33% Cut in NTC Precept Options

[Simon Kirby]

I don't know much about how West Berks and Central Government can save some cash in these difficult times but I've made something of a study of what the Town Council does and where it spends our money. I'm proposing some specific changes that will save the Newbury tax payer £295k on a precept of £907k - so a 33% saving. And the interesting thing is that the quality of the services actually improves because in the spirit of the Big Society people come together to take responsibility for their communities, and quite honestly this is the main reason for proposing the changes. I'm up for the challenge and it's my belief that with the right encouragement many others will want to be part of it too.

I've proposed the majority of this to the Town Council already and it's fair to say they haven't responded positively as yet so I'm making the proposal again here so we can chew it over a bit and see if it has any merit. £295k is not going to solve the national debt, but a 33% saving and an improvement in service quality is too significant for the Town Council to dismiss without some serious discussion and engagement.

CODE

                                    Core saving  Back-office staff fraction
Self-manage allotments                £43,228    £19,631     16%
Grant-assist Christmas Lights £15k    £31,000    £6,360       5%
Self-manage market                    £17,518    £9,015       7%
Grant-assist friends to maintain      £59,117    £10,885      9%
Open Spaces with £40k
Grant-assits friends to maintain      £8,006     £4,291       3%
floral displays with 8k                  
Disband young people's council        £5,167     £2,095       0%
No grant for Town Centre Partnership, £9,000     £0           0%
Volunteer Centre West Berks,
Greenham Community Centre,
Environmental Improvement Scheme
Proportional saving on Town Hall,     £50,461    £19,048     40%
civic expenditure,
committee expenditure
                                      £223,497   £71,325

total saving                          £294,822

The core savings come from saving on the direct cost of the service and the back-office saving is a proportional saving on the back-office administration which previously supported the service, and now that the Council does 40% less it also has to make a 40% saving on its overheads.

The allotments and the market don't get any grant support because they should be self-financing, but the Christmas Lights, and Friends of the Open Spaces and Parks get grants to maintain the service, though in the case of the Friends they'll need to put in quite a bit of their own time too, and I'm anticipating that the Christmas Lights will be managed commercially by the town's traders through the TCP or some other body.

[user23]

Interesting reading though it assumes that they'll be a body who wants to self-manage the allotments and market and in other cases that people will do more for free. More importantly you need to be 100% sure that each of these continue to be sustainable because once given up by NTC they'll never have the money to take it back on, not for a few decades anyway.

Worst case scenario is in a few years time no one wants to take charge of the allotments and as a result they have to close, similar could happen with the market, though this is far less likely.

[On the edge]

Interesting and possible. Finding a body to self manage allotments ought to be quite straightforward. After all its exactly similar to a leashold block of flats. The tenants buy out the landlord and manage the building themselves. If they don't, they suffer the consequences - ample driver to make the 'management committee' work. For the Allotments - lets set them free, market forces would dictate the rents, they'd be self managed, and why ever would the Town Council want to take them back?

Same for the market - why can't the Traders manage the whole thing themselves? If they don't, or don't do it properly - simply close up, again, market forces.

[Iommi]

CODE

                                    Core saving  Back-office staff fraction
Self-manage allotments                £43,228    £19,631     16%

The trouble with amateurs taking on the running of things like allotments, is there'll always be a 'busy-body' like Simon Kirby sniffing around, trying to cause trouble claiming subterfuge!

[On the edge]

The trouble with amateurs taking on the running of things like allotments, is there'll always be a 'busy-body' like Simon Kirby sniffing around, trying to cause trouble claiming subterfuge!

Fantastic - they'd keep the arguments to themselves - all the more reason for letting them run it! As for amateurs, I'm not sure any of the staff at NTC are qualified horticultralists - I know who I'd rather take advice about my spuds from!

[Simon Kirby]

Self-management of allotments is the easiest to justify because it's so well-established in the movement. The problems are well documented and the benefits are well understood. Sustaining enthusiasm for self-management can be an issue, and power-struggles aren't unknown, but on the whole sites are well managed, reasonably well resourced, and the community is good. The National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners are very supportive and if anyone is interested the definitive work is the Local Government Association's publication Growing in the Community which recommends that every council should have a self-management strategy, and if you want to earwig on some of the issues you could do worse than check out the national allotments forum Allotments4All (admin, I hope it's OK with you for me to link there). I'm very happy to arrange a site visit for anyone with a genuine interest.

And everything OtE said.

[Iommi]

Fantastic - they'd keep the arguments to themselves - all the more reason for letting them run it! As for amateurs, I'm not sure any of the staff at NTC are qualified horticultralists - I know who I'd rather take advice about my spuds from!

Yes, but I wonder if we would move from one bureaucracy to another. There would need to be a neutral arbitrator, so as to avoid it becoming an old boys club. The principle sounds fine, if it saves public money, but I think new issues would materialise.

[Jayjay]

Have been trying to work out what management the Council does on markets and allotments. Collects the rents, which I presume would stay the same, and disbar market traders who didn't turn up and allotments that were not tended? If this is the case, then I see no problem as it would be in their own interest to manage it correctly. With the flower displays I can see more problems as it is altruistic. The person in charge could walk away at any time.

[On the edge]

Yes, but I wonder if we would move from one bureaucracy to another. There would need to be a neutral arbitrator, so as to avoid it becoming an old boys club. The principle sounds fine, if it saves public money, but I think new issues would materialise.

Except we wouldn't be paying for it. Of course there would be issues - but that would be amongst those who use the service. Why should we (as the Council) be involved at all? After all, if things did need serious arbitration - that's why we have civil Courts - again 'user pays'.

[user23]

Same for the market - why can't the Traders manage the whole thing themselves? If they don't, or don't do it properly - simply close up, again, market forces.

The market is about more than commerce though, it's part of the history of the town.

If it were to close down Newbury could no longer be referred to as a "small market town" by some, either.

[Strafin]

If it were to close down Newbury could no longer be referred to as a "small market town" by some, either.

It would just be a "small town"? LOL!

[Iommi]

Except we wouldn't be paying for it.

Which I acknowledged in my post.

Of course there would be issues - but that would be amongst those who use the service. Why should we (as the Council) be involved at all?

Because the council, I understand, have a statutory obligation to make allotments available to the public.

After all, if things did need serious arbitration - that's why we have civil Courts - again 'user pays'.

See above.

[On the edge]

Because the council, I understand, have a statutory obligation to make allotments available to the public.

Well then, lets get rid of the statutory obligation! Quite straightforward, after all we've managed to privatise everything else. However, I think the statutory provision has the usual loop holes - meaning they could easily escape - indeed the obligation does not require them to physically have to run the service themselves. Where the's a ill and all that!

[On the edge]

The market is about more than commerce though, it's part of the history of the town.

If it were to close down Newbury could no longer be referred to as a "small market town" by some, either.

I didn't say close - just manage. Simply if the traders can't manage themselves, then they don't deserve to be trading. Closing the market in those circumstances would simply be down to the traders - market forces for real.

Newbury WAS a market town - we have no more than a fair these days. Or can I still bring a couple of pigs and some chicken?

[Simon Kirby]

Parish councils are indeed under a duty to provide sufficient allotments (S.23 Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908) and it's well enough established now that they fulfill their duty just as well whether they manage them themselves or provide them through a self-management arrangement. Interestingly enough NTC are delinquent in their duty to provide sufficient allotments because they can't afford to create new sites despite a significant waiting list.

Self-management is essentially no different from direct council management. The tenant has the same legal proprietary rights and the contract is enforceable in just the same way. Without a complaints procedure and independent appeals panel a non-council landlord would have just the same difficulty enforcing the contract as would a council without these arrangements in place, and were the old boys club to pick on a tenant she would have just the same rights, as OtE said.

Don't lose site of the benefits of self-management. For the tax-payer it's about the tax saving, but for the allotmenteer it's about community and facilities. Working parties bring people together and they're fun, and self-managed sites take responsibility themselves for installing site loos, building trading huts, renovating their hedging, digging drainage trenches, improving track ways, buying shared tools, etc.


I don't buy the historic market thing. It's not a service, it's just somewhere to buy stuff, and if it can't sustain itself then I see no reason why my tax money should prop it up any more than I'd expect the Town Council to subsidise Tesco. As it is I'd be surprised if a well-managed market couldn't do well in Newbury.

[Iommi]

indeed the obligation does not require them to physically have to run the service themselves.

That is right, but a statutory provision for the district means that I think that the provision of allotments should be based on a meritocracy, hence an arbitration process. After all, allotments are on 'public' land, so all have a theoretical stake in the process.

I personally wouldn't like to see things like this 'go private'. I think privatisation tends to lead to exclusivity and therefore less equitable.

I remember as a child helping my Grandad on his allotment, and all that meant to him and others, so I have a certain sympathy (bias) that way.

[Simon Kirby]

That is right, but a statutory provision for the district means that I think that the provision of allotments should be based on a meritocracy, hence an arbitration process. After all, allotments are on 'public' land, so all have a theoretical stake in the process.

I personally wouldn't like to see things like this 'go private'. I think privatisation tends to lead to exclusivity and therefore less equitable.

I remember as a child helping my Grandad on his allotment, and all that meant to him and others, so I have a certain sympathy (bias) that way.

My own experience of Newbury Town Council's equitable management is that they wouldn't allow us to build a site hut, despite sixty tenants signing a pettition asking for it, and despite them having given formal permission - yup, I know that's contradictory, but there you go. I've had official complaints made against me because I brushed my dogs on my plot, and because the singing at our summer social was too loud. I've been phoned up by the Chief Executive on my plot because it was reported to him that I hadn't locked the gate on the way in, and I've been served official notice that the St. George Flag I fly from my shed breaks a site rule because it is higher than 8'. And the Council are to issue possession proceedings against me in December because I haven't paid this year's rent increase, despite the fact that they have agreed with Tading Standards that the rent review was unenforceable, and even though I've written to every town councillor asking for their help not one has agreed to talk to me about this. There's more, but that gives you an idea.

[Iommi]

And the Council are to issue possession proceedings against me in December because I haven't paid this year's rent increase, despite the fact that they have agreed with Tading Standards that the rent review was unenforceable, and even though I've written to every town councillor asking for their help not one has agreed to talk to me about this.

If true, then it shows what a bunch of <rude word (plural)> they are.


I'm not arguing against a change, only that if one is made, that it wouldn't replace one 'Masonic' like organisation, with another one.

How would legal issues be paid for?

[On the edge]

Quite - utter madness! Turns the allotments into a cost centre rather than a profit generator. If it was thrown over to you all to manage - all NDC would have to do is bank the rent cheque for the land once a year.

[Bofem]

If anyone is concerned that the charter market would become an 'old boys club' if self-managed should be aware of what's happening NOW.

The market has been operating (quite possibly illegally) as a cartel, blocking out competition (which as we know leads to poorer quality, higher prices and less choice. No wonder it's now a third of the size from 10 years ago when NTC took it on!

But don't take my word for it...here's a verbatim transcript of the NTC Market Working Party minutes from August 2010.


STALL VETTING PROCESSCaroline outlined our current vetting process for new traders to the market. Currently, a potential trader either calls into the office, telephones the office or calls/visits Steve Brind directly. We ask them what they want to sell and inform them of the charges and conditions required to trade.
We do not have a set process, but if the trader is not conflicting with an existing trader then Steve arranges for them to come onto the market.

In the past, we have turned potential traders away as it was perceived that they would be in direct conflict with existing loyal traders.This was discussed within the group and it was agreed that we need to look after our existing loyal traders and also ensure that the market has a good variety of stalls.

It was agreed that if a potential trader wishes to sell a completely different product on the market then we should follow our existing process of allowing them a pitch as soon as possible (subject to terms & conditions). If a potential trader wishes to come onto our market and they had a similar range to sell as an existing trader then all members of the MWP should be invited to express a view. New traders should be checked to ensure that they are only selling what has been agreed.

http://www.newbury.gov.uk/Agendas10/agendacs100920.pdf

I've reported this to the Office of Fair Trading, but they say it's not big enough for them to commit resources, so I suppose the next step is WBC Trading Standards, unless fellow forumistas can suggest anything better.

Next time you wonder why our market's failing - remember that it's the failure of our town council to sort out the 'old boys club'.

PS Same applies to Thames Valley Farmers Market, which is why there's only one of everything.