Ms Genevieve Margrett, Rutland Kino, Cinema, Victoria Hall, 39A High Street, Oakham, Rutland, LE15 6AH Planning and Licensing Committee - Tuesday, 2nd November, 2021 6.00 pm Video Public Deputations From Mr Paul Beech, Mr Peter Jones, Mr Robinson

Ms Genevieve Margrett, Rutland Kino, Cinema, Victoria Hall, 39A High Street, Oakham, Rutland, LE15 6AH Planning and Licensing Committee - Tuesday, 2nd November, 2021 6.00 pm Video 

 

APPROVED.

2021/0855/FUL Ms Genevieve Margrett, Rutland Kino, Victoria Hall, 39A High Street, Oakham, Rutland, LE15 6AH, The refurbishment and conversion of the Victoria Hall to a 2 Screen digitally equipped cinema with a cafe bar, foyers, multi-use `lounge' and ancillary facilities. 

2021/0856/LBA Ms Genevieve Margrett, Rutland Kino, Victoria Hall, 39A High Street, Oakham, Rutland, LE15 6AH, The refurbishment and conversion of the Victoria Hall to a 2 Screen digitally equipped cinema with a cafe bar, foyers, multi-use `lounge' and ancillary facilities.

I do hope Rutland County Council recruits a full time conservation officer to ensure this building is cared for.

I would also like to see a full compliment of Trustees appointed in accordance with the deed requirements.

I also question why when a person is appointed Trustee they are not required to sign the legal Trustee documents?

I would also like to see all those who have been Trustees for over the legal five year period step down. Possible before the Charity Commission take appropriate action. A member of the public told me at the meeting they have raised these concerns with the charity commission.

I also question why, when the chair of Trustees was questioned by a Rutland County Councillor, they responded with misinformation. 

The trustees can not shut down the hall and let the charity commission sell it, any of those actions would go against their legal obligations as Trustees of Victoria Hall. Perhaps anyone who is a Trustee and feels that is the option if the cinema project fails they should step down, clearly they have little understanding of the role responsibilities of a trustee.

The hall Trustees have a big problem ahead, the local paper last night reports the cinema might open at the end of next year, 2022. I wonder what provision they have put in place to safe guard the hall for 2022, clearly not enough when you hear they have only issued rental agreements below market value, all due to end on the 31st December 2021. It also became clear they have not yet agreed the sum of money the proposed new 25 year lease holders will pay into a fund to put things right if the business fails. They need to agree that, because I am sure the Trustees could not afford their legal responsibility to put it right. When the Chair of Trustees was asked has the new lease been signed he did not answer. I would suggest that is a no. Especially as Kino have still not reached there investment target. 

The word due diligence were used a few times by the Chairman of the trustees. I wonder if the few trustees understand the meaning of that? because if you cut of all you income from the 31st December 2021 without any guarantee the cinema project will go ahead, that does not seem to me they have use any due diligence to me. 

Lets hope it all goes well and Kino do a good job setting up and have enough money to sell over 1000 tickets a week and pay the rent, staff and all the other costs going forward. 

Former Oakham Mayor Mr Beech, Receives £80 Fine Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.

Former Oakham Mayor and Ex Town Councillor, ABF Soldiers Charity Organiser and
Ex Tesco Employee Mr Beech, has been issued with a £80 Fine,  for a offence covered by Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. His conduct on Remembrance Day, fell below what anyone would expect from
a ex service man.



Thank's to Oakham police for taking my complaint and another's seriously.

A lot of time has been taken up in resolving this matter,  Police time and witness's time.
Lets hope this brings a long period of unpleasantness to an end, this should have ended the
day he dumped a bag of ties on the council table back in 2010. Coping with those connected
to local governance is worse than being trapped in the school playground full of bullies at times,
now lets hope this man has learnt his lesson...


at the end of the email from the police are links the third as normal does not work so
I can not give Leicestershire Police positive feedback.

Stay informed of policing news in your area and sign up to www.neighbourhoodlink.co.uk

Been subject to a crime? Or want to prevent one from happening? Go to www.leics.police.uk/support

Leicestershire Police is keen to hear your views about policing in your area. Please take a moment to visit www.leics.police.uk/haveyoursay and complete our on-line survey.

Penalty Notices for Disorder (PNDs) were provided for in s1-11 of the Criminal Justice and
Police Act 2001. They were introduced by the Government to provide the police with a quick
and effective means of dealing with low level, nuisance behaviour – often alcohol-related – that
typically occurs in city centres at night and weekends.

The offences included in the scheme are summary offences where the most likely court outcome
would be a fine.
The scheme enables the police to issue penalty notices on the spot or in a police station.
Use of PNDs removes these minor cases from the courts, significantly reducing the paperwork
a police officer needs to complete and provides an efficient means for the police to tackle minor
offences which may not previously have warranted the resources required for prosecution.

Under the scheme the police may issue a person who has committed a specified penalty offence
with a fixed penalty notice. The recipient then has 21 days in which to pay the penalty or
request a court hearing.

If the penalty is paid all liability for the offence is discharged and there is no criminal record.
If a court hearing is requested the process defaults to a standard prosecution.
If no action is taken within the 21 day period then a fine of one and a half times
the penalty is automatically registered (without the need for a court case) against the penalty
notice recipient. The fine will be enforced in the same way as any other fine by the courts.

PNDs were piloted1 and rolled out nationally during late 2003 and 2004, as a response to both
the police and the Government wanting a speedy and effective alternative option for dealing
with low-level nuisance offending that does not warrant attendance at court.

The Penalty Notice for Disorder (PND) scheme is based on the long standing Fixed Penalty
Notice scheme for road traffic offences. PNDs are issued to individuals and there is no
requirement for an admission of guilt nor is a conviction recorded against the subject.

PNDs are issued to individuals who commit specified penalty offences.

The PND scheme includes offences within 2 separate tariffs subject to penalties of £50 and £80,

Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. (Referred to throughout the report as Section 5)

Section 1 Theft Act 1968 (retail theft)2. (Referred to throughout the report as theft)

Section 1(1) Criminal Damage Act 19713. (Referred to throughout the report as criminal
damage)


These three offences are all in the higher, £80 tariff and are all recordable4 and notifiable
offences that count as both a Sanction Detection5 and Offence Brought to Justice (OBTJ)6.
The effective usage, recording and counting of PNDs are key factors in contributing to the PSA 1
target to bring 1.25m offences to justice by 2007/08.