New skate park Options

[dannyboy]

Free! It's costing roughly £5,000 per regular user - ain't free mate

Ah, but it is there should you want to use it.

[Iommi]

The cost per user is a little misleading, because you have to evaluate all users over time: past, present and future.

[Simon Kirby]

Free! It's costing roughly £5,000 per regular user - ain't free mate

If you want to look at it in these terms then you need to spread the capital cost over the lifetime of the skate park, and then compare it with the cost of other services provided by the Town Council.

I'm guessing a nice concrete skate park may well have a 20 year life, so that £200k is now £10k. And if it has 40 regular users then that's £250 per user. Now none of that money is tax money, it's all S.106 and Greenham Common Trust money.

Now Newbury Town Council spend just short of £1,000k of council tax each year on a rather small bag of public services of one kind or another. They're a bit coy about the true service cost, and I'm having to guess at the number of services users, but this should give you some kind of comparison.

It costs the Council £42k to provide the market which is used by maybe 500 regulars. That's £84 per user for a service you can get free at Tesco.

It costs the Council £97k to provide the allotment service for some 500 tenants, so that's £194 per user. That's comparable to the per-user cost of the skate park, and this is all tax money.

It costs the Council £332k to provide all of the parks, play grounds, and open spaces throughout the town. If there were 1500 regular users - like you go to the park for a kick about or a go on the swings a couple of times a week - then that's £221 per user. Again, comparable with the per-user cost of the skate park.

It costs the Council £216k to provide the cemetaries, and I have no idea how many people use that service each year but if I make a wild guess at 500 then that works out at £432 per user.

So it's not obvious that the teen demographic is getting disproportionately more value for money from the Council than any other demographic, and as a group that are increasingly disenfranchised and marginalised I suggest that the investment is a good one.

[DrPepper]

Ok, but the market, cemeteries (I wouldn't include the cemeteries in the same group as leisure either!), allotments all provide income - so now what would the cost be? The market in particular would, I imagine, provide the council with an income - if not then there is some very bad management going on.

[Iommi]

I'm guessing a nice concrete skate park may well have a 20 year life, so that £200k is now £10k. And if it has 40 regular users then that's £250 per user. Now none of that money is tax money, it's all S.106 and Greenham Common Trust money.

Now a post like this is more like it. Thanks Simon Kirby! I have a couple of points about this paragraph, while the rest of your post I generally agree.

1 I'm not sure if this skate park is a legitimate use of S.106 money.
2 While it is not tax money, it is public money.

Otherwise; good post!

[Simon Kirby]

Ok, but the market, cemeteries (I wouldn't include the cemeteries in the same group as leisure either!), allotments all provide income - so now what would the cost be? The market in particular would, I imagine, provide the council with an income - if not then there is some very bad management going on.

No, those were nett costs to the tax payer. For example, the market generates £60k of income, and the £102k turnover breaks down as £60k running costs (£41k just for refuse collection), 17k overheads (like the cost of the town hall and running the mayor), and £25k of administration costs - I've done a bit of rounding, I hope that all still adds up.

[DrPepper]

No, those were nett costs to the tax payer. For example, the market generates £60k of income, and the £102k turnover breaks down as £60k running costs (£41k just for refuse collection), 17k overheads (like the cost of the town hall and running the mayor), and £25k of administration costs - I've done a bit of rounding, I hope that all still adds up.

Well in that case the Market needs to be looked at again, why they manage to make a loss is just terrible management. Not sure there could be a genuine £25k in administration or why there should be an allowance for the Mayor out of it either. If it is making this much of a loss then loose it - simple - these are the sort of cutbacks that should be looked at in these economic times.

Just realised - the 42k "loss" is the councils "take" for the mayor and admin' - take these out and it is indeed running at zero cost. The skate park (back on topic) can never achieve this.

[Simon Kirby]

Well in that case the Market needs to be looked at again, why manage to make a loss is just terrible management. Not sure there are £25k in administration could be going or why there should be an allowance for the Mayor out of it either.

Like I say, the Council are coy about their service costs. The official line is that the market costs the tax payer £18k, but the Council seperately account for an 'administration' service (£172k), a 'town hall' service (£59k), a civic duties service (£38k), etc - a total of £387k that isn't accounted for in any delivered service. I'm happy for the Town Council to have a town hall and do some administration, but not as ends in themselves, they have to be costed against services. Likewise with all the pomp and largesse, a mayor is OK if the Council are delivering good quality service at good value for money, but the services need to be able to carry those overheads.

The £25k admin breaks down as £16k for service team staffing (service team wages and their tea and biscuits), £2k for service overheads (mostly budget margin and a tiny share of the utility truck, etc), and a £9k share of the central administration cost.

I'd be surprised if the market traders couldn't run the market as a cooperative quite as well as the Town Council at no cost to the tax payer.

Anywho, back on-thread...

[Simon Kirby]

Just realised - the 42k "loss" is the councils "take" for the mayor and admin' - take these out and it is indeed running at zero cost. The skate park (back on topic) can never achieve this.

The parks make a small income from lettings of the sports facilities, but essentially no, the skate park in common with all of the park facilities, open spaces, and play grounds are a common good. As it should be IMHO. At an annual cost to the tax payer of £332k to maintain I suggest that the Council do have some questions to answer about their efficiency - that would employ an awful lot of park keepers - but I guess the skate park itself is likely to be quite low maintenance and actually be cheaper to maintain than the existing facility - unless they have to re-do the consultation and planning, that could cost a fair bit!

[Richard Garvie]

I think the key thing here is that the money is now ringfenced for the skate facility at Victoria Park. I've been told that the design hasn't been finalised. Rather than continue to debate it on here, I am meeting one of the usrepresentatives at the park this afternoon to discuss the options and what they have requested. As it happens, the person I'm meeting rang me and had a constructive debate. Said he was concerned that the group of kids I'd talked to were of that opinion and he would speak to them so they felt included. The reason I'm not continuing to criticise proposals here is that I agree it would be a crying shame if they ended up with nothing.

My main concern Buzz is that I posted what the group of young people told me, and although the person who called me acted very professionally and grown up, you have simply told me that my views are not valid because I'm not "a pro". Your personal behaviour on here could lead people to think that what the children had told me is true, and that they were not being listened too. If I hadn't have had a phone call from one of your members, I would be of that view too.

For the record, I commented on this thread because I don't agree that £200k would be well spend on an outdoor facility. My view still stands, but that doesn't mean I'm against there being skate facilities in the park as you and User23 have made out. All along I have called for a repair or rebuild of existing facilities and then look at creating an indoor facility with any excess funds being put towards it. That is where the difference of opinion is. My issue now is that the youngsters I spoke to feel left out and unconsulted, but your colleague is going to address that.

As the money has been allocated for an outdoor facility, I'm happy to support your colleagues in achieving a suitable facility for all of you, and if anything has been achieved through all of this the group I spoke to will now be included. I really don't see why it has been so top secret anyway, if the money from Greenham was for this purpose.

There is good reason for other people on here to raise concerns and speak out against your views / attitude. The play park IS a joke and looks like it was built in the 70's. Walkers ARE right to raise concerns about huge building works on the park and reductions in green space. Everybody and more importantly other users of the park are just important as the skaters Buzz, and you must remember this. The play park will be rebuilt, but we will have to wait for the Government to scrap the play builder scheme before NTC allocate other funding to achieve the new equipment. The Pavillion and changing facilities seem out of keeping with the rest of the park as they are proposed now, so a bit of consultation with user groups can achieve a compromise. The whole issue here is that the whole thing has been badly handled from day one.

If Pamela Bale or whoever was running the Pavillion scheme at the time had sat down with park users at an open meeting and asked what the users would like to see, the uproar to the current proposals would have been avoided. Once they had an idea of what would be acceptable to the public, designs could of been built around that so there was no public feeling against them.

I understand the pressures of finding a home for the Waterside centre. Why shouldn't the council want to redevelop that site, as it sticks out like a sore thumb along that section of canal as it is so ugly. But at the same time, let's find a suitable home rather than bundle it into Victoria Park.

So Buzz, a little more respect to other users, a little less insults and a bit of grown up conversation and debate will further your own agenda. I appreciate that your only goal is to see a new skate facility, and that will happen. But a) let others contribute to the discussion as to a suitable and best value design and don't knock others who are trying to achieve things for not just the town but the whole district.

[part time]

Anyway, this skatepark, anyone seen any plans or anything yet?

[Richard Garvie]

They should be out any time.

[blackdog]

I understand the pressures of finding a home for the Waterside centre. Why shouldn't the council want to redevelop that site, as it sticks out like a sore thumb along that section of canal as it is so ugly. But at the same time, let's find a suitable home rather than bundle it into Victoria Park.

When Patrick Griffin et al presented the pavilion design to the town council back in November (December?) the chap from WBC, responsible for the Waterside (sorry can't remember his name), stated quite clearly that the pavilion was NOT a replacement for the Waterside. In essence he suggested that the Waterside was so successful as an activities centre that the space currently allocated for music etc was needed for more activity centre stuff. He glossed over the fact that they closed the music studio on the assumption that the pavilion would appear in a few months (I assume it is still closed?).

On his terms any replacement for the Waterside would require more building on public green space - in Northcroft Park. Most of the Waterside activites (canoeing, climbing wall) will not be supplied in the pavilion

[Richard Garvie]

Thanks for this. I was told that the youth services would be within the pavillion as Waterside needs to close so they can develop the site. So more misleading information from West Berks, this time from someone who works in youth services. Do West Berks have any comprehensive information about the proposed pavillion available online? If you don't know, I'll have a look later when I have time to search.

[part time]

Yadda yadda yadda.......

There's a link to the Park plans on 'another' Newbury website and it looks like we'll be getting a great facility.

[part time]

Fencing has gone up, digger on site! Things are happening....

[Sidney]

Fencing has gone up, digger on site! Things are happening....

Thrilled to bits !! (Well, my kids are anyway) But fancy starting the work in half -term ! Surely 4 days wait wouldn't hurt ?