Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Grumpy Apr 30 2012, 08:55 AM

Voting for the BID (Business Improvement District) ends today. I am disgusted to discover that the Parkway shops have a special concession and will have to pay only 50% of what the other shops in Newbury are expected to pay.

Why should they have a special concession?

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 30 2012, 09:33 AM

Possibly because it is the council's pet.

Posted by: badmummajamma Apr 30 2012, 10:38 AM

Because, unfortunately, the rental price for those vacant units against the potential revenue from a limited local customer base is seemingly making Parkway an unattractive proposition for retailers.
If you then told propspective retailers that they had to pay more money towards the BID, it would only serve to discourage them further. There's also a disincentive for those stores currently occupying Park Way to contribute to the BID, since they're already in the nice new bit of town (and paying a premium for it no doubt).
That's my speculation anyway.
I just wonder how much the activities of the BID will actually contribute towards creating a vibrant town centre. While it's nice to have a good-looking highstreet with "activities" etc going on, I think most people are attracted to town centres for the retail offer. If the shops people want to shop in aren't there, they'll go elsewhere, regardless of how many hanging baskets line the streets.
On that note, I was under the impression that NTC currently picks up the bill for things like hanging baskets in the town centre. If the BID reduced the tax-payer's liability for making the town centre look nice, I'm all for it, but I suspect that it wont.
All I see the BID as is another QUANGO devised and implemented by the same old "Newbury Mafia". I don't doubt that it's all well-meaning, but I think incentivising potential independent retailers to take the risk of opening on Newbury high street is better than imposing more charges on them.

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 30 2012, 10:59 AM

I was under the impression that PW was outside the BID zone, so no payments will be required.

Posted by: NewburyP Apr 30 2012, 11:03 AM

As I understand it there is a discount applied to the Kennet Centre as well; this is a standard discount in all BIDs for properties that fall within a managed development. These occupiers already pay a service charge towards marketing, security, cleaning etc and therefore are entitled to a BID levy discount.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 30 2012, 11:42 AM

Ah-ha! Good point.

Posted by: Grumpy Apr 30 2012, 12:16 PM

Well for my business in the BID area, I have to pay for marketing via my website and direct mail, plus advertisements in local newspapers (including this one). I have to pay a substantial fee to my alarm company for security and I also have to pay a cleaner. I have voted NO and I hope the BID fails.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 30 2012, 01:08 PM

Good point returned!


What is it you are against?

Posted by: NewburyP Apr 30 2012, 03:39 PM

I can understand that Grumpy feels that the BID will not benefit his/her business as it is not located in the centre of the BID area. The BID, however, will generate circa £250k a year to be spent in Newbury and promoting Newbury; it is then upto each business to find ways to capitalise on the increased footfall.

Better to put energy into attracting more customers than campaigning against the BID - what is the alternative plan?

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 30 2012, 04:03 PM

As the great Dave insists "we are all in this together" it just seems that it will cost some more than others then?

Posted by: Grumpy May 1 2012, 08:19 AM

I am unable to opt out of the payment. If the BID is accepted, I have to pay it whether I like it or not.

They are supposedly raising 200K per annum. £1 Million pounds over 5 years.

70K is going on wages and administration. 30K is going to Newbury Town Council for the Christmas Lights. That has taken 50% of monies already.

Posted by: dannyboy May 1 2012, 09:40 AM

The retailers should be paying for the Xmas lights.

Posted by: Biker1 May 1 2012, 02:14 PM

PLEASE buy some new ones.
The ones we have are an awful, insipid something of nothing.
(Sorry to be talking about this in May!)

Posted by: dannyboy May 1 2012, 02:20 PM

There won't be that much cash.....

Posted by: Grumpy May 2 2012, 07:33 AM

Of those eligible to vote, only 31% voted in favour of the BID.

354 couldn't be bothered and in consequence we are blighted for the next five years.

I still can't understand why places like Speenhamland School were asked to vote. They are not a business.

Posted by: dannyboy May 2 2012, 08:12 AM

Or you could say 354 were happy for it to go ahead so didn't vote NO.

Posted by: Roger T May 2 2012, 08:45 AM

Would you rather there be no jovial illuminations, or some old ones? In my 40 years I've never seen someone complain of "stale" lights. When I was a lad we had the same Christmas Tree and decorations for 8 years. We made the magic with the family spirit.

It was only when my Auntie broke a bauball in a skiing accident that we replaced the decorations.

Posted by: Bloggo May 2 2012, 08:50 AM

I am assuming that your Christmas tree was not in your living room at the time? Or was she off piste?

Posted by: dannyboy May 2 2012, 08:51 AM

It should be the people who are going to financially benefit from the lights who should pay for them. Not the local taxpayers.

There would be uproar if Tesco at Pinnchinton Lane had their Xmas lights paid for by the local council.

Posted by: blackdog May 2 2012, 08:51 AM

The feeble one's used for the last few years are far from jovial - the old energy guzzling one's were far brighter and more jovial.

Posted by: dannyboy May 2 2012, 08:54 AM

I think the best one is the large 'Merry Christmas' which is suspended over the market place. Looks fine from the one side, but is backwards from the other [ Cheap St ] side .

Methinks it is either supposed to be hung against a building, or that there is a 'backside' to the array which spells Merry Christmas correctly for viewing from that side, which was not ordered.....

Posted by: Roger T May 2 2012, 09:56 AM

That's the spirit. Energy saving bulbs. The amount of energy they save is made up by the amount of extra energy you exhume while straining your eyes to see anything.
I have 100w bulbs throughout my house. I leave them on most of the day.

But would you rather poor lighting than no lighting at all? I'd rather take Sainsburys Basic beef stock than no gravy whatsoever.



Oh I am in agreement with you. I think in communal areas using a small amount of tax payers money is fair.
But likewise I think that Christmas lights in Tescos as you say should not be paid for by the tax payer. I would be quite annoyed, as would Mrs T, she feels strongly about it.

My Nephew on the other hand, just likes the "pretty lights". Even at his teenage years.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 2 2012, 06:18 PM

Crikey O'Reilly dannyboy, you could have lifted that from one of my own posts. Though I would just add that the organisation that benefits most from the Chrimbo Lights is actually the Town Council who milk the service for £13,000 of direct administrative staff costs, and a further £15,000 of administrative costs, staff costs, and overheads, all on top of the £33,000 running costs for the lights.

The lights are predominantly a town-centre marketing campaign as you say, but they're jolly enough and I don't resent a small contribution to them from the Town Council precept, like £15k or so, but the whole thing needs to be managed and largely funded by BIDCo who can do the thing way more efficiently, and if BIDCo wanted to farm it out to the Round Table or the Newbury Society and save a bit more cash Big Society-style then everyone's a winner.

Posted by: Cognosco May 2 2012, 06:32 PM

Christmas Lights Self Management? Isn't one vexatious award enough Simon?

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 2 2012, 06:40 PM

Curiously enough it was for this very financial breakdown that the Council declared me to be a Vexatious Complainant. We joke about it, but in Newbury you really aren't allowed to question what the Town Council do and how efficiently they do it.

Posted by: dannyboy May 2 2012, 06:46 PM

Are you saying that NTC just sit around all day doing nothing, thinking up jolly wheezes as to where they can trouser some cash from?

They must have a pretty tidy stash now.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 2 2012, 06:58 PM

He's saying quite the opposite.

Posted by: dannyboy May 2 2012, 07:02 PM

What that they actually do do something.

Odd cos, I took the sentence the organisation that benefits most from the Chrimbo Lights is actually the Town Council who milk the service for £13,000 of direct administrative staff costs, and a further £15,000 of administrative costs, staff costs, and overheads, all on top of the £33,000 running costs for the lights.

to mean exactly what I posted.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 2 2012, 07:04 PM

Are you saying that £13,000 in staff costs and another £15,000 of administrative costs, staff costs, and overheads, all on top of the £33,000 running costs for the lights is good value? It's not even as though they have to put the lights up or anything, a contractor does that, all they do is arrange the switch-on event. You could employ a junior local government officer for eight months of the year for £13,000, and the £15,000 administration cost is twice what BIDCo spend to run their whole operation!

Posted by: dannyboy May 2 2012, 07:07 PM

So you are saying it!

I've no idea what it would cost to install Xmas lights in a town the size of Newbury.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 2 2012, 07:10 PM

Actually, you and he are right. I think they might spend most of the time seeing how they can trouser the budget rather than off-load or save it.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 2 2012, 07:11 PM

Either you haven't read the Business Plan, or it's evolved and the one I've read is out of date, because http://www.newburybid.com/brochure/index.html#/27/zoomed BIDCo will raise around £265k each year, £212 from your BID levy, and will spend around £200k directly on promotional projects with just £65k on wages and administration costs. That to me looks outstandingly good value.

Posted by: dannyboy May 2 2012, 07:13 PM

Cripes - an organisation run just for the sake of it & costing everyone loads more than it need to!

Off load the budget too far & your own reason to exist expires.

Maybe the Xmas lights can go back to the 'good old days' when the Council would start testing long festoons of GLS lamps in October & the we'd see the council electrician & his mate to string them up in late November .

Posted by: dannyboy May 2 2012, 07:15 PM

An admin ratio of 25%. We'll it is better than Oxfam.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 2 2012, 07:18 PM

I wouldn't use your words or emphasis, but what I am saying is that Newbury Town Council's efficiency appears to be very poor. They have very large staff costs and even larger administartion costs and overhead considering the services they provide, and they have also gone to some effort to suppress any informed discussion of that efficiency or alternative means of providing those services, and I don't see how that can be in the public interest.

Posted by: dannyboy May 2 2012, 07:23 PM

You'd have to compare the percieved efficiency of NTC with another council of similar size.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 2 2012, 07:24 PM

You get a spot-prize if you can name the local charity with a management and administration to total expenditure ration of over 70%.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 2 2012, 07:25 PM

Zimbabwe?

Posted by: Nothing Much May 2 2012, 08:46 PM

Gordon Bennet. He is sharp, a moment later there is the point.
ce