IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> NTC Fail to Win Viccy Park Lottery Funding
Simon Kirby
post Dec 21 2011, 05:10 PM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



Newbury Town Council's application for Heritage Lottery Funding for Victoria Park improvements has been rejected.

More than six years on, and fifty thousand pounds spent on the application, it's a shambolic end to what has been the miserable mismanagement of our so-called jewel in the crown.

Time for change I think. Confused ownership between NTC and WBC is a large part of the problem, and I think it's time to give both organisations a slap. They clearly can't play nicely together, so one or the other needs to manage the whole thing.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Dec 21 2011, 05:22 PM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Dec 21 2011, 05:10 PM) *
Newbury Town Council's application for Heritage Lottery Funding for Victoria Park improvements has been rejected.

More than six years on, and fifty thousand pounds spent on the application, it's a shambolic end to what has been the miserable mismanagement of our so-called jewel in the crown.

Time for change I think. Confused ownership between NTC and WBC is a large part of the problem, and I think it's time to give both organisations a slap. They clearly can't play nicely together, so one or the other needs to manage the whole thing.


Exactly right. There is another culprit. The District Auditor should investigate and stop what are really power games. They don't - just make sure the forms are filled in right. What a wicked waste of public money.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Exhausted
post Dec 21 2011, 05:29 PM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,722
Joined: 4-September 09
Member No.: 320



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Dec 21 2011, 05:10 PM) *
Newbury Town Council's application for Heritage Lottery Funding for Victoria Park improvements has been rejected.

More than six years on, and fifty thousand pounds spent on the application, it's a shambolic end to what has been the miserable mismanagement of our so-called jewel in the crown.

Time for change I think. Confused ownership between NTC and WBC is a large part of the problem, and I think it's time to give both organisations a slap. They clearly can't play nicely together, so one or the other needs to manage the whole thing.


That's a shame. How much did that application cost and how much did the previous one cost. Money down the drain but it will be interesting to read why this one was rejected. The earlier one was directly down to WBC not coming clean on what it proposed for the park.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gel
post Dec 21 2011, 05:43 PM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 947
Joined: 11-September 09
From: Thames Valley
Member No.: 337



Possibly not enough multi culturism in application which always scores well with such public bodies, and earns what we used to call 'extra brownie points.' Probably can't say that now?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Dec 21 2011, 05:48 PM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (On the edge @ Dec 21 2011, 05:22 PM) *
There is another culprit. The District Auditor should investigate and stop what are really power games. They don't - just make sure the forms are filled in right. What a wicked waste of public money.

Good point. But I also expect councillors to work in the public interest and challenge this behaviour, but all we get is political posturing. It's disgraceful.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Dec 21 2011, 05:59 PM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,025
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



QUOTE (gel @ Dec 21 2011, 05:43 PM) *
Possibly not enough multi culturism in application which always scores well with such public bodies, and earns what we used to call 'extra brownie points.' Probably can't say that now?
Why can't one say "extra brownie points"?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Dec 21 2011, 05:59 PM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (gel @ Dec 21 2011, 05:43 PM) *
Possibly not enough multi culturism in application which always scores well with such public bodies, and earns what we used to call 'extra brownie points.' Probably can't say that now?

Community involvement is the big thing with the HLF, they like to see the community genuinely involved Big Society-style. NTC created the Friends group to support the application, but it was hopelessly cynical and easy to see through - a bunch of blue-rinsers is pretty obviously not representative of the park demographic. Real grass-roots community involvement is difficult to spoof and not only does NTC not understand it, they positively loathe the idea.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post Dec 21 2011, 06:44 PM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,452
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Dec 21 2011, 05:10 PM) *
Newbury Town Council's application for Heritage Lottery Funding for Victoria Park improvements has been rejected.

More than six years on, and fifty thousand pounds spent on the application, it's a shambolic end to what has been the miserable mismanagement of our so-called jewel in the crown.

Time for change I think. Confused ownership between NTC and WBC is a large part of the problem, and I think it's time to give both organisations a slap. They clearly can't play nicely together, so one or the other needs to manage the whole thing.


Unfortunatley either one means bad management in my opinion. NTC only carries out instructions from WBC so both organisations should be declared no longer fit for purpose. angry.gif


--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post Dec 21 2011, 06:50 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,452
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Dec 21 2011, 05:48 PM) *
Good point. But I also expect councillors to work in the public interest and challenge this behaviour, but all we get is political posturing. It's disgraceful.


They are too far out of touch with public interest now and taxpayers have lost all faith in our local councillors.
It will require a complete change of heirarchy to have any chance of turning this around.


--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Dec 22 2011, 12:19 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



The Pavilion kills the bid again...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Dec 22 2011, 01:12 PM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Dec 22 2011, 12:19 PM) *
The Pavilion kills the bid again...

You have some info on this?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Jan 1 2012, 03:14 PM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



Just noticed in the draft budget for next year that the failure of the HLF bid has triggered plans to borrow £250k from the Public Works Loan Board, with the tax-payer bearing the cost with a 2.1% levy on the precept. Strikes me that it would be throwing good money after bad to invest anything more in the park until the management issues are resolved, especially at this time when I'm being taxed for that money. See under Capital Expenditure right at the end of Appendix 2.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Jan 1 2012, 05:26 PM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



I don't understand these things, but wonder why there is a need to borrow money just because the bid failed?
Neither do I see the 2.1% precept levy.....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Jan 1 2012, 06:17 PM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



Simply, there isn't any need to borrow money. Then again, the original idea of employing accountants was to ensure there was no confusion over finance. Seems we have got that wrong as well.

In the present circumstances it would be senseless to spend any more money on Victoria Park until the development requirement was known and agreed.

In a time of recession, where there are cutbacks in every other area of spending it would be quite irresponsible to continue.

A perfect example of Local Government waste.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Jan 1 2012, 06:27 PM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Jan 1 2012, 05:26 PM) *
I don't understand these things, but wonder why there is a need to borrow money just because the bid failed?
Neither do I see the 2.1% precept levy.....

All I can tell you is what's in the draft budget, I'm not aware that any of this has been discussed in committee though if it has that would hopefully explain more. The draft budget says:
QUOTE
Victoria Park PWLB Building repayment £21,050 If HLF bid fails - £250,000 over 20 years (reduces each year) (includes interest - revenue - too)

£21,050 is approximately 2.1% of next year's precept.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Jan 1 2012, 07:09 PM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



Sounds to me like someone who lives in the NTC area should ask why the loan is being applied for and the precise terms. The information I see does not say why the loan is needed.
Is the loan payment an added burden on the precept, or included within? i.e., if the loan does not go through will the precept reduce?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post Jan 1 2012, 09:17 PM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,452
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212



QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Jan 1 2012, 07:09 PM) *
Sounds to me like someone who lives in the NTC area should ask why the loan is being applied for and the precise terms. The information I see does not say why the loan is needed.
Is the loan payment an added burden on the precept, or included within? i.e., if the loan does not go through will the precept reduce?


Just what have you been drinking over the festive season NWNREADER? Have you ever know it to reduce? Oh come on! rolleyes.gif


--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Jan 1 2012, 09:19 PM
Post #18


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



Or perhaps start promoting a more radical alternative. Can't we get rid of these penny ha'penny councils and do what was mooted in the first place? A unitary authority - but one for the whole area. West Berks is too small to be effective and constrained by the dead hand of the parish councils. Cabin boys trying on the Captains uniform...


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Jan 1 2012, 09:58 PM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Jan 1 2012, 07:09 PM) *
Sounds to me like someone who lives in the NTC area should ask why the loan is being applied for and the precise terms. The information I see does not say why the loan is needed.
Is the loan payment an added burden on the precept, or included within? i.e., if the loan does not go through will the precept reduce?

Yes, the PWLB repayment would be just like any other NTC liability and collected through the precept in the usual way, so if the loan isn't taken it knocks off 2.1% from the precept. The Council have an outstanding PWLB loan already for a much smaller amount that they took out when NTC was formed, but this is the first I've seen any plan to take out another loan for the park.

A £250k loan would certainly complicate things if NTC were to surrender the lease and WBC were to take back the management of the park, as I can't see WBC wanting to fork out £250k to redeam NTC's loan, and so NTC would be left with a £250k debt without any asset to show for it.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Jan 1 2012, 10:19 PM
Post #20


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (On the edge @ Jan 1 2012, 09:19 PM) *
Or perhaps start promoting a more radical alternative. Can't we get rid of these penny ha'penny councils and do what was mooted in the first place? A unitary authority - but one for the whole area. West Berks is too small to be effective and constrained by the dead hand of the parish councils. Cabin boys trying on the Captains uniform...

From my perspective that would work out very well. WBC, like many top-tier councils, don't need the administration and cost that goes with a directly managed allotment service so they'd likely take the easy option and offer self-management - the tax-payer saves £100k and we get a well-managed service with better facilities and reduced rents - everyone's a winner.

My first thought for services such as the cemetery would be that a large faceless organisation like WBC would not have the customer care and personal touch that a small parish council would have for such a sensitive service. But then I remembered, this is NTC we're talking about, and the care and sensitivity for their cemetery users couldn't be more sh1te if they tried, and despite what we might think, WBC isn't completely useless when it comes to customer service.

We'd lose the town hall and mayor of course, but maybe the Newbury Society would want to provide a Big Society mayor.

Warf toilets, neighbourhood wardens, flood alleviation - these are all WBC services anyways and it was just a slight of hand that NTC were ever involved.

The market might have to close, but then it's only unecconomical because of the WBC cleaning contract which frankly looks like another con, so in WBC hands the market may well thrive.

WBC know how to manage grounds-maintenance contracts so the parks and open spaces would carry on as before, only without the conflict of the confused ownership of Viccy Park.

That's all NTC does really. Doing so little they make such an enormous song and dance over everything they do, but absorbed into WBC we'd get a better service at something like half the cost - and with less council meetings to go to, perhaps some of our councillors might make more of an effort to go to the ones that are left.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th November 2021 - 01:56 PM