Public toilets, museum revamp and facelifts for ugly buildings on Gloucester city council's £2m to-do list

“what about spending some money on revamping the indoor market???”

“...walker

I wouldn't describe much of what appears in TiG these days "reporting" - it's mostly somewhere between gossip and whatever they can grab from other newspapers and press agencies.

In a case like this though, you'd think that the councillors would want accurate and complete coverage - if only to remove the possibility of the sort of questions that have already been asked over these decisions.

I don't advocate that anyone should decide who to vote for based only on press coverage but it does play a role and this "report" really does create the impression that GCC are just inventing numbers. Aside from any questions or critcism of where that money is being spent, it's just bizarre that they've apparently just thrown those round-number amounts at these areas with no mention of how much any of them actually need or will actually cost.

Prime example - is the £100,000 for "public toilets" going to pay for new ones to be built - or are they gold-plating the ones at the bus station? Likewise, if the Tourist Information Centre move is slated to cost £130,000 - is that the cost of a new building or literally the cost of "removals" - cos if it's the latter, I'd really like to see the bids for that job and find out who's cousin got the contract. (And how can moving a diddy ickle shop possibly cost more than building, plumbing and fitting an entire toilet block?)

Chances are there are some very simple, reasonable answers available. I just think that between them, the council and TiG are doing more harm than good by releasing such incomplete information.

It's like some kid did his homework on the bis to school on the day it was due to be handed in - I'm just amazed it's not written in green crayon with all the "e's" drawn backwards :)”

“Either way, if the council have been allowed to give out vague information on £2m of public spend without a thorough grilling from the local hack it is pi££ poor reporting, PengiPete.”

“Walker...

Hard to say for certain given the usual absence of facts but that £100k on "lighting" may relate to the recent promise to improve lighting in and around Eastgate St where a number of serious crimes have been commited in the dingy alleys and side-streets.

If that is the case, no complaints here. If, however, that "lighting" is purely cosmetic, then it is a different matter entirely.

The information proveded here is far too vague on those important details - whether that's down to the council or sloppy reporting is unknown.”

“As toilets really need to be supplied in the city centre why have the developers of King's Square not been told to include them as part of the planning application. Maintenance/cleaning can be taken on by the city council.

What specifically do they mean when they say £100,000 on "gate streets" and which businesses are going to benefit from grants to the tune of £100,000? I am a small business, can I have some?

The other amounts also need to be queried, half a million pounds on the city museum? This is public money and we are just told that most of it has been allocated without any sort of consultation process?

Lighting and Christmas lights another £150k, or close enough. Excuse me but I understood we were having a bit of a financial crisis in this country in regard to public funding but you feel you can chuck £150k at "lighting"?

Is it me?”

“Perhaps the money could be spent on transport. Maybe a link between the planet that Osbourne and Cameron live on and the planet that the rest of us live on.”

“by BishopHooper

Friday, March 8 2013, 1:39PM
.
"130K to move the Tourist Information office? REALLY?? Come on, who are you kidding! Considering the current state of Gloucester, the current office is sufficiant. Once Gloucester has been spruced up and everything sorted.. Then thats the time to move. How about spending that money on something actually needed, rather than somesones pet projects.
Good Clean Public Toilets, free of druggies, homeless people and beggars using it as an 'office' to do business are the priority."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Well said Bshop Hooper, well said.”

“130K to move the Tourist Information office? REALLY?? Come on, who are you kidding! Considering the current state of Gloucester, the current office is sufficiant. Once Gloucester has been spruced up and everything sorted.. Then thats the time to move. How about spending that money on something actually needed, rather than somesones pet projects.
Good Clean Public Toilets, free of druggies, homeless people and beggars using it as an 'office' to do business are the priority.”

“When money is tight and town centre seriously needs some money spending on it just to make it attractive to and usable by local rate-payers, why are they spending £130,000 to move the Tourist Information Centre?

Is there a specific reason relating to the building - a lease expiring or it not meeting some regulation or rule relating to staff facilities - or are they thinking that it will attract more "customers" if placed elsewhere? Maybe they are moving somewhere with lower rent and will recover some of that outlay? Some detail would be useful - maybe even tell us where they want to move it to (anyone taking bets on it being the Docks?)

£130,000 is a lot of money and makes it one of the biggest outlays on that list so unless it is really necessary, it seems like an odd thing to spend limited resources on. it's not like they are creating something we don't already have or that we really need at this time.

In addition to the obvious headline cost (and I have to say £130,000 just to move location seems ridiculously high) - has any thought been given to the future of the existing "shop"? In a town where empty shops and shops occupied by "the lower end" of the business world is a much criticised problem and a definite turn-off for visitors, is there a risk that not only will the council be spending money for the sake of it, they will also be adding to the run-down appearence of the area and making Gloucester even less attractive to the very people who might want to use a Tourist Information Centre?

I could be really cynical and suggest that Gloucester doesn't need a Tourist Information Centre - just a sign saying "Nothing to see here - move along. Wipe your feet on the way out" - but I won't.

I will just say that there's no point paying the equivalent of half a dozen nurse's salaries on providing leaflets for tourists until AFTER the town has been cleaned-up and the core problems sorted such that we can attract enough visitors who will want or need to use it. No-one ever visited a town just to visit the Tourist Information Centre - and they are of limited use to locals anyway.”

“I notice there is no allocation for conservation - surely some money should be put aside to preserve the few remaining treasures we have left in Gloucester before they crumble to dust.

Also some of the budget to rescue the roman remains under the old college media centre before another bulldozer secretly destroys another lot important finds.”