Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 25 2013, 08:21 PM

WBC are reviewing/updating The Vision. Consultation opportunity http://www.westberks.gov.uk/NewburyVision2026

Posted by: blackdog Jun 25 2013, 09:53 PM

Interesting.

Two things stand out - no mention of a pavilion in the park (hooray) and no mention of a country park at Sandleford (boo).

I see they still want to get rid of eyesores - and yet are proud of building them (notably the cinema).

They want to move AFC Newbury - but don't really say what they want to do with the current football ground. And they are still determined to get us to stop using or owning cars.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 26 2013, 05:18 AM

They need to move the football club to enable the London Road Industrial Estate redevelopment to proceed. I be;ieve there is some sort of covenant to provide a ground - not sure....

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 26 2013, 07:32 AM

Not unsurprising, but still very disappointing. A Country Park would trump all the other parks and green spaces and would deserve a specific mention, so it's a reasonable inference that the council has no intention of honouring their promise to create one at Sandleford.

There's also some blather about creating a volunteer culture in West Berkshire - so should I expect Clls Bairstow and Edwards to be standing up at the town council to demand allotment self-management, because they haven't shown any support for the idea so far, despite being elected on a Big Society ticket.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 26 2013, 08:25 AM

It just reads to me as more land being sold off.

Posted by: blackdog Jun 26 2013, 08:54 AM

Sold off wouldn't be so bad - but the sum total received for council (ie our) land for Parkway and the 'urban village' is £1.

Why oh why didn't/don't they lease the land on a 99 year lease at a peppercorn rent - at least they would then have a big say in future developments.

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 26 2013, 10:47 AM

Why oh why didn't/don't they lease the land on a 99 year lease at a peppercorn rent - at least they would then have a big say in future developments.

Probably beacuse the days of local philanthropy are well & truly over.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 26 2013, 01:04 PM

Or developers are 'taking advantage' of a situation that is only transient.

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 26 2013, 01:47 PM

Aye, that is another way of putting it.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 26 2013, 03:51 PM

Yep! Can you imagine what would happen if Baden-Powell or Doc Barnardo started up today trying to get the appropriate permissions and satisfying the inspectors? Peabody wouldn't have got too far either, particularly being a rich banker. Then there would be all the squeals if Carnegie came by with a wadge for the library. Big society don't go with big government

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 26 2013, 05:26 PM

So true.

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 26 2013, 06:14 PM

There are not enough good olf fashioned billionaires any longer period. Petty local penpushers have nothing to do with it. All we have instead is Greenham Common Trust & the Lottery.

If I decided to cough up & donate a chunk of cash to build so kind of civil ammenity, they'd bite my hands off.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 26 2013, 06:23 PM

Yes they would, but they'd spend rather a lot of your donation on administration.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 26 2013, 06:24 PM

Not convinced. I've seen just how our local politicians react when 'a group of interested persons' get together with a viable business plan; regrettably more than once. Newbury seems to suffer from this, worse than other areas I've been acquainted with. Its certainly not helped by the small capacity of WBC; something acknowledged by its previous CEO.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 26 2013, 06:58 PM

Dannyboy was talking about a philanthropist offering the council a donation, and I'm pretty sure our local councils would accept that gladly if they could spend it how they liked. One example comes to mind where a community allotment group lead by a town councillor on the Town Council's Wash Common site, applied to the Greenham Common Trust for money to build a raised bed for wheelchair users, and the council (which couldn't itself apply for the grant) was glad to endorse the group's application and accept the donation of £4k, all of which they (the council) spent without completing the project.

You're talking about a group asking for the council's support and endorsement in delivering the group's own project on the group's own terms, and the council hate this kind of Big Society threat. You know of others, but one example springs to mind where the town council deliberately frustrated the Wash Common Allotment Society in building for itself a site hut at no cost to the council.

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 26 2013, 07:03 PM

If the 'group of interested persons' had just donated the cash to save the 'historic' local landmark I'd say they'd been philanthropic. Instead they just tried to buy it to make a business out of it. Council said no thanks, we have our own ideas.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 26 2013, 07:58 PM

I agree, would be wholly with the Council on a scam like that. Which means I'm always surprised when they listen to the same old thing from Development Companies!

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 26 2013, 09:34 PM

I like the use of JV (joint venture), better than displaying, 'giving away prime land for a song'. What will they sell to complete the Vision 2050? Vicki Park?

Posted by: blackdog Jun 27 2013, 05:18 AM

Local philanthropy is well and truly with us - especially philanthropic donations by WBC to developers.

Posted by: blackdog Jun 27 2013, 05:23 AM

Exactly! WBC is simply too small to provide any significant capital projects. Bring back Berks CC!

Posted by: On the edge Jun 27 2013, 06:16 AM

Well, you've convinced me at least!

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 27 2013, 07:27 AM

Do you know something we don't?

Posted by: blackdog Jun 27 2013, 08:10 AM

Only if you are unaware that WBC donated land in and off Park Way to SLI for £1 and are proposing to hand over a couple of acres worth £3.9m to the Market St 'urban village' developers for £0.

The point I was trying to make was that they could alternatively have held on to the freehold of this land by handing it over to the developers on a long lease at a peppercorn rent (eg £1 a year for 99 years) - which would have had the same effect of promoting development but would have maintained the public ownership of the land hence giving WBC and its successors much, much more power over future usage of this land in the centre of town.

At least WBC seem to be getting the message that giving land to developers is not popular with the electorate and are now talking about getting a satisfactory monetary return for the land they propose to hand over to developers in Faraday Road.

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 27 2013, 08:15 AM

What developmer is going to spend £100s millions building something which they don' own? Would you buy a leasehold house?

WBC are using the value of the land as their investment in these projects.

Posted by: Ron Jun 27 2013, 09:06 AM

In some parts of the country lease hold is the only option.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 27 2013, 09:14 AM

Leasehold house? My brother lives in one, Mayfair to be specific; makes Newbury freehold prices look like loose change.

Interesting radio programme last week on Radio 4 about this very subject. WBC aren't alone and the 'giving away land' isn't a new or innovative idea. Several other authorities have already done so or are doing so at moment. Seemed like a good idea, but not working in practice; oh what a surprise! Ptrogramme concluded by saying this could work, but Local Authorities have lost the resource skills and expertise to manage and implement these projects successfully.

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 27 2013, 09:44 AM

That wasn't the question. Would you want one?

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 27 2013, 09:46 AM

LA don't need the resource skills. That is the developer's job.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 27 2013, 10:30 AM

An individuals needs are likely to be different to a corporate one, so it is an unfair question.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 27 2013, 10:32 AM

My point is: what do we do when we have sold all the land, what then? Parkway seemingly demonstrates the power private landlords have over councils (cinema, parking charges, cracks), is that what we want and need more of?

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 27 2013, 10:54 AM

I guess it depends on whether you want stuff now funded largely by private cash or whether you want stuff done only when the council can afford it paid for by taxation.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 27 2013, 12:28 PM

Quite so, but the programme was making the point that LA staff (their resource) have NO suitable skills. Take WBC we've demonstrable evidence that contract management isn't best of breed and that's just one necessary skill.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 27 2013, 12:32 PM

Yes!

It's a pretty dumb question because the answer will depend on many other factors. Investing in things you don't own is often called 'commerce' - didn't you realise that most big firms don't actually own their equipment, vehicles and in many cases, premises.

I had a shop on a full repairing lease some years back. We paid for a new roof - still made a good return.

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 27 2013, 12:41 PM

I'll take that as a no you wouldnt'.

Companies which lease equipment are not investing in said equipment. They are leasing it. Normally beacuse they can't afford it upfront. It also gets you more for the same amount on the balance sheet.

A bit like getting a PFI firm to build you a hospital. You can build & run one for £300 million, or have Bovis/Laing/Uncle Tom Cobbley build you ten at £30 million pa.

Sounds better too - we have built 10 new hospitals this year alone......

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 27 2013, 12:42 PM

But just think if you'd been able to buy the shop instead.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 27 2013, 02:54 PM

Of course, in the building my firm leases we don't pay £200 to get a light bulb changed. Then again we haven't signed a complex unenforceable contract dreamed up by a civil servant trying to be clever.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 27 2013, 02:55 PM

I made even more investing my meagre capital elsewhere! Did you realise most of the shops in Newbury are leasehold?

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 27 2013, 03:02 PM

Err, yes.

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 27 2013, 03:03 PM

I do hope you carry out a full risk assesment before doing any working at height maintenance.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 27 2013, 04:15 PM

Of course, save we do that automatically on any job; old maxim 'measure twice, cut once' . Only real difference we don't see the need to write it down or have inspectors. We actually trust our staff to do jobs properly; they've not let us down yet.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 27 2013, 04:18 PM

So then, what does WBC know that they don't? Think I'd trust Debenhams or Tesco commercial savvy over WBC's!

Posted by: blackdog Jun 27 2013, 05:00 PM

If a company can't make a good return on the investment over 100 years they shouldn't be in business. Within that time the bricks and mortar will need to be replaced - and WBC will have precious little say over what is built - whereas if they were the freeholder they could have a lot of say. They would, of course, be able to offer a lease extension as a further incentive ...

As for buying leasehold property - hundreds of leasehold flats have been built in Newbury in recent years - they all seem to have sold.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 27 2013, 05:21 PM

Doesn't really address my point: 'privatisation of the administration and running of Newbury Town'. As has been demonstrated already, WBC are no match to wealthy developers. The steady removal of democracy and public land.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 27 2013, 05:53 PM

Key points, both lack credible answers so far. The ruling party seem to have accepted this, by their silence I take it the LibDems have as well. Given the nature of this, you are right; doesn't matter a jot who we vote for in next 15 years. Nice one Nick!

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 27 2013, 06:02 PM

It might help if the business case for all this was made public. It all just seems to be behind closed doors. That's fine, except we are quite literately giving away land to people who are more powerful than the elected authority who are selling it.

I'd just like someone to explain the rationalé behind it all.

We get things like this:

“We are going to have significant housing and population growth over the next decade, that can only be a good thing for Newbury town centre and the surrounding area.”

"The arts and leisure manager for West Berkshire Council, Chris Jones, said the refreshed vision would focus on encouraging young adults to stay in Newbury, following an ongoing loss of young people leaving the town to live, study and work, address empty office space and broaden the recreation and leisure facilities on offer to promote Newbury as a sporting venue."

How is population growth only a good thing? Chris Jones mentions a migration of young people. Surly this comes about due to lack of a affordable living space? How will this be addressed? Look at the prospectus of our local further education facility. Simply inadequate.

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 27 2013, 08:37 PM

Why should a company wait 100 years? Buy it, build it, sell it. Move on.

WBC can't afford to be the leaseholder or freeholder. All they owned were a few car parks. Not much return there. Of course they could have borrowed a few hundred million & built themselves a few hundred houses & several hundred square feet of retail space.

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 27 2013, 08:39 PM

WBC are not retail tenants, nor retail landlords, So I guess both no quite a bit that the other does not.

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 27 2013, 08:40 PM

I have no idea what your point is.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 27 2013, 09:57 PM

Newbury is being sold off to owners that call the shots, as seen by Parkway, Racecourse et al. And what do the council sell of once it has all gone. They are not making any more.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 27 2013, 10:33 PM

I see it differently.

There is plenty of open space for Newbury to expand into on all sides bar the east, especially into the space between the town and the bypass. I don't see growth in itself being a problem, the challenge is ensuring that we get a quality built environment with strategically planned transport, leisure, retail, and employment. A vision of the future is essential to deliver this and avoid inappropriate, disjoint, and piecemeal development without the supporting facilities, so I'm pleased to see the council looking more holistically at the town and not just thinking about the town centre. I like the idea of Newbury developing its sporting and leisure facilities and becoming a place to visit, though I'll be sceptical that WBC can deliver that until I see some concrete plans for the Country Park.

But I don't see WBC having a central role in any actual development. I feel that their involvement and our democratic control begins and ends with planning policy and the development framework. I don't quite understand how WBC has managed to acquire so much development land, and I think it should sell it for the best price it can get for it and let the private sector do the rest within the constraints of the planning system.

Posted by: MontyPython Jun 28 2013, 06:39 PM

Unfortunately that is the material that will probably be dominant in the area designated to be the country park

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 28 2013, 07:28 PM

The irony was accidental, but yes, that's a worry.

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 28 2013, 07:40 PM

Once it is all sold off they'll just stick in a compulsory purchase order on the whole shebang.

Whatever you may think of SLI & PW, they still have to follow the rules. I'd guess that 95% of local people could not give a fig what the land PW sits on was was sold for - all they know is that instead of a hand car wash, three gravel car parks & a few office blocks they now have a nice new shiny shopping area.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 28 2013, 08:26 PM

*The loss of free parking was a big loss and I believe harms the use of Vicki park.

But the point I make is that corporate private enterprise wield a big influence on how the town is managed and run to a point when elected councils have to back down. Whether it is subsiding a hand full of disinterested kids at a cinema, bolting on a big ugly building for John Lewis, paying for remedial work in the park, reduced affordable housing on the Racecourse, or lost parking revenue though behind closed door agreements, etc.

I also see nothing visionary or skilful in bunging an out-of-character half baked shopping centre in a run-down car park, or an eyesore to challenge the post-office tower in the 'other' spare car park.

Why is having a bigger busier town only a good thing (with all its traffic)? Why is selling public assets the only way to get things done these days and why is it necessary anyway? Why now?

However, I am prepared to be won over, I'd just like to see a justification for it to be done this way. We know that you are just an independent bystander offering contrary points of view for the sake of discussion, so your opinion, therefore, have little value.

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 28 2013, 08:40 PM

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, and it is just as valid as anyone elses - but what matters is what the collective majority thinks.

The elected council decided Newbury needed a new shopping area & that was what SLI delivered. It could be argued that WBC wanted to get rid of free parking & have used SLI & PW as a useful tool for achieving this aim. Is the John Lewis building any worse than what was originally planned? What is better - three more chain restaurants / coffee shops or new to town department store? Are the kids at the cinema disinterested? are they the only cinema goers?

Posted by: MontyPython Jun 28 2013, 08:43 PM

You have repeatedly said that you don't care how WBC spends/wastes the Council taxpayers money. I don't believe the majority agree with you (I certainly don't), however they realise that whoever they elect they appear unable to rid themselves of those in Market Street etc. who continue to be wasteful of resources and lacking in commercial acumen to get a reasonable deal particularly with developers. As a result they give up banging their heads against a brick wall by complaining and don't bother to vote any more.

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 28 2013, 08:50 PM

I don't think they do care. Honestly. The bins are collected, the schools are open, and the verges are cut. That's as far as most people think.

If you asked local people if they would rather Park Way went back to how it was & WBC still owned the bits that they did, or it stayed as it is now and WBC lost their £1, I do believe most would opt for the latter.

Effectively, WBC swapped a few car parks & the people of Newbury got a new shopping area at zero cost.

Posted by: MontyPython Jun 28 2013, 09:03 PM

But like User23 you are managing to mask the real question.

Would you prefer that WBC did the deals they did for Parkway and the Cinema, or to have done better commercial deals and pay £xx less on your council tax? Then you would get the real answer rather than the answers WBC get from their surveys which either don't inform the taxpayers what it will cost, or if they do - fail to deliver on the promise like the reduction in affordable housing in Parkway and secret deals on Car Parks and the revenue!

I think you will find that people do care, they just have little or no trust in both elected councillors and paid staff at WBC and NTC

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 28 2013, 09:05 PM

you assume better deals were available.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 28 2013, 09:08 PM

I offer my view simply as an observer. I plan no revolution any time soon.


I have no doubt about that, but I question the delivery process, and the timing. Footfall in the town has not returned to pre-Parkway levels. Granted they could be even worse without Parkway, but why is retail held in such high value when the high street is being abandoned for more leisurely methods? I'd say Newbury are 20/30 years too late.


Any truth to that, or just speculation. If there is any truth, and I doubt it, my contempt for our council would fall even lower.


What an open space? Would have the original plans including it passed planning approval?

Anyway that wasn't the point, the point was the council were almost blackmailed into agreeing to the John Lewis building and removing the original affordable housing quota through fear of the developer walking away.


Like I said, it was the weak position the council found itself in when the developer threatened to hand back his spade if he didn't get his way.


My flippant comment was reference to the often empty theatres there are in the complex.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 28 2013, 09:09 PM

Losing free parking is not zero cost.

Posted by: MontyPython Jun 28 2013, 09:13 PM

and you assume they weren't.

The process should be to negotiate the correct deal or wait for it to be available. Not to cave in and blindly go ahead with the Vision at any cost!

Posted by: MontyPython Jun 28 2013, 09:18 PM

You don't seem to be very good at maths and finance. Have you thought of getting a job in the WBC finance department? - or are you already there?

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 28 2013, 09:25 PM

it is to the council

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 28 2013, 09:26 PM

exactly.

as neither of us know any better, a pointless debate.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 28 2013, 09:29 PM

It depends on the meaning of 'cost' ... ah, as if by magic, here comes your mate!

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 28 2013, 09:34 PM

Of course, but I'm just passing the time.

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 28 2013, 09:35 PM

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 28 2013, 09:41 PM

Me too - Glastonbury hasn't exactly taken off yet....

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 28 2013, 09:51 PM

In have not truck with that idea. My doubt is whether the people in charge know what is best or are capable of providing it.


No idea, I also don't get the relevance.


Whether or not it was a great feature, it was the one that was originally agreed. We already had a Debenhams, John Lewis could have gone there. Parkway's gain has created a sick man in the process (Kennet Shopping).


Or change course and plan for what alternative things Newbury might need in the future.


Or call their bluff.


Believing we needed a cinema in Newbury in the way that we have it certainly isn't Hollywood's fault.


I'm not necessarily against all this, I just haven't seen an intelligent rationalé for why this is all happening this way. Mundane platitudes from councillors is the best we get.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 28 2013, 09:52 PM

Very much agree, hence I'm here!

Posted by: MontyPython Jun 28 2013, 10:01 PM

Not pointless WBC should have waited rather than go ahead at any cost.

Of course WBC have realised in their commercial wisdom that the price of land has gone down recently, so now intend giving it away rather than charging a pound for it!

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 29 2013, 07:47 AM

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 29 2013, 07:53 AM

Hmmm, 45mins of Portishead playing a bunch of hits from almost 20 years ago that only were hits because certain types liked to play their albums at pretentious diner parties and Talking Heads ( sorry, Tom Tom Club, can't call them Talking Heads as David Byrne isn't there, but heck lets just play a set of Talking Heads tracks anyway )

Posted by: Berkshirelad Jun 29 2013, 02:06 PM

Where in blazes do civil servants come in to this...

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 29 2013, 02:10 PM

yoiu know - the people who work for the council - say in the planning dept.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 29 2013, 02:17 PM

Oh.... You mean Local Government Officers?

Civil Servants work for central government departments

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 29 2013, 04:26 PM

call em what you like. the ones who don't have to be elected, but work for the council.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 29 2013, 04:34 PM

Why would employees of any organisation need to be elected?

Posted by: dannyboy Jun 29 2013, 04:44 PM

one trouser leg rolled up.....

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 30 2013, 06:15 PM

Not sure about concrete but at least the vision 2026 publication confirms the WBC commitment to the country park idea.

http://www.westberks.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=33642&p=0

see page 17 of that document.

I would suggest that we each get a copy and pass it on to our children. They or their offspring can be the judge.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 30 2013, 07:11 PM

Will are children be that interested? They won't be living round here; no work.