Martyrs play raises money for Museum
In March 2016 the Amersham Society sponsored the production of the community play, The Life and Times of the Martyrs of Amersham. This was the 4th time this highly acclaimed play had been produced by Stan Pretty, assisted by Sally Alford, in St Mary's Church, Old Amersham. The 2016 production was as successful as its predecessors.
On the 28th April, the Friends of the Amersham Museum invited Stan Pretty to talk about how the production came about 15 years ago and the historical research that went into the play, research both about the Lollards of Amersham and about life in Tudor times that greatly informed the market and fair scenes.
At the end of the talk, as a fitting climax, Martin Pounce, Chair of the Amersham Society, presented Gary Gotch, Chair of the Amersham Museum, with a cheque for £5700, the profits from the production (pictured above).
Martin Pounce in presenting the cheque said:
We in the Amersham Society have watched the Amersham Museum develop from small beginnings 25 years ago into a stimulating and informative visitor attraction which is the jewel in our community. We are excited by the museum’s plans for expansion and pleased that, thanks to ticket sales and generous sponsorship, we have been able to make this contribution to the Museum’s ambitious fundraising effort.
Gary Gotch, in accepting the cheque, commented:
Stan and his community players put on a fabulous show. It was a privilege to be there. This fabulous cheque reflects both the quality of the performance and the commitment of the Amersham Society to supporting the Amersham Museum. We are hugely grateful.
The money will go towards the expansion of the Museum into the building next door. This will increase the space available by 65% and conversion work will start later this year.
HS2 Update 23 July 2016
We have received the following update from the Buckinghamshire County Council HS2 team:
(Note: previous Updates can be found on the Campaigns part of this web site at http://www.amershamsociety.org/index.php/campaigns/hs2-and-links).
This E-update looks at the ongoing Locus Standi challenges and House of Lords Select Committee process and also the appointment of the new Secretary of State for Transport.
New Secretary of State for Transport
Chris Grayling MP has been appointed new Secretary of State for Transport. In an interview on Radio 4 last weekend he is reported to have said, ‘I have no plans to back away from the HS2 project. And the thing that’s important for people to understand is that HS2 is not simply a speed project, it’s a capacity project’. More details are available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36820702
Locus Standi ruling for MPs
On 11 July Cheryl Gillan MP gave evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on behalf of 7 other MPs along the route, as to why they should be granted Locus Standi in respect of their petitions. The Committee ruled that Locus Standi should not be granted as a right but did say that any MP could appear as a witness for another petitioner. You can read the ruling at http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-committees/High-Speed-Rail/HSRBC-ruling-on-locus-standi-18-July.pdf
Decision on Additional Provisions in the House of Lords
On 7 July 2016 the House of Lords Select Committee made an announcement on Additional Provisions. The full statement can be found at the beginning of the transcript at http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/high-speed-rail-london-west-midlands-bill-lords-committee/high-speed-rail-london-west-midlands-bill/oral/34895.html The conclusion was that the committee will not hear petitions which require Additional Provisions unless they receive an appropriate instruction from the full house. The statement concluded with the following:
‘We are likely to hear petitions from the Chilterns area during October, with petitions from the Colne Valley, Ickenham and Ruislip areas following probably in November. In the event, as we see it the very unlikely event, of our receiving an appropriate instruction, we will of course hear all relevant evidence and submissions and also, no doubt, petitions against the additional provision. But if there has been no relevant instruction by then it would be fanciful to suppose that such an instruction might be given at a later date, and it would be a waste of time and resources for us to hear evidence and submissions that would be relevant only in a fanciful contingency.’>