Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Bofem Dec 18 2010, 07:55 AM

http://www.newburytowncentre.co.uk/tcpminutes101015.pdf is planning a public consultation on raising 1% business tax from town centre businesses to be used to improve things like safety, visitor numbers and appearance, which involves putting together a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_improvement_district business plan.

It looks like overheads for this are about 20%, with the other 80% of funds raised going directly to improvements.

In the absence of any public consultation, I thought I'd start a thread to find out what we think. (PS I'm in favour).

See http://www.livingreading.co.uk/index.php?cID=4&cType=document for how it's going in Reading.

Posted by: user23 Dec 18 2010, 08:51 AM

Sounds like a good idea, for a trial at least.

Who actually raises the money though, can the TCP levy tax on businesses in Newbury?

Posted by: Bofem Dec 18 2010, 09:13 AM

I believe you need government permission, and the tax is usually collected by the district council and passed on.

A quick win I can think of is that the Christmas lights could be handed over to them, and so would no longer be taxpayer funded....and so should lead to a cut in council tax from Newbury Town Council.

Posted by: Iommi Dec 18 2010, 10:25 AM

...or frees up cash for other needs (like an ageing population). A reduction of CT is highly unlikely.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 18 2010, 10:34 AM

Not the best idea given that the biggest competitive threat is Newbury Retail park. Frankly, the best way to solve this would be to tax ALL benefits in kind properly. That means the 'free car parks' at most supermarkets and retail parks. That would have been done had HMG not been so scared of Tesco.

Rasing taxes for the town centre only would be regressive - just another nail. Cutting tax is the only way in our economy - good old Adam Smith again.

Posted by: Iommi Dec 18 2010, 10:43 AM

And the voter. Giving Tesco et al the need to put prices up because of parking tax would also give supermarkets the ammo to accuse the government of loading the burden on the poor as well. Not the wisest idea from a political point of view.

Posted by: Biker1 Dec 18 2010, 12:45 PM

I suppose it depends on if you are a shopkeeper, already hit by sky high rents and business rates, or not.

Posted by: user23 Dec 18 2010, 01:37 PM

The majority of shops in town seem to cope with supposedly "sky high rents and business rates".

Perhaps those that can't are in the wrong business?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Dec 18 2010, 01:52 PM

My concern would be that the high street and Kennet Centre are almost full at the minute, if we are going to do anything we need to look at ways of improving the northern end of Northbrook Street and the southern parts of the town centre. Lets say we go for the BID, and we spend money on events in the town centre etc. Where will those events be held?

I suppose what I'm getting at is what will the benefit be to the smaller, independent traders who already feel sidelined when events take place? Those businesses who can't afford to be in the middle of town, and take smaller cheaper units on the edge of town. I think the health of Newbury Town Centre is relatively good right now, and things like a BID can have a negative impact (Sleaford is the perfect example). I'm all for exploring it as an option, providing other options are being looked at too.

Posted by: Iommi Dec 18 2010, 01:58 PM

Recently, I saw on TV the other day, that Newbury is a growing retail environment, where as places like Reading are shrinking. I'm surprised nothing was mentioned on here about this.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 18 2010, 02:17 PM

I don't give a stuff about independent retailers. Should I? I'm interested in range, price, and convenience. If a BID gives its members a competative advantage because they can invest in their retail environment then great, and if independents can't survive then sorry, but that's progress. Actually I'd have thought a well managed BID would create local distinctiveness as part of its branding and that would be the saving of the small retailer, but the BID is only as good as the retailers allow it to be.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Dec 18 2010, 02:27 PM

A fairly good point. It will only work if everyone gets behind it. Is there a web site with figures and a plan of how it will work anywhere? I think if it's what the retailers want, we should all get behind it and make sure it happens. If they don't want it, then we should ensure it doesn't happen. For anyone to make an informed decision, we need to see the plans I guess. Every example I've seen has had a negative impact, but that is not to say it can't work here if it is run and planned correctly.

On a side note, if it goes ahead, who will run it and how will that person be selected?

Posted by: On the edge Dec 18 2010, 05:02 PM

Given that twenty years ago most supermarkets were town centre and didn't have car parks. Having to drive some way out of town to buy these 'cheap goods' hardly helps the poor. Politics is all about selling your values and policies, although today that's often translated as selling them out as the LibDems are now demonstrating.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 18 2010, 05:11 PM

Perhaps deserving a thread of its own. However, whilst it might have come as a surprise to some; if you look at the detail demographic trends for the whole area it has been pretty obvious for a while that 'Newbury' is growing. Residential developments when aggregated are on a massive scale. These are set to continue - race course etc. The train service to Paddington is improved and Paddington itself is being commercially redeveloped, meaning a far more attractive commute proposition. That all means the volume of trade in the retail sector has increased as a consequence. If the contibution made by the developments mentioned is removed - then the trading volume percentages are very similar to Reading. It made a good headline and explains why Park Way was always an attractive proposition to the bigger retailers.

Posted by: Iommi Dec 18 2010, 08:02 PM

So Tesco moved there to attract the Waitrose trade did they?


What do you think was the best out come for the country after the election results were announced?

Posted by: On the edge Dec 18 2010, 08:30 PM

Waitrose focus is on a different customer segment. Arguably the best place for food stores is in the retail centre. There were two reasons why these traders started moving out, first a reduction in rent and rates and second the ability to attract far more 'one stop' customers who necessarily needed cars. Savacentre at Calcot is a good example. Just outside the Reading rate area and the ability to create a large car park. The car park is therefore a support and promotion to sales - just the same as any other 'come on'. As such, getting the land in effect rate free is a subsidy.

For me the outcome is quite OK. I was a Liberal through my youth and until the time we moved to Newbury. However, having lived through what the LibDems did in Newbury when they tasted power - I've changed my views and would never vote for them again. I no longer think three party politics works.

To form a Government a joint agreement meant give and take on both sides. It should have meant that each party held on to its core principles at least.

The LibDems had argued that tuition fees were a core manifesto promise, a core pledge. I heard their party chair and shadow education secretary say this quite forceably at a public meeting before the election. Sorry, if they cared that much about their principles this one would have been written into the agreement. Were there ANY principles they were prepared to hold on to at all? Indeed in my view as I said above experience locally suggests otherwise.

Posted by: Iommi Dec 18 2010, 09:25 PM

I largely agree with you except the emboldened text. I don't believe it wasn't a core pledge on the manifesto.

The question is: is Britain more 'Liberal' (or should we say 'fair'), with the Lib Dems in coalition with the Tories, or not?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Dec 18 2010, 11:14 PM

Back on topic, have a look at these links:

Are nationals exempted from Bid schemes? This suggests they can opt out - http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1779146?UserKey=

Plymouth seems to have worked well: http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/plymouth_bid_review.pdf

Rugby happy, coventry less so: http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/2010/07/08/rugby-business-agree-to-renew-bid-scheme-92746-26811246/

I guess it all comes down to what you expect from the BID and who operates it. Once again:

Who is paying for the research and study into the feasability of the proposed BID scheme?

Who will be apointed to run it, what is the selection process and how much will they earn?

What are the benefits to smaller traders and businesses / independents?

Will all nationals have to pay the levy? If not, why not?

Just some questions to start the ball rolling, and is there a place we can see the plans?

Posted by: On the edge Dec 19 2010, 08:36 AM

The questions you pose seem pretty reasonable. Suspect the answers are just as you hint. The benefits seem pretty thin to me - certainly the Plymouth publicity is mainly hype. Strikes me as just throwing money at what is thought to be the problem. Ready, fire, aim! Concerns about the inclusions of 'nationals' also throws doubts on these schemes - without them, this is simply a tax on small traders. Again, tye benefits are very thin indeed. So not convinced this is a way forward.

Posted by: Strafin Dec 19 2010, 09:38 AM

Sounds to me like another tax on anyone who works hard and is succesful in order to prop up a council who are inept at running a town centre retail enviroment. I would only support this if it replaced business rates rather than being in addition to them.

Posted by: user23 Dec 19 2010, 09:56 AM

You seem to be disagreeing with the figures that say Newbury is doing rather well compared to other local towns when it comes to trade. Have you got any figures of your own to back your assertion up?That's because it's positive news about Newbury. Many people on chat boards such as this (and this is true of most local chat boards) like to use them to discuss the negative aspects of an area.

Posted by: Iommi Dec 19 2010, 10:17 AM

I understand that to a certain extent, but this should have been a NWN worthy item.

Posted by: user23 Dec 19 2010, 10:53 AM

Yes, you're right. Which local news was it on?

Posted by: Bartholomew Dec 19 2010, 10:56 AM

Yes you should. There is a place for both large retailers and independents. Large retailers turn over huge volumes of the same products restricting the range they sell. Independents need to fill the niches that this leaves and must provide service and products that the large retailers don't stock quality to survive.

If you look at Newbury, the independents are service mainly related - barbers, hairdressers, nail bars and sandwich shops. Tesco doesn't provide these and the reason is that it cannot be boxed and sold with all red tape and procedures that large companies require. They need personal service and attention. There are Independents going head to head with the large companies such as Barry Forkin, Open and Closed and Tiger Tiger. They are still going because you can get a better range of goods and the personal attention that means you get what you want.

Get rid of the small shops and the variety of goods and service drop and the service becomes impersonal

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 19 2010, 11:42 AM

Read my comment in context. As a consumer I'm interested in price, range, and convenience, and I don't give a stuff whether that's provided by an independent or a chain. You make the case for the independents filling a niche. Well fine. And I'm not much fussed whether the town's retailers set up a BID or not. My feeling is that neither WBC nor the NRA have the nous to do the job, and what the TCP have managed with limited cash has been rather successful so I'd have thought they could drive a successful BID. But whatever, I'd like Newbury town centre to be a clean safe and entertaining place to visit, but if it declines I'll go elsewhere so it hardly affects me one way or the other. What I would like to see is the TCP take responsibility for the Christmas Lights from Newbury Town Council because it's a marketing event that benefits the town's traders and NTC has no business spending £50k of my council tax on it when the TCP could do a better job for less.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 19 2010, 12:00 PM

You need to understand the facts behind the figures. The raw numbers look good but when they are assessed properly you'll find we are on a par with Reading at best. No problems with promoting the area, or indeed supporting trade. Regrettably, this was just pumping sunshine.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 19 2010, 12:05 PM

I think that's right - such arrangements should be run by the traders themselves. In fact, it would be worth our local counillors pulling right away. Gone are the days when Councils did have a good number of local traders and business people as Councillors or Aldermen, mores the pity.

Posted by: user23 Dec 19 2010, 12:24 PM

One one hand you're agreeing when he said he thinks that that NRA (the retailers) don't "have the nous to do the job", then you're saying "such arrangements should be run by the traders".

The two statements are in opposition to each other.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 19 2010, 01:01 PM

Perhaps I haven't made it clear. Today, we have very few Councillors with any knowledge or experience or even understanding of trading. Therefore, we should leave it to the traders.

Posted by: user23 Dec 19 2010, 01:03 PM

So you disagree with Simon when he says that the retailers don't "have the nous to do the job".

What make you so sure they have, when he doesn't think so?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 19 2010, 01:06 PM

The first suggestion was that the NRA don't have the nous to run the BID, and the second is that the retailers should run retail-promotional events. There's no dependence of one idea on the other.

The NRA barely has the support it needs to run itself so it's not unreasonable to suggest that it isn't the organisation to take the BID forward, but that doesn't mean that retailers are not the best people to understand and manage the town centre retail vision, only that the NRA's agenda and vision lack support. As I noted, the TCP has been considerabley more successful, and the Christmas Lights would appear to me to be a very good match both for their remit and ability.

Posted by: user23 Dec 19 2010, 01:11 PM

Isn't the BID all about the town centre retail vision? If retailers are best people to understand and manage the town centre retail vision surely they are the best people to manage the BID too. Shouldn't the organisation that represents them manage it, if this is the case?

If you're suggesting a new retailers' organisation should be set up for Newbury traders if there was any appetite for this wouldn't it have happened already?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 19 2010, 01:23 PM

The BID will be run by a Community Interest Company which will be a new organisation, but the project is being progressed by the TCP. I would have thought that once BIDCo was operating there would be little need for the TCP as such as BIDCo would do all the same consultation.

Posted by: Bartholomew Dec 19 2010, 01:26 PM

I simply replied to your question "Should I care about independent traders". I believe that you should care. You don't. That's fine.
Personally I would prefer a town that's not a clone of thousands of others in the UK and that allows the very things you and I want - price, range and convenience.

Posted by: Bartholomew Dec 19 2010, 01:28 PM

Can you tell me which organisation(s) currently represent the retailers?

Posted by: user23 Dec 19 2010, 01:34 PM

As a shopkeeper, which I believe you are, shouldn't you know this already?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Dec 19 2010, 02:04 PM

I think it's important that we put the smaller traders at the top of our priorities. If some of the nationals refuse to pay, why should the smaller traders have to pay? I will be visiting traders between Xmas and New Year to see what they think and to gauge how much consultation there has been. Those questions again:

Who is paying for the research and study into the feasability of the proposed BID scheme?

Who will be apointed to run it, what is the selection process and how much will they earn?

What are the benefits to smaller traders and businesses / independents?

Will all nationals have to pay the levy? If not, why not?

And is there a place we can see the plans?

Posted by: user23 Dec 19 2010, 02:28 PM

Sounds like you're having an exciting time in the USA, Richard.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 19 2010, 02:44 PM

Whilst you are at it, could you ask what is the one big thing that needs to be done now to make Newbury really spin.

Posted by: Bartholomew Dec 19 2010, 02:48 PM

I have told you previously that I am not a shopkeeper.

Can you tell me which organisation(s) currently represent the retailers?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 19 2010, 03:48 PM

Well, there's the Newbury Retail Association, the Town Centre Partnership, Newbury Town Council, West Berkshire Council, Conservative Association, Lib Dem Party, Chamber of Commerce, St Johns Masonic Lodge, Newbury Round Table, Newbury Rotary Club, St Nicolas' and St George's CofE for starters, who all to some degree or other represent the business interests of their friends and members.

Posted by: Bartholomew Dec 19 2010, 05:07 PM

Thank you. There were a few I hadn't thought of but it shows that from any retailers point of view that the introduction of a new group controlled by one of these bodies is likely to fail. A new organisation can only introduce more infighting which is something that we have enough of already in Newbury.

Posted by: user23 Dec 19 2010, 05:19 PM

Looks like you've pronounced that it's doomed to fail before you've even seen any detail.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 19 2010, 05:29 PM

The governance model for the BID is really its own affair but I would have thought it would have some kind of elected board directing a professional executive. It can only happen if it gets more than 50% support from the retailers in its area, and whether the retailers think it's a good idea comes down to the merits of the idea and the vision of the retailers. It doesn't much matter to me either way as long as I'm not being taxed to fund their promotional events, so whatever they want to do, I want the Town Council to hand over the Chrimble Lights to the retailers, and I'd like them to hand over the running of the market too.

Posted by: Bartholomew Dec 19 2010, 06:18 PM

The detail is at this stage unknown but without the full support of all these organisations, the retailers and the councils, it will be a difficult task to make this work.
If the BID can create enough confidence (and this means solid leadership) then this may work. To be honest, the TCP/TCM (or whatever it is now calling itself) is widely regarded as a self appointed body that doesn't inspire this confidence. If they want to take this on, this is their first task. The Newbury Vision is generally viewed with suspicion and this is their flagship project.
The Newbury Retail Association tried to gain general support but the retailers showed little interest and this is symptomatic of the way that retailers view these organisations.
I sincerely hope that there is enough interest to get the BID going as Newbury Town Centre will continue to struggle without it. The Retail Park has been very successful in attracting custom and this is going to make a BID more difficult.
I haven't pronounced anything is doomed, simply stated the difficulties that the new process will have.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 19 2010, 08:13 PM

I find that interesting - TCP/TCM doesn't inspire confidence and NRA has little support. So why is anyone even suggesting this should be done at all - clearly, the retailers think there's little wrong? If there was, surely there would be much more support. So, lets just save the time, money and effort.

Posted by: user23 Dec 19 2010, 08:18 PM

That's a good point. Why not put it to the vote and see if local traders want the BID though?

Posted by: On the edge Dec 19 2010, 08:27 PM

So is that a good idea -something called democracy!

Posted by: Bofem Dec 19 2010, 09:28 PM

To calm any suspicions....the BID is being led by one of the most successful businessmen of recent times in Newbury.

Patrick Griffin is our foremost architect, and responsible for St Barts School, Park Way, Camp Hopson refurb, Newbury racecourse housing, Faraday Plaza, Sterling Towers, Douai Abbey, etc. Patrick's also one of five directors on the Newbury TCP (which is now a http://www.cicregulator.gov.uk/), and with direct taxation, it would surely follow that the TCP/BID group would have to be open and accountable.

In any case, Patrick's got Standard Life on board, so if the 50 new shops vote in favour there's nothing the 'old' Newbury shopkeepers can do, as it's majority vote.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 19 2010, 09:51 PM

Love it! Do as we say or else. Frankly how this is put doesn't calm my fears at all - quite the reverse. Democracy, but not as we know it.

Posted by: user23 Dec 19 2010, 09:52 PM

I think someone might be on the wind up.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 19 2010, 09:53 PM

I'm sure you are right! Too quick off the mark...

Posted by: Richard Garvie Dec 20 2010, 02:26 AM

I definately think it should go to a vote, but only after those key questions are answered in detail and we know exactly how it will be run here and what purpose it will serve. The Spalding BID was proposed by the people who ran the town centre partnership and it turned out the head honcho was going to get a £60k a year salary to oversee it.

Simon, the BID will unlikely take on Xmas lights and the market, what it will be responsible for is attracting NEW business and visitors to the town centre. Most of the money will be spent on things like marketing (good for the regional media but not local outlets like Newbury Sound or the NWN) and surveys and studies having looked at other examples.

Newbury is doing really well, very few shops tolet on Northbrook Street or the Kennet Centre. The areas most likely to suffer will be the southern end and the northern end which are struggling now, because I really can't see how this will help them. Rather than contributing to the bid, they would be better spending that money on advertising their own business. Newbury is a success compared to certain other local towns, if this additional tax puts businesses off opening in Newbury or independents close, then we will be worse off.

Still, if the business plan is viable, we should back it. Like anything that happens here in West Berkshire, if there was a little more transparency on the matter and we could see all of the plans and costings online or in print, I'm sure people would get behind it if it was right for the town.

PS: User23 - I told you I would be working whilst here

Posted by: factsonly Dec 20 2010, 08:56 AM

Great, tax the shops again, does anyone on here actually know how much shops and other businesses actually pay in rates, PAYE, NI, corporation tax?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 20 2010, 09:20 AM

The proposal is to pay an extra 1% BID levey on the ratable value, so (in this year's figures) rather than business rates of 41.4% of the rateable value, retailers in the BID would pay 42.4%. With that the BID employs retail professionals with the experience and vision to improve the retail performance within the BID. The BID only goes ahead if over 50% of the businesses in the district vote for it. I suggest that the question to ask is why WBC provides so little for that 41.1% levy.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 20 2010, 09:33 AM

Fine, whatever, as long as I'm not being taxed by NTC to provide these things I'm not greatly fussed whether they're done or not.


Who is this "we"? I'm not a town centre retailer, are you? It's a commercial decision for the BID traders, it hardly affects the man in the street. And what's with the Assange-esque need for openness? The TCP is a commercial operation, what is it you need to know?

Posted by: Bartholomew Dec 20 2010, 09:48 AM

I'm not sure that the TCP is a commercial operation. As I understand it the TCP is a Community Interest Company. This is a type of company, aimed at ‘social enterprises’. The profits from these companies cannot be used for anything other than community purposes.

It follows that we need to know that the TCP is using its assets correctly.

Posted by: dannyboy Dec 20 2010, 07:21 PM

Hey - thats exactly how I feel about allotments!!

Posted by: Biker1 Dec 21 2010, 10:47 AM

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 21 2010, 11:39 AM

I pay 13p in the £ for the cost of my allotment, and you, the tax-payer, make up the rest, which for my plot is £315. Merry Christmas!

Posted by: dannyboy Dec 21 2010, 11:50 AM

So nice to see your true colours at last. On the one hand we should be supporting you & your crusade for your allotment ( despite no other allotment holder wanting any part of it ). A remarkable demonstration of why they should be flogged off & to the private sector.

Posted by: Iommi Dec 21 2010, 12:02 PM

You know full well that Simon Kirkby is seeking to remove the cost of the allotments from the tax payer. It is also an assertion that he has no support.

dannyboy: why are you so anti-Simon Kirby? You behave very 'user23' when it comes to topics about allotments and the like.

Posted by: dannyboy Dec 21 2010, 12:06 PM

So he says.

Not a very festive post regards the towns indie retailers was it? Nor a particularly thankful post above either.

Posted by: dannyboy Dec 21 2010, 12:09 PM

I don't belive SK is really trying to save the local tax payer a cent & wish he'd just give his real reasons for wanting to run the allotments himself.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 21 2010, 12:09 PM

And now at last we are in agreement. Write to the Town Council and demand that they devolve their allotment service, and I will form a not-for-profit management company to run the service, and that'll save the tax-payer around £75k. Will you do that for me?

Posted by: dannyboy Dec 21 2010, 12:11 PM

non profit? what is the point in that?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 21 2010, 12:17 PM

As far as I'm concerned a shop is a shop is a shop. As a shopper I'm interested in price, range and convenience. I have very little emotional attachement to shops and it doesn't make one iota of difference to me whether the shop is an independent or part of a chain. Why should it? If independents fill a niche, then great. If nationals out-compete the independents, then that's great too. And if the internet makes the high-street obsolete then that's also great.

Posted by: dannyboy Dec 21 2010, 12:22 PM

I have no interest in growing vegetables. These town centre plots curently used as such are a luxury for the few, which should be sold off for development.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 21 2010, 12:23 PM

It's not-for-profit rather than non-profit. A not-for profit still has to generate a surplus as every business must by law be solvent, but whereas generating a profit is the first priority of every regular business, a not-for-profit doesn't pay dividends to shareholders and its profit is simply reinvested in the business.

Posted by: dannyboy Dec 21 2010, 12:26 PM

I understand the difference. My question still stands.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 21 2010, 12:28 PM

Didn't I explain this in quite some detail already? All six of the towns allotment sites have statutory protection so at the very least you'd need the Secretary of State's permission to sell it and even then you're obliged to provide an alternative site, so in practive allotment sites can't be developed. Their management can however be devolved so the allotment service needn't cost the town £75k.

Are you going to write that letter to the Town Council?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 21 2010, 12:29 PM

I'm sorry, what are you asking exactly?

Posted by: dannyboy Dec 21 2010, 12:31 PM

Why should anyone bother to run allotments if they are not going to make some worthwhile money out of it?

Posted by: dannyboy Dec 21 2010, 12:33 PM

ZZZZZZ

Yeah, I know all about the 'special status' accorded allotments. Maybe the whole allotment movement is in need to overhaul at national level? You can build houses on them if you try hard enough.

A letter to the Secretary of State explaining that, in the current economic climate, perhaps allotments should be sold off to generate some much needed cash ( as well as saving the council the bother of running them ) would be time better spent.

Posted by: Iommi Dec 21 2010, 12:36 PM

The problem I see is that major chains 'abuse' their ability to price-out independents and this isn't always good news for the consumer, nor the manufacturer and supplier. I think your laissez-faire attitude might be a little short-sighted.

Posted by: Biker1 Dec 21 2010, 12:37 PM

Well stop f'ing moaning then!

Posted by: Iommi Dec 21 2010, 12:40 PM

I believe it is also short sighted to think we can just build are way out of a problem. We realy need a population policy. For the good of the people as well as the environment.

...but I would not like this thread to digress into another allotment argument.

Posted by: Iommi Dec 21 2010, 12:40 PM

QED

Posted by: JeffG Dec 21 2010, 12:43 PM

Strangely enough, not everyone is motivated by greed. I imagine that it would be effectively a co-operative run by the allotment holders themselves.

Posted by: dannyboy Dec 21 2010, 12:44 PM

as well as being slightly out of keeping with the lone man crusade against the faceless council image.

Posted by: dannyboy Dec 21 2010, 12:45 PM

these being the allotment holders who have no wish to be self run?

greed? greed would be making an outrageous profit.

Posted by: JeffG Dec 21 2010, 12:47 PM

That's the only way I can see it working, otherwise it's just pie in the sky.

(And where does that daft expression come from? )

Posted by: Iommi Dec 21 2010, 12:48 PM

I think his choice of words were 'unfortunate', but I think I know what he means. Tax payers shouldn't be supporting private enterprise.

Posted by: Biker1 Dec 21 2010, 12:48 PM

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/282700.html

Now we're seriously off topic!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 21 2010, 01:06 PM

I've certainly heard that argument before, particularly directed at supermarkets, but I'm not wholly convinced. It's not in the retailer's interests to squeeze their suppliers so tight that they can't produce sustainably, and the supplier has some responsibility here only to sell at a sustainable price. The agricultural industry seems to have been particularly feckless here, though that's a thread in its own right sure enough.

But if an independent goes head to head with a national on the same terms, then the independent is going to lose, but as a consumer I still get a good deal. I'm not going to buy my veggies from a family green grocer out of some emotional committment to tradition, I'm going to buy everything at Tesco because it's cheaper and more convenient.

A free market seems like the best option for the highstreet because retailers will compete for my custom, and if they make the highstreet more appealing and interesting through collective investment that's only possible through a mandatory levy then I'd like to see them do that.

Posted by: dannyboy Dec 21 2010, 01:12 PM

LOL, that is a good one. The global economy is propped up by the tax payer.

Posted by: Iommi Dec 21 2010, 01:20 PM

The consumer's efforts to focus on price and convenience, isn't necessarily good for sustainability, nor their own good. We already have food that is shipped from round the world to maintain supply and demand for out of season food. I have also heard that supermarkets are not always the cheapest, although they are convenient.

Posted by: Iommi Dec 21 2010, 01:21 PM

You find it funny?

Posted by: dannyboy Dec 21 2010, 01:29 PM

The fact it is so - nope.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 21 2010, 02:12 PM

Well, now you're talking more about environmental sustainability than commercial sustainability, but that doesn't really affect the national/independent argument, though it's true that our purchasing decisions are motivated by more than just price and convenience, and actually it's this that creates niche markets that are often best filled by independents. Does any of that take anything away from the free market?

Posted by: dannyboy Dec 21 2010, 02:17 PM

yes.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Dec 21 2010, 02:45 PM

This thread has gone way off topic. What is important Simon is that inependents and smaller businesses provide a more diverse shopping experience. Without those guys, we would be just another identikit town centre. This is why the BID needs to fully consider those traders and show how it will benefit the town centre as a whole. At present, the BID proposal looks like an additional business tax to provide services slashed by the council which should be provided as part of the traders business rates.

As nobody is answering the important questions either here or on Newbury.net - how can anyone take it seriously?

Who is paying for the research and study into the feasability of the proposed BID scheme?

Who will be apointed to run it, what is the selection process and how much will they earn?

What are the benefits to smaller traders and businesses / independents?

Will all nationals have to pay the levy? If not, why not?

And is there a place we can see the plans?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 21 2010, 08:22 PM

No. To all of that.

Yes, range is important, so a diversity of shops is good, but independents don't of necessity improve range so whatever interventionist regulation you have in mind to benefit independents over nationals isn't serving the consumer, it's just serving itself - who'll be doing all this regulation? That's right, Big Government.

I'm not impressed with the clone-town rhetoric. High streets look the same because we buy most of what we need from nationals, and we do that because nationals sell most of what we buy, cheaper and more conveniently. If an independent can carve out a niche in the highstreet then great, because that adds diversity and diversity is good, but if an independent doesn't survive it's either because they're trying to occupy a niche that's already occupied by a fitter national, or because the niche doesn't exist, and either way it's no loss to the consumer.

The purpose of the BID is to improve the business district, and it does that by employing people who specialize in doing that very thing, in much the same way as department stores, shopping arcades, retail parks, and outlet centres do for their tenants. It sounds like just the job to me, but at the end of the day if the BID looks like a tax to the town's retailers then they won't vote for it, though I think that would be missing a trick.

But to answer your questions: it's nothing to do with the man in the street, and I think the retailers are already being consulted.

Posted by: user23 Dec 21 2010, 08:49 PM

I agree, this is for businesses to decide. As punters we can take an interest in it, but it's up to them to decide if they want it.

Regarding what's been said earlier in the thread, the large retailers must have started off as independents at one point. Walking down Northbrook Street at 8.30am today I noticed that many of the chain/national retailers already had their doors open whereas none of the independents did.

Posted by: Bartholomew Dec 21 2010, 11:46 PM

Which independents are in Northbrook Street?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Dec 22 2010, 12:23 AM

There are very few independents in Northbrook Street as they bulk at paying the high rents and rates that go with it. Let me just make it clear that I don't think independents should get legislation to help them, but I don't think they should be hit by what is increasingly looking like an extension of business rates. If all local traders must contribute, all national companies should have to contribute too. If people like TESCO can avoid paying the BID contribution, then smaller traders should be able to opt out too. That being said, if the BID team outline a plan to help the smaller traders and attract business to other parts of the town centre, I will support it. I'm just growing more and more concerned by the lack of available answers to the questions that I and others have raised.

Posted by: DrPepper Dec 22 2010, 08:55 AM

And where does the tax payer get his money from? Possibly the private sector?

Without the private sector, be they large multinational companies or a corner shop there would be no economy, simple as that.

Simon Kirby - try actually shopping with an independent, you may just be surprised to find you local greengrocer actually has much fresher stock and cheaper (often much cheaper) than Tesco. You've been suckered into presuming a supermarket is cheaper just because they pile it high.

Sorry, had given up with this forum and the ignorance show by some - but couldn't let this go.

Posted by: Biker1 Dec 22 2010, 10:09 AM

Trouble is there isn't a local greengrocer is there? - apart from the market.

Posted by: blackdog Dec 22 2010, 10:50 AM

You should think about being more traditional and growing your own - very inconvenient but I'm told its a rewarding experience. Perhaps you should get an allotment.

Posted by: dannyboy Dec 22 2010, 11:49 AM

He is too busy supplying tesco from his market garden

Posted by: dannyboy Dec 22 2010, 11:50 AM

No economy - what a wonderful idea.

Posted by: Iommi Dec 22 2010, 12:46 PM

...nothing to kill or die for and no religion too.

Posted by: dannyboy Dec 22 2010, 12:48 PM

Fiscal slavery has replaced religion as the way of keeping the masses in check.

Posted by: Iommi Dec 22 2010, 12:55 PM

I have a nicer house to live in than my ancestors had and I don't have to eat offal to survive either (although they have even found a way to make that palatable these days).

Posted by: dannyboy Dec 22 2010, 12:56 PM

Hindsight.

Posted by: blackdog Dec 22 2010, 01:03 PM

??

No shops, no commerce, no jobs, no electricity, no hospitals - doesn't sound so wonderful to me.

Posted by: Iommi Dec 22 2010, 01:05 PM

No foreign holidays, unless you were prepared to wear a red cross, and we would get to dunk a few witches! I'm not sure I could cope without my teeth though, but then I might not be alive to worry about it!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 22 2010, 06:13 PM

Shopped at Tesco last night. Traffic-free drive along Monks Lane, parked for free within 100yd of the entrance, had a coffee and bun and read the paper in the coffee shop, bought DVDs to watch Christmas day, got some booties and baby socks for my doggie's cut paw, bought milk, dairy, croceries, Christmas drinkies, frozen, and veggies - of which there is price/quality range from value, own brand, finest, & organic.

To be honest I'd be surprised if a local greengrocer could be cheaper for the same quality because supermarkets have made it their business to shave their margins and overheads right down to the minimum, but for range and convenience alone the supermarket blows away the competition, and as a discerning vegetable grower ( @ blackdog) I'm also completely happy with the freshness and quality at the supermarket.

Posted by: user23 Dec 22 2010, 06:18 PM

Not many actually, but I did walk down half of Bart Street where there are quite a few and the story was the same.

Posted by: Iommi Dec 22 2010, 06:34 PM

There lies one of the problems in modern society: we cherish less those things that come easy.

These days, Tesco are doing the shopping for us; we will soon depend on them and then they've got us by the bollux, if they haven't already. Tesco et al, have got where they have by being competitive, BUT there is no such thing as a free lunch and I wonder sometimes what the payback will be.

We already waste a great deal and we are getting fatter, I suspect the ease with which we can shop and the lack of judgement we prosecute when we do, doesn't hinder this phenomena.

Posted by: DrPepper Dec 22 2010, 10:45 PM

..

Posted by: Bofem Dec 23 2010, 04:33 PM

The payback is
full time jobs replaced with part-time shelfstacking.
A town of fatties who've forgotten how to cook
A third of food thrown away uneaten