Shambolic managment of Parkway, continues... Options

[Andy Capp]

No homes (which cost the tax payer nearly a million pounds), no parking revenue and a wonky park.

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2015/taxpaye...parkway-dispute

[spartacus]

(Wrong thread!)

[On the edge]

We are talking about a very large sum of money and also a fundamental contractural breach. Why are we not already in Court?

Yes, I know it's 'hard and difficult' - but if I owed WBC a few quid for unpaid community charges I suspect the timetable is somewhat faster.

Our dear Local authorities are going to get quite a name aren't they, all gob.

[Lolly]

We are talking about a very large sum of money and also a fundamental contractural breach. Why are we not already in Court?

Yes, I know it's 'hard and difficult' - but if I owed WBC a few quid for unpaid community charges I suspect the timetable is somewhat faster.

Our dear Local authorities are going to get quite a name aren't they, all gob.

WBC are ( or at least have applied to be) but instead of taking on a developer they've chosen to take on their ConDem counterparts in Government.....

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2015/west-be...lanning-changes

No idea whether it was a unanimous cross party decision - I would have expected someone to question it.

[MontyPython]

WBC are ( or at least have applied to be) but instead of taking on a developer they've chosen to take on their ConDem counterparts in Government.....

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2015/west-be...lanning-changes

No idea whether it was a unanimous cross party decision - I would have expected someone to question it.

and unfortunately they have failed to spend S106 to improve the road infrastructure. I see they often claim for Libraries but suspect they spend it on day-to-day expenditure. Whether they divert that money to pay the "hidden" extra payments to certain staff or not is open to question. They certainly come across as devious and dishonest.

[Andy Capp]

We are talking about a very large sum of money and also a fundamental contractural breach. Why are we not already in Court?

Probably for the same reason NTC aren't in court: Their case isn't cut and dried.

[On the edge]

Probably for the same reason NTC aren't in court: Their case isn't cut and dried.

That's exactly the reason why it should be in Court. The civil courts are really there to arbitrate. The time its taken to get to this stalemate has probably cost more than legal fees anyway. Shouting abuse from the sidelines simply brings the Council into disrepute.

The other deeply worrying aspect is that the Council's lack of firm control here is likely to affect the exactly similar new development negotiations going on for Market Street and Faraday Road. Has WBC really got the skill sets in house to manage these contracts?

[Exhausted]

That's exactly the reason why it should be in Court. The civil courts are really there to arbitrate. The time its taken to get to this stalemate has probably cost more than legal fees anyway. Shouting abuse from the sidelines simply brings the Council into disrepute. The other deeply worrying aspect is that the Council's lack of firm control here is likely to affect the exactly similar new development negotiations going on for Market Street and Faraday Road. Has WBC really got the skill sets in house to manage these contracts?

Hang on a minute we all seem to be getting our knickers in a twist here.

The NWN article says that Mr Pickles is changing the S106 contributions in town to any development of less than 10 units (5 in the sticks). So, the loss is not that great as far as the council is concerned as the big boys will still be liable to S106 charges. What this change generally means, as far as I can see, is that the smaller developers and house builders will have these expensive and often irrelevant charges partially removed from their costs. As these small developments are mainly localised and probably employ local labour, I see this as a good thing and I believe it will also have a positive effect on house prices.. The council, in my opinion have only themselves to blame by allocating S106 charges for new developments for sometimes nonsensical reasons. Libraries, parks (via NTC request), roads and even the police now. The whole point about every new house that is built is that WBC already get an annual sum of money for ever, to spend on the aforementioned costs called "The rates". So it's a double whammy for them. At some point in time, probably lost in the distant past, councils nationally have suddenly realised there is a cash cow out there so they might as well milk it. At last someone with a bit of sense is trying to rein them in.

[On the edge]

I don't think the issue is anything at all to do with S106 contributions. In a nutshell, it's yo do with:-

i) SLIs reimbursement of parking fees to WBC which is a contractual obligation consequent on WBC transferring land.
ii) the physical delivery to of a designated number of flats to an appropriate manager to operate as 'affordable' homes. Again, part of the contractural agreement.

Nothing to do with S106 as far as I can see?

I quite agree that the operation of S106 was always seen as manifestly unfair, particularly as the owners of new developments would be contributing community charges year on year. In effect, S106 is like Sainsburys asking for 'contributions' from any new customer because they'll have to start buying and keeping more stock!

[Exhausted]

I was replying to Lolly which although a bit of a sidetrack does have some relevance but, it's what we do on here, obfuscate the general thread when perhaps we have a personal hobby horse. Mine as opposed to allotments, is S106 and affordable housing both of which SLI seem to not want to honour their obligation now that they are up and running. My bet is that the affordables will still be empty in six months time as you can bet their reasons are they do not want the Newbury underclasses mixing with their well heeled purchasers..

[Nothing Much]

Jarndyce Vs Jarndyce... all a bit bleak

[On the edge]

Oh very good!

The Parkway Playhouse - two for one offer - Great Expectations into Bleak House

[Lolly]

I was replying to Lolly which although a bit of a sidetrack does have some relevance but, it's what we do on here, obfuscate the general thread when perhaps we have a personal hobby horse. Mine as opposed to allotments, is S106 and affordable housing both of which SLI seem to not want to honour their obligation now that they are up and running. My bet is that the affordables will still be empty in six months time as you can bet their reasons are they do not want the Newbury underclasses mixing with their well heeled purchasers..

Sorry - didn't mean to confuse the thread. Was just pointing out the irony of WBC challenging Eric Pickles' decision to cut S106 affordable housing contributions when they have waived them themselves quite a few times in the past, and even when they actually pay the developer to provide the affordable housing they can't get the flats handed over.

[On the edge]

Sorry - didn't mean to confuse the thread. Was just pointing out the irony of WBC challenging Eric Pickles' decision to cut S106 affordable housing contributions when they have waived them themselves quite a few times in the past, and even when they actually pay the developer to provide the affordable housing they can't get the flats handed over.

It's a very good point, even more because there has apparently been some legal costs in challenging Pickles! Brilliant! Trust amongst politicians

[Exhausted]

It's a very good point, even more because there has apparently been some legal costs in challenging Pickles! Brilliant! Trust amongst politicians

......and the cost will be astronomical if it's going to the high court and can you believe that the government will be interested in a local council's opinion so will be digging in for the duration. Once again, the legal eagles will be wetting their pants to get hold of this one.

[user23]

......and the cost will be astronomical if it's going to the high court and can you believe that the government will be interested in a local council's opinion so will be digging in for the duration. Once again, the legal eagles will be wetting their pants to get hold of this one.

I think you mean local councils' opinion.

[Cognosco]

I think you mean (INEPT) local councils' opinion.

Edited to keep things realistic!

[Exhausted]

I think you mean local councils' opinion.

I was only talking about WBC. Shared deals may mean shared costs but that is not my concern. It will still be expensive for this council wherever you put the apostrophe.

[MontyPython]

I was only talking about WBC. Shared deals may mean shared costs but that is not my concern. It will still be expensive for this council wherever you put the apostrophe.

Yes but Phil & WBC are unconcerned about wasting the public's money as has been frequently shown. They have little respect of the public's opinion either!

[user23]

I was only talking about WBC. Shared deals may mean shared costs but that is not my concern. It will still be expensive for this council wherever you put the apostrophe.

Here's an interesting piece from the Reading Post's Chief Reporter on why she thinks this is the right thing to do.

Do you disagree with her, and if so on which points?