"We didn't give Market Street land away" say council, it just takes us a year or two to work round to telling anyone. Options

[Andy Capp]

Seems a bit odd this one. It seems in 2010 the land was valued at £3.9m. Around 2013 the land was given away in exchange for developments that are alleged to be to the value for around ~£6m and now it seems Mr Law is pleased to debunk the 'give-away' fallacy. It is just a shame that this wasn't all disclosed at the time, then perhaps we wouldn't have had this fallacy in the first place. Mind you, it also assumes the information is correct and in context; surely it is not a bit of spin or double accounting?

[Lolly]

Seems a bit odd this one. It seems in 2010 the land was valued at £3.9m. Around 2013 the land was given away in exchange for developments that are alleged to be to the value for around ~£6m and now it seems Mr Law is pleased to debunk the 'give-away' fallacy. It is just a shame that this wasn't all disclosed at the time, then perhaps we wouldn't have had this fallacy in the first place. Mind you, it also assumes the information is correct and in context; surely it is not a bit of spin or double accounting?

Absolutely! Hopefully the NWN or the questioner ( Peter Norman?) will follow up with a request for the detail to support the assertions. I'd also like to know when the Council expects the benefits to be realised & be assured that they have watertight contracts given their previous performance with Parkway.

[On the edge]

We've given up the deeds of the farm for this shiny new tractor which these nice people are letting us use for a while. What could possibly go wrong.

PFIs were a brilliant idea too weren't they Mr Law?

[Sherlock]

There's an excellent letter in the paper today which thorougly debunks Cllr Law's claimed benefits. They are supposed to include the new bus station (terribly located and only needed because of the development, of course!) and a new multi-story car park (only needed because current open car parks will be built on). These aren't 'benefits' at all - they are only made necessary by the fact that the Urban Village (sic) is being built where it is.

I've no idea where they find people like Cllr Law - propping up the bar in the Conservative Club, presumably. I realise he and his colleagues are doing a thankless job and it's very difficult to get decent candidates. But, as the years go by, we are increasingly seeing lazy, ill thought through and often just plain dumb decisions from our 'one party state' council together with attempts at explanation and justification which just treat the public like idiots.

Sadly, given the complete absence of any credible opposition, and the fact that one is unlikely to emerge during our lifetimes thanks to the utter meltdown of the useless Libdems and the complete shambles of Labour under Corbyn the one party state is set to continue.

Oh well, it could be worse. And probably will be.

[Cognosco]

There's an excellent letter in the paper today which thorougly debunks Cllr Law's claimed benefits. They are supposed to include the new bus station (terribly located and only needed because of the development, of course!) and a new multi-story car park (only needed because current open car parks will be built on). These aren't 'benefits' at all - they are only made necessary by the fact that the Urban Village (sic) is being built where it is.

I've no idea where they find people like Cllr Law - propping up the bar in the Conservative Club, presumably. I realise he and his colleagues are doing a thankless job and it's very difficult to get decent candidates. But, as the years go by, we are increasingly seeing lazy, ill thought through and often just plain dumb decisions from our 'one party state' council together with attempts at explanation and justification which just treat the public like idiots.

Sadly, given the complete absence of any credible opposition, and the fact that one is unlikely to emerge during our lifetimes thanks to the utter meltdown of the useless Libdems and the complete shambles of Labour under Corbyn the one party state is set to continue.

Oh well, it could be worse. And probably will be.

That's the serious problem with our Local Authorities they just do not understand what they are doing is wrong..........or do they?

[On the edge]

That's the serious problem with our Local Authorities they just do not understand what they are doing is wrong..........or do they?

Yes, but its probably worse, they actually think they are doing right! We are to blame, voting them in time after time after time. We have the West Berkshire blues; light blue or dark blue, your choice!

[Sherlock]

That's the serious problem with our Local Authorities they just do not understand what they are doing is wrong..........or do they?

Perhaps it makes some sort of sense and Cllr Law is just incredibly bad at explaining it? We need a properly independent review not one (reading between the lines of another council related letter on this week's letters page) chaired by an 'independent' consultant paid £650 a day to give the results the council wants...

[On the edge]

Perhaps it makes some sort of sense and Cllr Law is just incredibly bad at explaining it? We need a properly independent review not one (reading between the lines of another council related letter on this week's letters page) chaired by an 'independent' consultant paid £650 a day to give the results the council wants...

Well, that's one way of putting it; and I'd hazard there is a great deal to explain.

On the face of it, the Council has simply disposed of some old assets which are no longer needed by the community And used the proceeds to pay someone to deliver something that is actually needed. In other words, in the years before, they've been saving up to do the job, but instead of putting it in the bank invested in property.

So far so good.

BUT

That all assumes there is a fairly detailed long term plan that both main parties wholly agree with. It must also mean we've been holding some pretty valuable assets whilst we knew that key services were threatened. Equally, as these 'developments' are ongoing, there are probably more such assets and more such development plans.

Who, of us, the great unwashed, has seen, let alone agreed with the 'big plan'? How come it's never mentioned in any of the election addresses, etc, etc, etc. Oooh we haven't any money to do anything......

Yes, they are all in it together - up to their necks in it.

[Sherlock]

has simply disposed of some old assets which are no longer needed by the community

I'd question whether it's simply 'disposing of old assets'. Isn't the main asset involved here land? And isn't land right in the town centre and next to the railway station very valuable? If not, why not? Someone in central Newbury with half a garden to sell off to a developer would get a very good price for it, wouldn't they?

And you haven't addressed the main point of the NWN's letter writer: that Law's claimed 'benefits' are only needed to replace assets that the development itself will destroy.

Not asking you to explain, Mr Edge, but these are the sorts of question we in the great unwashed need answered. Cllr Law's patronising announcements aren't addressing them.

[On the edge]

I'd question whether it's simply 'disposing of old assets'. Isn't the main asset involved here land? And isn't land right in the town centre and next to the railway station very valuable? If not, why not? Someone in central Newbury with half a garden to sell off to a developer would get a very good price for it, wouldn't they?

And you haven't addressed the main point of the NWN's letter writer: that Law's claimed 'benefits' are only needed to replace assets that the development itself will destroy.

Not asking you to explain, Mr Edge, but these are the sorts of question we in the great unwashed need answered. Cllr Law's patronising announcements aren't addressing them.

Yes, you are quite right. There are many important unanswered questions. I was being nice suggesting the Council was treating the property simply as an investment - like stashing cash in a foreign bank, hidden from prying eyes; including ours. They might well argue that the value of the land without the development increment was low, but we'll never know because they've acted as the auctioneer as well. Now, imagine you did a stitch up like that commercially; and we are, of course, technically part owners, your first step would be a visit to trading standards....at our very own WBC.

Does anyone round here actually care? Looking at the past decade in election terms; the answer has to be no. Mr Law would have been better advised to do up his coat, put up his collar and turn his back to the wind.

[On the edge]

I'd question whether it's simply 'disposing of old assets'. Isn't the main asset involved here land? And isn't land right in the town centre and next to the railway station very valuable? If not, why not? Someone in central Newbury with half a garden to sell off to a developer would get a very good price for it, wouldn't they?

And you haven't addressed the main point of the NWN's letter writer: that Law's claimed 'benefits' are only needed to replace assets that the development itself will destroy.

Not asking you to explain, Mr Edge, but these are the sorts of question we in the great unwashed need answered. Cllr Law's patronising announcements aren't addressing them.

Sorry, duplicate post!

FGW broadband faster than ever plus surprise of getting coffee served at your seat again. Wow, somethings do get better!

[Andy Capp]

Again, as is the case with other issues, it is a story that needn't exist, but West Berkshire Council's PR seems poor. And as has been said already, Mr Law's comment was patronising too. It has been a commonly held belief that the land was supplied to the developer 'for a pound' for a new build and there have been plenty of opportunities to explain the reason for the 'give-away'. Perhaps the council feel it is none of our business, in which case it deserves the criticism it is given. What is disappointing is that we will now have even more homes that are out of reach of the average house hold income.

[Cognosco]

We've given up the deeds of the farm for this shiny new tractor which these nice people are letting us use for a while. What could possibly go wrong.

PFIs were a brilliant idea too weren't they Mr Law?

Supreme Leader "Have you managed to sell that Market Street land for £6 million?" Officer "No Supreme Leader but I have managed to trade it for a handful of beans a replacement bus station and a car park".

Supreme Leader " But you idiot we already have a bus station and a car park so what use is a handful of beans"

Officer "Well Supreme Leader my mum always read me the Jack and the Beanstalk fairy tale when I was young so I am hoping this will lead to the golden egg"

[gel]

And have any Public Rights of Way been lost, as with Parkway?
(As revealed in the Michael Portillo TV series, when he was banned from
filming, and giving Parkway free publicity).

Will there be a Panama connection too

[Biker1]

Sorry, duplicate post!

FGW broadband faster than ever plus surprise of getting coffee served at your seat again. Wow, somethings do get better!

GWR OTE, GWR!
See what improvements a name change can bring!