IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Control Tower at Greenham, Back on the agenda again?
On the edge
post Nov 23 2016, 08:28 AM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,326
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



Although this is no longer strictly Newbury it could reinforce a trend which will affect the town. Big question; can Greenham Parish really afford to create and run this project; particularly at a time when other long established public services are being cut or curtailed? Sure, it's a nice thing to have, but now?


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Nov 28 2016, 10:16 AM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,911
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 23 2016, 08:28 AM) *
Although this is no longer strictly Newbury it could reinforce a trend which will affect the town. Big question; can Greenham Parish really afford to create and run this project; particularly at a time when other long established public services are being cut or curtailed? Sure, it's a nice thing to have, but now?

Can they afford it? Of course they can - parish precepts are unconstrained, even with the proposed increase to pay for the project Greenham residents will still pay a far lower precept than Newbury. The question is should they afford it?

I don't see why not - the district council cuts should not be used as an excuse for parishes not to do things, if it is a nice thing to have why not have it?

Perhaps if they used it as a day care/respite centre a couple of days a week everyone would be happy?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Nov 28 2016, 10:16 AM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,911
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 23 2016, 08:28 AM) *
Although this is no longer strictly Newbury it could reinforce a trend which will affect the town. Big question; can Greenham Parish really afford to create and run this project; particularly at a time when other long established public services are being cut or curtailed? Sure, it's a nice thing to have, but now?

Can they afford it? Of course they can - parish precepts are unconstrained, even with the proposed increase to pay for the project Greenham residents will still pay a far lower precept than Newbury. The question is should they afford it?

I don't see why not - the district council cuts should not be used as an excuse for parishes not to do things, if it is a nice thing to have why not have it?

Perhaps if they used it as a day care/respite centre a couple of days a week everyone would be happy?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Nov 28 2016, 10:18 AM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,911
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



I see the Conservatives are not putting up any candidates for the forthcoming by-election to Greenham PC - so it's Lib Dem v Labour. Have any of the candidates stated whether they are pro or anti the control tower project?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Nov 28 2016, 05:38 PM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,326
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (blackdog @ Nov 28 2016, 10:16 AM) *
Can they afford it? Of course they can - parish precepts are unconstrained, even with the proposed increase to pay for the project Greenham residents will still pay a far lower precept than Newbury. The question is should they afford it?

I don't see why not - the district council cuts should not be used as an excuse for parishes not to do things, if it is a nice thing to have why not have it?

Perhaps if they used it as a day care/respite centre a couple of days a week everyone would be happy?


No problem with that; as you say, it would certainly have some uses; a library springs to mind. I've a friend in Greenham who says as the Parish Council thinks it has the competence, to take over pot hole repairs first. There is always one!

This also gives lie to the myth that local government is desperately short of money, clearly it isn't. The ripping out function from the main bureaucracy is really designed to achieve centralisation by stealth. Lets just hope that the Boundary Commission turns its attention to Parish level Councils. To make this work some of the larger ones need slimming down. No reason why Wash Common, Clay Hill etc shouldn't be enfranchised.



--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Nov 28 2016, 06:10 PM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (blackdog @ Nov 28 2016, 10:16 AM) *
I don't see why not - the district council cuts should not be used as an excuse for parishes not to do things, if it is a nice thing to have why not have it?

How about a monorail?


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Nov 28 2016, 06:14 PM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,241
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



Or a discounted pub?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Nov 28 2016, 06:49 PM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,326
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



Shaw House ought to be transferred to the Parish Council; that doesn't even need a building project.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Nov 28 2016, 08:44 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,022
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 28 2016, 06:10 PM) *
How about a monorail?
It is only a matter of time before Newbury gets a monorail.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Nov 28 2016, 08:58 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 28 2016, 06:14 PM) *
Or a discounted pub?

A swift-half at the expense of the taxpayer?


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Nov 29 2016, 01:55 AM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,911
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 28 2016, 06:49 PM) *
Shaw House ought to be transferred to the Parish Council; that doesn't even need a building project.


Shaw has enough problems finding parish councillors now, add in the responsibiity of Shaw House and I doubt there would be a parish council.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Nov 29 2016, 06:45 AM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,326
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (blackdog @ Nov 29 2016, 01:55 AM) *
Shaw has enough problems finding parish councillors now, add in the responsibiity of Shaw House and I doubt there would be a parish council.


Oh dear, outlook for voluntary libraries looking bleak then!


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Nov 29 2016, 11:53 AM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,911
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 29 2016, 06:45 AM) *
Oh dear, outlook for voluntary libraries looking bleak then!

I'd guess that it is a lot easier to find volunteers for libraries than parish councillors.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Nov 29 2016, 07:57 PM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,326
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (blackdog @ Nov 29 2016, 11:53 AM) *
I'd guess that it is a lot easier to find volunteers for libraries than parish councillors.


Yes, you are probably quite right. From what I can make out, even the small rural parishes have problems. Little wonder then that their politicised bigger siblings are often serviced by double dippers. Isn't this, coupled with the apparent lack of any real formal oversight rather a problem? Public disinterest could lead to individuals following their own agendas which damages the credibility if not the integrity of local governance?


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Nov 30 2016, 02:29 PM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,911
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 29 2016, 07:57 PM) *
Yes, you are probably quite right. From what I can make out, even the small rural parishes have problems. Little wonder then that their politicised bigger siblings are often serviced by double dippers. Isn't this, coupled with the apparent lack of any real formal oversight rather a problem? Public disinterest could lead to individuals following their own agendas which damages the credibility if not the integrity of local governance?


Shaw *** Donnington is a fairly small parish (pop about 1800) - it just happens to border Newbury, a fair chunk of which is often thought of as being in Shaw.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Nov 30 2016, 07:17 PM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,326
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (blackdog @ Nov 30 2016, 02:29 PM) *
Shaw *** Donnington is a fairly small parish (pop about 1800) - it just happens to border Newbury, a fair chunk of which is often thought of as being in Shaw.


Quite so; therein lies the fundamental problem; which illustrates the logical reason for having a unitary council!



--------------------
Know your place!
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: 17th October 2017 - 10:15 PM