Marsh Lane give away Options

[On the edge]

It seems NTC have taken up the cudgel offered by our local historian and started to beat WBC for giving up the right of way down Marsh Lane to the Parkway developers! Giving away the land, controversial though it may be, they could just get away with justifying as a commercial deal, but a right of way? And an ancient well used one at that!

Given the weird position of the Tory opposition, claiming it's all OK because WBC have a 'letter' from the developer, its perhaps ironic that this would not have been discovered had not two goons from the Developer shooed away prominent Tory Portillo! Equally, another of their number, our leading citizen the Mayor, is the most prominent supporter; but then he's well into coalitions with LibDems; who says they have no influence!

It will be interesting to see how this one develops in the new political landscape...

[Ruwan Uduwerage-...]

It seems NTC have taken up the cudgel offered by our local historian and started to beat WBC for giving up the right of way down Marsh Lane to the Parkway developers! Giving away the land, controversial though it may be, they could just get away with justifying as a commercial deal, but a right of way? And an ancient well used one at that!

Given the weird position of the Tory opposition, claiming it's all OK because WBC have a 'letter' from the developer, its perhaps ironic that this would not have been discovered had not two goons from the Developer shooed away prominent Tory Portillo! Equally, another of their number, our leading citizen the Mayor, is the most prominent supporter; but then he's well into coalitions with LibDems; who says they have no influence!

It will be interesting to see how this one develops in the new political landscape...

Dear Forum Members,

It is only fair to state from the outset that Cllr Anthony Pick, the former Mayor is the person who initiated this within the Chamber and received the full support of the Liberal Democrats, but his own Party decided to side with their Tory colleagues at the District Council.

So much for Tories being interested in Newbury, but we are already aware of this from their lack of interest in supporting the retailers over the on-street car parking fiasco.

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera
Newbury Town Council - Councillor for Victoria Ward & Deputy Leader

[CharlieF]

It seems NTC have taken up the cudgel offered by our local historian and started to beat WBC for giving up the right of way down Marsh Lane to the Parkway developers! Giving away the land, controversial though it may be, they could just get away with justifying as a commercial deal, but a right of way? And an ancient well used one at that!

Given the weird position of the Tory opposition, claiming it's all OK because WBC have a 'letter' from the developer, its perhaps ironic that this would not have been discovered had not two goons from the Developer shooed away prominent Tory Portillo! Equally, another of their number, our leading citizen the Mayor, is the most prominent supporter; but then he's well into coalitions with LibDems; who says they have no influence!

It will be interesting to see how this one develops in the new political landscape...

I'm sure I've already told you this, OtE, but prior to Portillo and David P being denied access to Marsh Lane, I and the two lovely young women (above photographed on the same day) in Apolitical T-shirts were not just prevented from walking down Marsh Lane to Park Way handing out election material, but we were prevented from pausing to shelter from the rain in a doorway in Marsh Lane, NOT handing out leaflets! Having been rebuked, by a couple of rather menacing security guards, which we accepted, we not allowed to even stand there because we were still dressed in the T-shirts. The rationale that was given? We should have paid for the right to do so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[On the edge]

I think you did! My fault for not following it up, but I suppose that's a symptom of the lethargy that has overcome many of us; failing to keep tightly involved.

The issue is an important one and arguably, a serious erosion of our rights has occurred. In my view the ownership of land could still have been negotiated without any need for our loosing the right of way.

There should be no need for the development firm to employ heavy handed muscle anyway. After all, NTC actually employ wardens themselves to help the Police maintain good order.

[CharlieF]

I think you did! My fault for not following it up, but I suppose that's a symptom of the lethargy that has overcome many of us; failing to keep tightly involved.

The issue is an important one and arguably, a serious erosion of our rights has occurred. In my view the ownership of land could still have been negotiated without any need for our loosing the right of way.

There should be no need for the development firm to employ heavy handed muscle anyway. After all, NTC actually employ wardens themselves to help the Police maintain good order.

Short of removing the T-shirts and getting ourselves arrested there's not a lot we could do about it.

If lobbying WBC is successful in that the council has the will to try to reclaim it, what are the options? Even if they are found to have failed to conduct a proper consultation, (which I can't see them admitting) I'm not at all sure that it is in their power to reverse the stopping up order. It's not our land anymore. I don't think WBC can just change their minds. SLI could claim that the whole deal was contingent upon them having control of the whole site, revoking this could surely open up the possibility of the gaping maw of legal action against WBC for breach of contract. So why doesn't WBC try to buy it back with a compulsory purchase order? The irony is too huge - they give away an enormous asset then buy it back? For how much? A pound? Do we really think that any amount of polite requests by WBC, NTC and individuals will prompt Standard Life Investments into gifting the right of way back to the people of Newbury? Still, it's a long shot but worth trying I think, as you know. But if that fails...

Direct action applied to SLI by a mass boycott of the shopping centre might do the trick. If the retail tenants can't trade successfully they might apply pressure on SLI. Or they might also just up sticks and go. And what politician is going to want to be seen to have lobbied for a blockade of trade in the Town resulting in permanent loss of traders? So if that's to be a goer it will surely have to be grassroots action and not an NTC resolution. Can the public be mobilised to that extent on a point of heritage? It would be nice to think so....

Whether we can get it back or not, if it is found that proper consultation was not conducted, what do we do about the mismanagement, the failure to retain this access? Do we sack the officers or Chief Exec, and call for resignations of members who voted it through? I don't think it was just the ruling group who voted for this either... so is the Lib Dem group on NTC calling for their heads too? Just a thought.

This also brings up the wider issue of the right to hand out leaflets in the streets in the tradition of the pamphleteers of the 18th and 19th Centuries. Park Way is private property and they charge a fee for access to leaflet on their property, even if it's not commercial. They have a right to refuse access to flyer, but can they really refuse access because of what we wear? I don't think so. Something to challenge perhaps? Even if one sticks to the streets, and that's still allowed here as far as I know, a quarter of councils are already making charges and restrictions on handing out leaflets with "no flyer zones" or leafleters having to buy a licence. But does that apply to pamphleteers and canvassers as distinct from commercial activities? If so how does it square with the right to protest? Just thinking out loud really, but it's something to keep an eye on.

[On the edge]

It's a difficult one and nothing too dramatic is likely to happen without some sustained public protest as you rightly suggest. Looking at the issue through a wider and perhaps contorted lense, one could make an argument that this is akin to miss selling on a grand scale; let's face it, we weren't given the full facts in a clear way. If the public can't understand an electricity bill, they ain't going to understand the legal implications of this lot. As for heads, perhaps this is a matter for the District Auditor, though previous experience I've had there suggests they are pretty toothless, only interested in fine detail process. Nonetheless Dame Shirley Porter and co didn't like what happened to them.

[CharlieF]

one could make an argument that this is akin to miss selling on a grand scale; let's face it, we weren't given the full facts in a clear way.

Indeed, but even if it is found to be so, what to do about it? You can't fine the councillors as there was no personal gain. Fine the council? Money out of our pockets again...

[Andy Capp]

Is there not some kind of public access/right of way that can be enforced, or do 'West Berkshire Bay' have empowerment to revoke that?

[NWNREADER]

Is there not some kind of public access/right of way that can be enforced, or do 'West Berkshire Bay' have empowerment to revoke that?

I believe WBC 'gave up' the old public right of way and allowed a limited one, owned by the developers. Hence RUPs comment (I think) the NTC Conservatives failing to raise any censure of WBC. If that is so, those Councillors should hang their heads, as their work for NTC should stand alone from WBC. Indeed, I remember reading a disclaimer in Minutes that Councillors on one body will not be bound to (or from) a view at another.

[CharlieF]

do 'West Berkshire Bay' have empowerment to revoke that?

I don't think they have that power (see my lengthy post above).

those Councillors should hang their heads, as their work for NTC should stand alone from WBC.

Some of them are the same Councillors.

[On the edge]

Indeed, but even if it is found to be so, what to do about it? You can't fine the councillors as there was no personal gain. Fine the council? Money out of our pockets again...

That's quite right, that's the same debacle of 'fining' NHS organisations when they fail, heads we loose, tails we loose. Though it might be shutting the stable door and all that, but could the penalty be to have the Councillors concerned disbarred from office? That may well achieve the clear out many here have been seeking.

[Ruwan Uduwerage-...]

Just for the information of ALL:

Agenda for the Newbury Town Council Meeting 8th May, 2014

Motion for Debate (tabled by Cllr Anthony Pick - Conservative)

Newbury Town Council fully supports the campaign by Dr David Peacock for the re-establishment of a public highway among Marsh Lane to access Jack of Newbury's House. We agree with his contentions that:

(i) The transfer of title to Marsh Lane to Standard Life Investments should not have been made without public consultation;
(ii) The public consultation leading to the 2006 decisions= to extinguish the public highway along Marsh Lane was inadequate;
(iii) Both decisions were taken without considering the effect on access to this primary Newbury Heritage site, and were therefore wrong.
In these circumstances we consider it is the responsibility of West BerkshireCouncil to reverse this error, not that of Newbury Town Council which lacks the specialist resources to do so.

The letter from SLI to WBC of 27th January 2014, which confirms the company's present intention to keep Marsh Lane open, provides only a contingent and transitory solution, since control over access to Jack of Newbury's House remains in private hands. The response ro far given by WBC which quotes this letter is therefore not satisfactory.

We therefore call on West Berkshire Council to restore the public highway along Marsh Lane.

....

This motion was supported totally be the Liberal Democrat group which includes WBC members, but was rejected by the Tory opposition, man of whom are WBC members.

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera
Newbury Town Council - Councillor for Victoria Ward & Deputy Leader

[Turin Machine]

Well done. Let's see how that goes.

[gel]

Did wbc follow legal niceties re footpath?
If not, that's a channel for redress.

I believe proposals to alter/extinguish paths/byways etc., requires notifications in local papers of proposals (beforehand ), signs to be erected along route including maps, so Joe Public can respond.

If local council then approve has to be finally signed off by Secretary of State I believe.

[Andy Capp]

This motion was supported totally be the Liberal Democrat group which includes WBC members, but was rejected by the Tory opposition, man of whom are WBC members.

I find it astounding that a town councillor would vote against the motion, unless they were sure that due processes had been followed! In other words, the motion was in error.

[Simon Kirby]

Did wbc follow legal niceties re footpath?
If not, that's a channel for redress.

I believe proposals to alter/extinguish paths/byways etc., requires notifications in local papers of proposals (beforehand ), signs to be erected along route so John Public can respond,including a map.

If local council then approve has to be finally signed off by Secretary of State I believe.

I'm guessing that it would have been necessary to challenge the lawfulness of the council's actions through judicial review, and you'd have had three months from the decision to do that, so completely out of time.

I would also suggest that a complaint could be made to WBC which it would consider through it's complaints process.

I also note that the public way the town council has handled their criticism of WBC, publicly calling for action rather than asking the town clerk to write a private letter, and particularly the way they have fed the press with the story, would qualify the town council as Vexatious Complainants under the WBC complaints policy.

[CharlieF]

SLI - say it out loud not so nice is it.... sli.

Just saying.

[NWNREADER]

QUOTE
those Councillors should hang their heads, as their work for NTC should stand alone from WBC.

Some of them are the same Councillors.

Then they vote on NTC in accordance with the interests of Newbury. If that amounts to criticism of another Council on which they sit, tough. Maybe they should've scrutinised the matter when it passed through their hands in that place?

[Exhausted]

I seem to remember a public notice during the construction early days when WBC advertised in the NWN a stopping up order for Marsh Lane. I believed that this was a stopping order during construction and not in perpetuity and I suspect that others, including the Newbury Society thought that as well. As has been proven, that was not the case.
Being conned goes against the grain with me and I wonder if this was ever passed across the council chamber or if they, like us, were not consulted.
No doubt the leader(s) were kept in the loop but from what I understand, the negotiations were conducted by the council officers and when something came along which may have been contentious the ruling party was expected to support them.
The John Lewis leverage for the eventual concrete block that covered what was hailed by SLI in their original plans as a café and pleasant public area, went straight out of the window. Don't mention the loss of affordable housing and the carpark funding by the way. Good old Pamela Bale gave that one away so it proves that the portfolio holders were aware but I'm sure it was after the event.

[MontyPython]

I seem to remember a public notice during the construction early days when WBC advertised in the NWN a stopping up order for Marsh Lane. I believed that this was a stopping order during construction and not in perpetuity and I suspect that others, including the Newbury Society thought that as well. As has been proven, that was not the case.
Being conned goes against the grain with me and I wonder if this was ever passed across the council chamber or if they, like us, were not consulted.
No doubt the leader(s) were kept in the loop but from what I understand, the negotiations were conducted by the council officers and when something came along which may have been contentious the ruling party was expected to support them.
The John Lewis leverage for the eventual concrete block that covered what was hailed by SLI in their original plans as a café and pleasant public area, went straight out of the window. Don't mention the loss of affordable housing and the carpark funding by the way. Good old Pamela Bale gave that one away so it proves that the portfolio holders were aware but I'm sure it was after the event.

If the public were suspicious that WBC councillors/Staff were receiving backhanders from the developers this would do nothing to quell those suspicions!