a building properly, secondly this implies we need to do things quickly rather than the right things even if it takes time' Yes, very true and the church have been maintaining it and will argue that they want to bring the building into use. The claim to be paying nearly 20 thousand pound per year on maintenance. (read this weeks Guardian article). The Council though via the planning department have now given the impression that they are working with the church rather than against them to achieve a settlement. Claridger
  • Score: 0

5:32pm Fri 13 Feb 09

Market walker says...

Claridger wrote:
'there are laws in operation which mean one can force owners to maintain a building properly, secondly this implies we need to do things quickly rather than the right things even if it takes time'

Yes, very true and the church have been maintaining it and will argue that they want to bring the building into use. The claim to be paying nearly 20 thousand pound per year on maintenance. (read this weeks Guardian article).

The Council though via the planning department have now given the impression that they are working with the church rather than against them to achieve a settlement.
I agree the council and the church give the impression they're working together. In whose interests?
[quote][p][bold]Claridger[/bold] wrote: 'there are laws in operation which mean one can force owners to maintain a building properly, secondly this implies we need to do things quickly rather than the right things even if it takes time' Yes, very true and the church have been maintaining it and will argue that they want to bring the building into use. The claim to be paying nearly 20 thousand pound per year on maintenance. (read this weeks Guardian article). The Council though via the planning department have now given the impression that they are working with the church rather than against them to achieve a settlement. [/p][/quote]I agree the council and the church give the impression they're working together. In whose interests? Market walker
  • Score: 0

10:13am Sat 14 Feb 09

Claridger says...

I think that the Council have just had enough of the property being empty. They are probably not getting any business rate being paid either.

The planning department must aid applications and they have probably hinted that this is the way forward and will not oppose such an application if they incorporate a cinema of sorts.

However, as the McGuffins say, past history with the church at other venues have shown that they do not follow through all the conditions.

The McGuffins are right to be concerned that they may not in this case, and I agree that there should be very strict monitoring if the plans are approved.
I think that the Council have just had enough of the property being empty. They are probably not getting any business rate being paid either. The planning department must aid applications and they have probably hinted that this is the way forward and will not oppose such an application if they incorporate a cinema of sorts. However, as the McGuffins say, past history with the church at other venues have shown that they do not follow through all the conditions. The McGuffins are right to be concerned that they may not in this case, and I agree that there should be very strict monitoring if the plans are approved. Claridger
  • Score: 0

10:14am Sat 14 Feb 09

Claridger says...

I think that the Council have just had enough of the property being empty. They are probably not getting any business rate being paid either.

The planning department must aid applications and they have probably hinted that this is the way forward and will not oppose such an application if they incorporate a cinema of sorts.

However, as the McGuffins say, past history with the church at other venues have shown that they do not follow through all the conditions.

The McGuffins are right to be concerned that they may not in this case, and I agree that there should be very strict monitoring if the plans are approved.
I think that the Council have just had enough of the property being empty. They are probably not getting any business rate being paid either. The planning department must aid applications and they have probably hinted that this is the way forward and will not oppose such an application if they incorporate a cinema of sorts. However, as the McGuffins say, past history with the church at other venues have shown that they do not follow through all the conditions. The McGuffins are right to be concerned that they may not in this case, and I agree that there should be very strict monitoring if the plans are approved. Claridger
  • Score: 0
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

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