Town secrets, TCP - sinister or stupid? Options

[Bofem]

Oh dear, after all that kerfuffle over the unwanted pavilion, Newbury Town Centre Partnership (an unelected social enterprise if you're new to all this) is still struggling to be open and transparent with us.

Three meetings have happened, and still no new details on their website. Makes me wonder if there's more behind this BID than meets the eye.

http://www.newburytowncentre.co.uk/

[Simon Kirby]

Oh dear, after all that kerfuffle over the unwanted pavilion, Newbury Town Centre Partnership (an unelected social enterprise if you're new to all this) is still struggling to be open and transparent with us.

Three meetings have happened, and still no new details on their website. Makes me wonder if there's more behind this BID than meets the eye.

http://www.newburytowncentre.co.uk/

Oh really, you are so ill informed.

[Bofem]

Well as if by magic, our Secret Society has now published a censored account of its last two meetings.

[Simon Kirby]

Well as if by magic, our Secret Society has now published a censored account of its last two meetings.

Yes, I saw that. Apparently the Vicky Park Survey is to be published at the end of January.

Anyone know why NTC gives the TCP £4k of our council tax money each year? I'd rather have seen the Town Council asking the TCP for £50k to do the Christmas Lights.

And I see too that NTC has pledged its gushing support for the BID Co, though I don't remember their business plan and budget coming up before a committee of the Council for their consideration and resolution.

[Bofem]

And I see too that NTC has pledged its gushing support for the BID Co, though I don't remember their business plan and budget coming up before a committee of the Council for their consideration and resolution.

Yes, this shopping stealth tax is almost upon us. I was hoping for a new era of transparency, but you can see from the minutes that it's a way to rebrand the TCP and grab some tax-raising powers on the way.

Don't know what's happening with NTC. The town clerk chap Graham Hunt said he was "disappointed" that details on the CCTV cover-up were leaked. At the previous meeting, he called some of us ill-informed internet posters. What's CCTV got to do with NTC? Nothing. So keep your opinions to yourself Mr Hunt.

[user23]

Yes, this shopping stealth tax is almost upon us. I was hoping for a new era of transparency, but you can see from the minutes that it's a way to rebrand the TCP and grab some tax-raising powers on the way.

Don't know what's happening with NTC. The town clerk chap Graham Hunt said he was "disappointed" that details on the CCTV cover-up were leaked. At the previous meeting, he called some of us ill-informed internet posters. What's CCTV got to do with NTC? Nothing. So keep your opinions to yourself Mr Hunt.

You seem a tad confused.

In one paragraph you're calling for more transparency from NTC, the next you're saying the "town clerk chap", the Chief Executive, should keep his opinions to himself.

[Simon Kirby]

You seem a tad confused.

In one paragraph you're calling for more transparency from NTC, the next you're saying the "town clerk chap", the Chief Executive, should keep his opinions to himself.

The two statements are orthogonal.

Nothing to see here, move along now.

[user23]

The two statements are orthogonal.

Nothing to see here, move along now.

They're quite clearly not, given they're about the same organisation and how it disseminates information.

Look at how he says "I was hoping for a new era of transparency" but then comments "keep your opinions to yourself".

[Simon Kirby]

They're quite clearly not, given they're about the same organisation and how it disseminates information.

Look at how he says "I was hoping for a new era of transparency" but then comments "keep your opinions to yourself".

There's no incompatibility in wanting an organisation to speak only on matters that concern it, and to publish everything it says.

[user23]

There's no incompatibility in wanting an organisation to speak only on matters that concern it, and to publish everything it says.

Trouble is, he's incorrectly deemed that CCTV doesn't concern NTC and there's the problem, who decides what concerns an organisation? Surely it's the organisation itself.

Sadly, once again he's proved the "ill-informed internet posters" statement to be true.

[blackdog]

Oh dear, after all that kerfuffle over the unwanted pavilion,

The kerfuffle is far from over - they are still determined to build in the park.

Newbury Town Centre Partnership (an unelected social enterprise if you're new to all this) is still struggling to be open and transparent with us.

Unelected and over-secretive, and probably to be replaced by an unelected BID group with no interests outside of retail profits. Out of the frying pan and into the fire.

[Simon Kirby]

Trouble is, he's incorrectly deemed that CCTV doesn't concern NTC and there's the problem, who decides what concerns an organisation? Surely it's the organisation itself.

Sadly, once again he's proved the "ill-informed internet posters" statement to be true.

You're seeing problems where there aren't any: CCTV doesn't concern NTC because as far as I know there has been no discussion and resolution on the matter, ergo, it doesn't concern them.

But that wasn't your point, you were saying that it's inconsistent to want NTC to limit its opinions to things that concern it whilst at the same time hoping for greater transparency. Do you want to explain that, or do you feel it was a little ill-informed.

[Exhausted]

You're seeing problems where there aren't any: CCTV doesn't concern NTC because as far as I know there has been no discussion and resolution on the matter, ergo, it doesn't concern them.

But that wasn't your point, you were saying that it's inconsistent to want NTC to limit its opinions to things that concern it whilst at the same time hoping for greater transparency. Do you want to explain that, or do you feel it was a little ill-informed.

I believe the use of the word concern is not right here. As a Town Council, they can be concerned about anything that happens in their parish as can you, Richard Garvie and I but they are not in this case, responsible for its operation and implementation. So, whilst they may be concerned, their only recourse if they are concerned is to discuss it with the people who are responsible and if they are told like perhaps you, I and Richard Garvie to s*d off but in a nice way, that's all that can be done. They could of course ask for a public enquiry but that may fall on deaf ears.

[Bofem]

Unelected and over-secretive, and probably to be replaced by an unelected BID group with no interests outside of retail profits. Out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Well maybe not. Oxford rejected BID recently, even though it was fronted by the man who'd set up Swindon's successful BID.

I can't see it failing in Newbury, because the voting is rigged according to floorspace. All you have to do is court the big retailers (SLI, M&S and Camps are already on board) and "ker-ching", the TCP lives on under a new guise.

It's a real shame. I was quite into the BID as a way of curtailing WBC's compulsion to "do the right thing wrong" regarding Newbury. But as Newbury's much smaller than many other BID areas, the big guys will get what they want and the little guy has to pay for it.

[Simon Kirby]

I can't see it failing in Newbury, because the voting is rigged according to floorspace. All you have to do is court the big retailers (SLI, M&S and Camps are already on board) and "ker-ching", the TCP lives on under a new guise.

The BID can only go ahead if there is a majority by number, and also weighted by size - both counts have to be in a majority for the BID to proceed.

[Bofem]

The BID can only go ahead if there is a majority by number, and also weighted by size - both counts have to be in a majority for the BID to proceed.

Thanks for that Simon.

I am beginning to wonder if the Newbury BID is a good thing. The experts predict that only a third of retail growth in the next 5 years will come from the high street, with the other two thirds from online sales.

So you could argue that town centres will have to work harder just to stand still. But add on the likely shop rent rises coming through from 2012, and it starts to get expensive.

Add to that the adverse impact Parkway will have on Newbury (rent rises, new footfall patterns, higher wagebills etc) and it's difficult to see how a BID will address these issues.

[Richard Garvie]

What are the benefits for traders in Cheap Street and Bart Street south of the Kennet Centre? If there are not significant benefits, the BID zone should be altered so that those businesses are not part of the scheme. I've had a number of calls today from business in those areas, and my advice was to contact the BID team direct to make their concerns known so that the BID team can hopefully address those issues in the planning stage.

[dannyboy]

First you were for the BID, then against, & now undecided.....

[Simon Kirby]

First you were for the BID, then against, & now undecided.....

FWIW I believe Richard's concern with the BID has consistently been that the small independents, and especially the traders in the areas he mentions, will not get sufficient benefit from the BID as against the increased cost of the levy.

[Simon Kirby]

If it's openness you're after you might try this: S.137A of the Local Government Act 1972 makes it a requirement for the Town Council to impose a condition on grant funding of £2000 or more that the body receiving the grant (assuming it to be a body which provides any public service, whether to the public as a whole or to any section of it, in the United Kingdom otherwise than for the purposes of gain) gives the Council a written report of how the money was spent, which in practical terms means an annual financial report, and if you are registered as a local government elector in the parish of Newbury you have an absolute right under S.228(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 to demand to inspect and make copies of that financial report at any reasonable time at the Town Council office (at a maximum charge of 10p), and it is a criminal offence under section 228(7) if the officer refuses you access - assuming they made the annual £4k grant conditional on the report, and the report was deposited.

Go along and ask and see where you get.