Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: On the edge Oct 31 2013, 10:00 AM

Shock horror - CEO of NTC apparently exceeds his powers and lets the Christmas Market off paying its fees, without bothering to ask, or even let the Councillors know. When the Town Council meet, one of the ruling party leads raises a strong objection to the CEO exceeding authority and even abstains in the vote the ruling party held to sweep matters under the carpet. Well done Ruwan! - and if that's an example of how your new LiibDems to be, they've gone up in my estimation.

Someone does need a little chat in JS-H shell like, two and a half grand may be loose change to you, but it ain't to most of us Charge Payers, or indeed public servants who are about to loose their jobs in the latest round of cuts. Rather than coming up with sound bites, might be a better idea to work out a better method of managing the staff.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 31 2013, 11:12 AM

Yes, well done indeed. Cllr Uduwerage-Perera is doing an awful lot of good at the Town Council, and like you say it gives the Lib Dems and local politics generally some credibility that for me they'd lost. I think it'll be even more interesting when he gets elected to WBC.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 31 2013, 11:21 AM

That's if he doesn't disappear under mysterious circumstances before then!

Posted by: nerc Oct 31 2013, 12:59 PM

Why should a company who wish to hold a Christmas Market be given FREE rent by the council?.
If this private company wish to bring something to the town then they must run the event using their own money.
With the amount of money they are charging for traders and the proposed size of the event then the private contractor should have done his homework.
Anyone planning an event would have agreed the rent payable to the council in advance and built this into the budget.
To leave the decision not proceed at this late stage unless they can have FREE rent is very bad management by the event organiser or a way of increasing the final profit that they can make.
The council should have said NO.
This whole thing sends warning signs up that there could be more requests to help fund this from the Council or the BID funds.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 31 2013, 01:07 PM

It's a standard technique when negotiating with local authorities: get the town all excited, then pull the 'can't afford it' card at the last minute. They all do it, whether it is this, the racecourse or Parkway. It works every time!

Posted by: Exhausted Oct 31 2013, 05:01 PM

Why abstain. If he was against the motion then vote that way or would he offend his oppos in the party. This is what is wrong with local politics when the councillors cannot fully express their views because they are controlled by a pseudo Westminster party.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 31 2013, 05:23 PM

It's a start, OK a small way, but hopefully he's broken the ring. A considered approach is rather more likely to work.

Posted by: GMR Oct 31 2013, 05:27 PM

It also says in the same paper - I am going by memory here - that WBC won't help fund the repairs of the Bowling club because of a lack of money. Not surprised as they can wave such charges.

Isn't the point of putting such events up so that it will benefit Newbury; by bringing money in? Who says they won't get it back?

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 31 2013, 06:13 PM

For the sake of accuracy, It's NTC, rather than WBC. I'm also sceptical that this market would benefit Newbury businesses. It could be argued that some might spend in the market rather than in town. I suspect the benefit would be mainly the stall holders and shoppers having more options of where to shop.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 31 2013, 06:44 PM

The Town Council has no remit - so no legal power - to spend anything or incur any costs in support of Newbury businesses, so that argument is a non-starter.

If they are arguing that the Christmas Market would benefit the people of Newbury then they need to have a specific statutory power to allow them to spend money or incur cost, and I'm not sure what that would be.

The Market sounds like it might have been an interesting thing to have, and if the regular users of the Park aren't unreasonably inconvenienced by it going in the Park then fair enough, but it's only right that NTC should cover all of its administrative and maintenance costs because I can't see that it's something I'd actually want to be taxed for in order to provide it.

Posted by: spartacus Oct 31 2013, 07:36 PM

Newbury's Christmas Market last year was an embarrassment of stalls selling cheap crap and tat barely recognisable as anything to do with christmas or anything 'festive'... I'd rather have nothing than that **** again... Better off going to a town where they hold a PROPER Christmas Market.... (like anywhere in Germany for instance....)

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 31 2013, 07:59 PM

If you read my statement again, you might see that I didn't say they were spending money to support local business, in fact I said the opposite.


They evidently don't need any specific statutory power, as they have just gone and done it anyway.

While you might be able to argue with reference to certain laws, it seems, life just goes on, so either you are mistaken, or the tenets you cite are impotent.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 31 2013, 08:13 PM

Yup, that's for sure.

Posted by: nerc Oct 31 2013, 09:10 PM

If the CEO has made the decision off his own back then surely he should be bought to task and reprimanded for his decision.
I still think that a company who have decided to bring an event to the town should have done their homework first.
Having done some small research the company involved in this event was only incorporated approx 1 year ago and have no previous experience in this type of event and i would have thought that the council would have done some types of history checks prior to allowing this to go ahead.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 31 2013, 10:05 PM

Quite agree. This is a very serious issue and the vote by the Councillors did not resolve it. All they did was bring a failed process back into line.

There should be a thorough investigation because;-
Count 1, the CEO acted without authority,
Count 2, a substantial amount (in NTC finance terms) has been lost to the Council,
Count 3, a significant decision has been made; apparently with faulty due diligence.

Particularly given the regular kicking that the LibDems offer to the Tories at WBC, I am shocked that the opposition did little more than ask why!

A good many charge payers are likely to believe that if the operator was unable to stump up the long time known about rent almost immediately before the start date, then the right decision would have been to cancel. This demonstrates the event isn't well managed, which means it won't be good for Newbury.

Even more kudos for the one single voice who abstained.

Posted by: nerc Nov 1 2013, 06:27 AM

And who is going to pay for the probable repairs to the grass etc after all the stalls, vehicles etc are gone?

Posted by: On the edge Nov 1 2013, 06:58 AM

We are!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 1 2013, 10:55 AM

There are two issues here: one is that the town clerk is alleged to have exceeded his authority in making the decision to waive the £2.5k fee, and the other is whether the council were right to waive the fee.

Whether or not the town clerk exceeded his authority is a separate matter, but there's a legitimate discussion to be had about how the public interest is served by letting the Park for free, and I can't see how it is in the public interest for the council to let a commercial retail operation use Victoria Park for free.

There's obviously going to be damage to the Park at that time of year and it can't be right that the tax-payer pays for that, and you only have to look at the Council's previous experience of letting the Park to see that the cost of repairs for bogged-down lorries can be significant. It's also going to cost us a packet in administration, because the Council always makes a mountain out of every administrative mole-hill.

It also sets a precedent for any other commercial operation that wants to tout their wares on Council grounds to be allowed to do so gratis, because to charge them now would be blatant discrimination. I'm thinking in particular about the travelling fairs and circuses that at times pay to use the town's parks. It is clearly no less in the public interest to have a circus or fair than it is to have a Christmas Market, so the Council won't now be able to charge them for the use of their parks and won't be able to refuse them either. The Charter Marketeers will obviously now need to get their pitches free too.

If you look back through the Council minutes you'll see how the Council have pursued previous firms who have booked the Park for unpaid fees with the saga running on for years and costing the Council a heap in administration to chase it. It is simply perverse that the Council should now waive a £2.5k fee with such weak justification.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 1 2013, 11:18 AM

I think it is worth contrasting the Council's recent decision to waive £2.5 with a previous decision by the Council from three years ago and ask what has changed:

I think it would be good for the Council to publish those "Victoria Park terms and conditions" so that we can see what the Council policy is.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 1 2013, 11:34 AM

http://www.newbury.gov.uk/pdfs/minutes/minutescs060717.pdf

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 1 2013, 11:40 AM

Hmm, http://www.newburychristmasmarket.co.uk/. It says it's opening from 30 November to 22 December except for 9 December, so following the Council's standard Victoria Park Terms and Conditions I calculate that as a total hire charge of £3,550 rather than the £2,500 reported by the NWN. Has the booking charge already been partially waived?

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 1 2013, 11:48 AM

It looks to me that Mr Hunt has embarrassed the council. Would they several months ago have agreed to letting the Park out for free? They were forced onto a corner and for the sake of unity have retrospectively passed it through. That isn't how things should be done.

And again, what do we have? Almost complete intransigence. Newbury Town Council should be 'impeached'.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 1 2013, 11:50 AM

So either someone tabled an untruth, or the organisers had already been let off a significant sum.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 1 2013, 11:55 AM

There are other possibilities such as the Terms and Conditions have changed or the market isn't actually running for all of those dates as it appears from the web site to be, but it's something that deserves some clarification.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 1 2013, 12:08 PM

Being as how the Christmas Market is now using the Park for free, what happens if the Park is damaged? http://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/pegasus-promotions-and-events is a new company with total reported assets of £1, so if the Market is not a roaring success where will the money come from to repair the Park? If the viability of the Market already turns on the £2.5k booking fee I'd be more than a little nervous that the Town is going to be left holding the baby.

I think it's a good idea and I hope it is a success, but I think if it's being run in partnership with the BID as reported in the NWN then the BID need to stand guarantor, and they need to cough-up the booking fee too - and if it's not worth the risk for the BID, then I can't see it's worth the risk for the Town.

Posted by: blackdog Nov 1 2013, 03:05 PM

I suspect they won't move all the stalls out for the 9th - so I'd charge for that day as well.

However, £2,500 or even £3,700 is not a lot to pay for an event that may well bring a good number of people in to town. I suspect it is has no immediate effect on the budget as it probably isn't in the budget. I doubt there will be a huge amount of damage, its not as if heavy vehicles are going to be churning it up trying to drag out sunken fair rides. Sure some grass will become mud, but things like that recover quickly at minimal cost. Far better value for money than the cycle race the other year.

My suspicions are aroused by the claim that £2,500 is make or break given the number of stallholders who seem to have signed up for the event. As the company running it has no capital I'd certainly ask for a bond up front to cover any serious damage - or sight of their insurance policy.

The real issue is the Town Clerk overstepping his powers - by doing something all but one of the councillors later approved of him doing. Worthy of a 'don't do it again' slap on the wrist, or even a 'we need to change the rules to give the Clerk more flexibility', but hardly a sacking issue.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 1 2013, 04:23 PM

If I was struggling to pay my community charge, or if I was in an organisation who'd had my funding cut, or if I was an employee waiting for my redundancy £2,500 is NOT a small sum. I wonder what would happen if I call the revenue team at WBC and say I can't pay my community charge, just this month, will you let me off?

No, it's not a sacking offence, but it is disciplinary and let's face it, the CEO didn't even get a slapped wrist. Frankly, it's a matter of principles, but what would the present incumbents at NTC know about them.

What the Promoters have done doesn't bode well for the event, will that be a similar shambles because they 'couldn't afford'. Yet again, NTC has proved it simply has no idea about running markets!

(NB - those of us who have paid through the nose to hire rooms at the Town Hall to do things 'for the good of the Town' ought to learn from this!)

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 1 2013, 04:57 PM

Yes, the CEO Mr Hunt waived the fee, and the Council leader, Julian Swift-Hook (Lib Dem, Pyle Hill) said:

“There was concern that the issue was decided without reference to any members. In absolute cash terms the amount of money is not huge but we do have processes in place and that when decisions are made they follow the right process.

“My understanding is that the private contractor would not have been able to proceed with the Christmas market if they had to pay the rent but this is to the benefit to the people of Newbury. I think the decision is the right decision to have been made.”

I read that:

"Graham is a keen utility cyclist and is also the Larger Councils Champion and co-ordinator of the Larger Local Councils Network for the Society of Local Council Clerks. He has a Certificate in Local Council Administration and is a Member of the Institute of local Council Management. All this gives him good access to best practice (and new ideas) across the 300 largest town parish Councils in England and Wales".

It raises the question of how independent the BID and NTC are, and whether this is how the NTC and the BID should work? Lets face it, Mr Hunt's action put the council in a difficult position and under the circumstances, it would have been very unlikely the council would have come to a different decision.

Quite right and I wonder how the chartered market stall holders feel about all this charity?

Posted by: Mr Brown Nov 1 2013, 05:23 PM

Newbury just doesn't do markets does it? I love all the certificates and qualifications, but it's only a little council. Perhaps he's just too big for the job!

Posted by: blackdog Nov 1 2013, 10:25 PM

As i see it the two choices were 1) not get £2500 and not get an Xmas market - or 2) not get £2500 and get an Xmas market. There wasn't a choice that involved getting the £2500.

If the Xmas market is as good as their website makes out (okay I doubt that it will be) then it will bring people to Newbury who may not come here normally. Who knows, some of them may look around the town and like what they see - and come back.

The council decided that the right decision has been made.

Personally I would have though that the CEO, who managed a £1,000,000 budget for NTC might be empowered to make decisions at the £2,500 level without having to wait a month or more for the next NTC committee meeting.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 1 2013, 11:05 PM

Then we'd disagree.

Newbury has survived without such a Christmas Market for years, its also hardly original, so frankly, not having one would hardly be a disaster.

The Council has a £1,000,000 budget and that is managed, that makes no difference to responsibilities. This was a matter of agreeing to go against an agreed policy - the charges for use. Empowering the CEO to this degree actually calls into questions the need for the Councillors - why not let him just get on with it.

There was no need to wait for meetings, even the Councillors have email and mobile phones. As there are processes for everything else, there will be one for rapid decisions. Yes, the Council have agreed - in reality they didn't have much choice.

Democracy, but not as we know it!

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 2 2013, 12:43 AM

I very much doubt they felt they could say or vote any other way. Mr Hunt's actions saw to that.


I don't see the cash value, as such, as the biggest problem; rather this sets a precedent and also draws his office in to disrepute. He made a decision against procedure and with the potential for it to cost more than the loss of income. Why should the council charge others full price, if the Xmas market gets it for free?

On top of all that, I thought this kind of thing, this type of 'expenditure', was for the BID to manage?

Who's responsible for what?

Posted by: blackdog Nov 2 2013, 01:23 AM

There is no expenditure at issue - the choice was get £0 or get £0 and a market.

The CEO should be there to implement policies set by the council and should be empowered to make decisions at an appropriate level - councillors should not be micro-managing every little bit of non-expenditure.

If the CEO broke protocol I'm sure he is fully aware of it now - and is unlikely to do so in the future. But it seems like a daft bit of protocol to me. He couldn't just ring round a few councillors - protocol would require a committee decision. Yes he could have asked JSH to call a special meeting - but what a waste of time over £0.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 2 2013, 01:51 AM

You clearly haven't understood my last post, but I agree, the CEO is there to implement policy, but in this instance he failed to do so when unilaterally deciding to wave the rental fee.

Council leader, Julian Swift-Hook (Lib Dem, Pyle Hill) said: “Being faced with [the potential closure of the market] Graham Hunt decided that the council should waive the rent. None of the councillors were consulted on that decision, which is separate but related. We do have a process but that was not invoked. It’s not in the power of one person to make that decision. Spending money or forgoing income then that’s for the council to make. We’re not a business. We have to go through a democratic process. It was the right decision but the wrong process.”

Posted by: On the edge Nov 2 2013, 07:35 AM

Posted by: user23 Nov 2 2013, 08:26 AM

Is he "highly paid"? How much is his salary, per year?

Why can't they charge next year?

Fees and the circumstances in which councils can charge, change all the time.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 2 2013, 08:59 AM

Look it up in the accounts; it's more than £20k. so it's what Joe Average, the charge payer regards as high.

Why can't they charge next year? Ever heard of a concept called 'precedent'? Been around since time immemorial.

Yeah, fees and circumstances change, and all the time. Like my insurance policy went up, my income has gone down, so I asked for a reduction. Very polite answer, amounted to same thing - no.

I'll have a bit of fun this morning, ribbing the market traders about their prices! Why haven't you passed on at least some of your rent reduction?

Posted by: user23 Nov 2 2013, 09:11 AM

More than £20k is "highly paid"?

The average wage is £26k per year, so you think someone on an average wage is "highly paid".

Your insurance went up? Just as the cost of using the park could.

It's hard to believe you're not trolling once again, with these sort of responses.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 2 2013, 09:22 AM

You just don't get it do you, quite sad really.

Posted by: The Hatter Nov 2 2013, 09:30 AM

I'd be surprised if any of the basic shop workers in town got anywhere near twenty grand a year. Lots of them are on the zero hour kick as well.

Posted by: Strafin Nov 2 2013, 09:33 AM

£20k really? Sorry but I don't believe that.

Posted by: blackdog Nov 2 2013, 10:28 AM

What rent reduction?

Posted by: blackdog Nov 2 2013, 10:39 AM

So Mr Hunt gets his slap on the wrist.

I guess my issue is that I disagree with the process - JSH may be a power hungry micro-manager, but that doesn't mean he is right. Does he expect to be consulted on every bit of expenditure as a West Berks councillor? Of course he doesn't - he is part of the decision making process that sets departmental budgets etc, but WBC employees manage the day to day activities and expenditure and councillors monitor their work. NTC has a turnover of £1,000,000 - perhaps its time it was run a bit more like a business.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 2 2013, 10:40 AM

I think the town clerk earns in the region of £50,000 to £60,000 basic.

http://www.newbury.gov.uk/pdfs/statementOfAccounts/statementofaccounts2009-2010final.pdf is 2009/10, and in that year there was one officer earning between £50,000 and £60,000, excluding pension contribution. It doesn't say who, but it's a fair guess that the officer would be the town clerk.

Staff costs for the year ending 31 March 2013 are £349,831, that's salaries, PAYE, NI, pension, and employment expenses.

In 2010 there were 9 full-time staff, and 6 part-time staff, but I can't tell you what that figure is for 2013, though I believe it is still 12 full-time equivalent. That's an average staff cost of £29,152, which is pretty good going for what are mostly admin assistants.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 2 2013, 10:53 AM

NTC is a public operation, it can't discriminate. So, if one lot of market traders don't have to pay rent, then the others don't either......

Of course, that would have been taken into consideration wouldn't it; because it was the right decision!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 2 2013, 10:53 AM

I can see that RUP has ruffled your feathers. Good. With your criticism of JSH I'm even starting to warm to him. What the Town Council needs is councillors who have the enthusiasm and nous to take an interest in how it is being run rather than just assume that everything is fine and believe the spin when they're told that detractors are nothing but Vexatious Complainants.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 2 2013, 10:57 AM

Nice work if you can get it! Is this the going rate for shop workers in the town? I somehow don't think so.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 2 2013, 11:05 AM

Actually, he ought to be demanding to be told of any deviation from established practice, or where contract negotiations are failing. That's NOT micro management, more effective leadership. That the CEO even believed he could do this speaks volumes about the state of the Councils management. Empowerment in this particular instance seems to be an excuse for hands off management, or as we call it non management; old Barings method! By the way, the tills in big supermarkets turn over a million a year in many cases, so by your thinking, the check out supervisor should be racking up £50,000pa salary....

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 2 2013, 11:09 AM

I'm happy to be corrected, but as I understand it if the town clerk waives the rent that's a legally enforceable decision even if the officer was acting beyond her authority. I guess if the council had resolved not to waive the rent then they would have had to sue the town clerk for the money.

Conversely, being as how the Christmas Market isn't paying any rent now is there actually an enforceable contract? - contracts need consideration remember. I can imagine that might complicate matters if the wheels fall off this thing.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 2 2013, 11:19 AM

Absolutely! Agree with JSH spendthrift ways or not, he IS the elected leader. Now in an embarrassing position, but to give him his due, he does seem to take his responsibilities seriously.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 2 2013, 11:24 AM

That's right, the clerk is acting under delegated authority. The Councillors ought to be worried themselves, because (though perhaps not this instance) could end up surcharged by such 'empowered' actions.

Consideration can be intangible, so that might be one way round. However this could be quite a minefield, for instance, what about public liability insurance etc.

Posted by: user23 Nov 2 2013, 11:36 AM

We were discussing what "highly paid" means.

OTE thinks it's "more than £20k", which is actually less than the average wage.

This seems unrealistic to me.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 2 2013, 11:36 AM

It would certainly be reasonable to expect the Christmas Market to have public liability insurance and I believe it's a requirement of the letting that it is in place, but can we trust the Council to have validated that it is in place, or would they even tell us if they had waived that requirement?

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 2 2013, 11:52 AM

On this specific point, JSH is nothing of the sort. If you know he is not right, then please explain with what authority how you know better? The CEO made a decision that was procedurally not his to make. His action has the potential to devalue anything they try to negotiate that is similar. I am also not aware that a Christmas market was a must-have manifesto promise.

I am not against the council endorsing things like this: waiving fees, but, I am against the council appearing to be picking and choosing its causes. Especially as I had come to understand that town centre initiatives like this had been 'outsourced' to the BID set-up.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 2 2013, 12:01 PM

It would appear that an officer of the council earns between £50,000 and £60,000 plus pension.

These things are relative of course so I wouldn't call that a high wage for say the head of a government research establishment managing several hundred staff or for the head of department at a Russell Group university, but for the clerk of a modest town council, yes, I'd say that wage is on the high side.

I think the Town Council could do a much better job if it did less and engaged more. I think a part-time clerk on maybe £25k pro-rata, with perhaps two full-time grounds staff and a full-time office admin on something more like £18-20k would do the town very well. The allotments would self-manage of course, the Newbury Society could provide a ceremonial mayor if they wanted to, the BID could take on the Charter Market and let it sink or swim, the clerk and admin could work out of a modest office on the Greenham Bisiness Park and hire a meeting room for monthly council meetings. There'd be the cemetery to run and the grounds maintenance contract to keep an eye on, and one or two bits and bobs like the clock tower and street lighting to pay for, but that's about it.

Posted by: blackdog Nov 2 2013, 04:13 PM

I'm not arguing against monitoring and ensuring compliance with established practise - Mr Hunt broke the rules and has been chastised for it. I'm sure he is regretting it now.

My arguments are

1) that it was a minor transgression that is being built up into something major - if we were talking £25k it would be different.

2) that the established practice is over-management. Why employ a well qualified local government officer at a significant salary and not allow him some leeway in delivering the Council's aims?


Quite the opposite - I am saying that someone being paid £50k+ in his sort of position should be trusted to do his job and with some degree of financial empowerment. I am saying that a budget of £1,000,000 should be managed professionally, not by a bunch of amateur politicos. They should set the budgets and let the CEO manage them.

Posted by: Strafin Nov 2 2013, 04:16 PM

Would it not be the same amateurs who have to employ the CEO?

Posted by: blackdog Nov 2 2013, 04:24 PM

Fair point.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 2 2013, 04:37 PM

Yes, that sums up exactly what's wrong with Newbury Town Council. An empire has been created but it's far too small to contain the egos it has captured. I'd repeat, what's the point of the Councillors if the CEO does everything?

Amateur politicos, rather similar to executive directors, MP's, commission members and so forth. Let's face it, the 'professional experts' brought us the economic crisis!

Strikes me we now have someone hugely overqualified for the task in the role and is demonstrating frustration at not being able to progress.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 2 2013, 05:18 PM

Although the Council agreed that the right decision was taken I think that is debatable. You clearly have an interest in the council's affairs - can you think of another example where the Council has waived anything in the order of £3.7k of revenue? I've taken an interest in what the Council does for some years and I can't think of anything of the sort happening before.

It appears to me to create a perverse precedent. What if Camp Hopson came to the Council saying it couldn't afford to open its shop in December unless the Council gifted it £3.7k - would that be a prudent and responsible gift for the Council to make - it would after all be in the public interest to step in to prevent us losing a retail opportunity, right?

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 2 2013, 07:00 PM

This was a something done by an alleged well qualified person and to me £2,500.00 is a lot of money. However, does the 'cost' stop here?


Considering the gaff, it could be questioned if he is as qualified as suggested. These days, authorities are under so much more scrutiny by the public than they have been before, and at a time when people are being turfed out of homes due, in part, to a lack of public cash, anything that even looks extravagant is an ill-advised initiative.

It is also a trust thing: a lack of apparent humility over the matter just makes things worse.


That's fine, but set the rules and policy first, not after.

And I repeat: I THOUGHT THIS WHY THE BID WAS SET UP; TO SUPPORT THESE TYPE OF INITIATIVES?

Posted by: blackdog Nov 2 2013, 09:06 PM

They didn't gift them £3.7k - they gifted them use of the Park - no money has changed hands - if the market promoters are to be believed no money was ever going to change hands. So the council has not lost any money, they have not given anyone any money - but they have enabled a Xmas market to take place.

When it comes to pandering to commercial interests the precedent is long set by WBC - £1 for a few £millions worth of land under Parkway, £3.9million of land to the developers for the 'urban village', endless watering down of affordable housing requirements on large developments, the list goes on.

All pale into insignificance alongside the £billions poured into the banking system. It seems to me that the use of public money to support commercial activity is an intrinsic part of the role of government at all levels.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 2 2013, 09:23 PM

And all of it wrong in my view.

Posted by: MontyPython Nov 2 2013, 09:45 PM

They have set a precedent for not charging for use of the park, and there may be remedial works to fund afterwards.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 2 2013, 09:59 PM

And then there's the litter.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 2 2013, 11:58 PM

The economics of this is really pretty simple: the Christmas Market should have been charged £3,700 under the Town Council's standard terms for the commercial use of Victoria Park, but at some point someone appears to have waived £1,200 of that, and then the clerk waived the remaining £2,500 - so that's £3,700 of income that the Council forego, although the Council still bears the administrative cost of the letting, the remedial costs for making good the Park after the event, the risk of unsecured damage and liability, and the public are denied their ordinary use of the park that they have already paid for through their taxes.

You say it enabled the Market to go ahead, but if it was me and a commercial organisation with assets of £1 and no experience in market retail wanted to hire the Park for a month I'd be nervous, and if they came to me and told me that the commercial success of the month-long venture turned on £2.5k I'd be doubly nervous and want to see a significant sum in escrow against any potential costs and liabilities. What I wouldn't do is let them use the Park free and gratis because I don't see that a Christmas Market is a public service.

Mind you, to put this in perspective, we the tax-payer gift the Charter Marketeers £25k every year to subsidise their commercial operation, so it's only money, right?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 3 2013, 12:02 AM

*double post*

Posted by: Exhausted Nov 3 2013, 11:32 AM

That's fine Simon but they, NTC, have their t!ts in the mangle now as they have made a great deal of noise supporting this, "look what we are doing for the town". Now, they may lose face if it isn't delivered. Sort of a cleft stick.
As regards the waiving of the rental for Victoria park, I do not believe that this decision was taken alone and I am sure there would have been an offline discussion. Whoops though, didn't expect Mr U to buck the system even though he didn't have the balls to go all the way.

Posted by: blackdog Nov 3 2013, 12:24 PM

I'm not so sure - is it wrong for David Cameron to go to China to promote British business?

The UK is in competition with every other country for trade - it's the way the world works. Is it not, therefore, a role of government to promote UK exports, tourism, etc?

Newbury is in competition with Reading, Basingstoke, Swindon, etc for retail trade - is it wrong for the Town Council to want to do something to boost Newbury's trade? Okay Xmas markets are pretty tacky and not my thing at all, but they do seem to be pretty popular these days.

Posted by: blackdog Nov 3 2013, 12:49 PM

Administrative cost - an hour or so of an employees time - they will have spent far more time dealing with the current furore.

Making good the Park - a park that is awaiting making good after the Parkway induced subsidence.

Denied their ordinary use - strolling over a football area that has been unfit for football since the subsidence. December is not a big month for park usage, I'm sure there will be plenty of space left for those who want to use its facilities.

It all seems pretty trivial to me.



There do appear to be risks and I too would be nervous - but the risk doesn't appear to be that great. I would hope (assume) that the track record of the people running the market would be taken into consideration (for all I know they have been running markets for years). I don't like the trick of setting up an asset free company for one-off events like this, it certainly smells of wide boy activity - but it can also isolate the Newbury market from problems with another market run by the same people in another town. The collapse of one would not drag the other down too.

I'd certainly want to see their business plan and, especially, their insurance policy and be sure I could claim against it for any unexpected damage.

Public service? Define public service - don't parish councils have a role in promoting their patch in terms of local businesses and tourism?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 3 2013, 04:45 PM

*m'eh*

Posted by: On the edge Nov 3 2013, 05:02 PM

Gosh Blackdog! Nice coat of whitewash and no one will ever know.

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 3 2013, 06:55 PM

Everyone should know that the two local authorities have never done any wrong or would ever do any wrong! They are laws unto themselves get over it?

Posted by: On the edge Nov 3 2013, 07:26 PM

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 3 2013, 07:27 PM

And what has that got to do with this thread?


So popular they need 'subsidising'? If you can't make money at Christmas time, you are ferked.

I suspect many commercial concerns would enjoy free rent, but while you are trying to deflect from the OP, this is actually about a council not working properly, and from the very top too.

Posted by: MontyPython Nov 3 2013, 07:40 PM

It's probably where most of the tat that will be on sale at the Xmas market will have been made!

Posted by: user23 Nov 3 2013, 07:46 PM

Seems to be quite a lot of this, going on in this thread.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 3 2013, 07:58 PM

Not really. I would quite enjoy a good Christmas Market, my objection is that the town council have no business gifting this commercial operation £3.7k of public money. We're told that this is a BID venture - so great, if the market needs an extra £3.7k to be commercially successful then let the BID pay the booking fee and underwrite any liability for loss. The Town Council has no business getting involved in Newbury's retail business, but this is exactly what the BID was created for - and if the BID don't think it's worth £3.7k of their support then fine, let's not have a Christmas Market.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 3 2013, 08:03 PM

"About this two and a half grand?"

"Don't you worry about that ... leave that to me!"

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 3 2013, 08:44 PM

What would happen if one of the High Street traders went to the council and informed them that they would be unable to open Christmas as they would not be able to afford the business rate? Would they take on extra staff to deal with the rush for a waiving of the rates for December?
Will the Christmas market take the reduced spending available, due to the financial crisis, away from the highly rated existing businesses?
Existing traders please form an orderly queue whilst waiting to confront the local authorities.
Why should we as ratepayers be subsidising a commercial concern? As Simon has stated why are the council involved apart from the hire of the park has the BID been involved with this or not?

Posted by: nerc Nov 4 2013, 06:36 AM

I believe all stalls/chalets are taken so now do the maths from the attached.
A list of exhibitors can be seen on the Christmas Market website.


 Application_Form__NCM_.pdf ( 395.32K ) : 21

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 4 2013, 10:28 AM

On the face of it, it looks like our CEO has been tucked up!

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 4 2013, 04:50 PM

Which means the ratepayers lose out again - any one surprised?

Posted by: nerc Nov 4 2013, 08:03 PM

38 standard stalls plus 4 catering and some fairground rides and £6.00 to visit Santa all adds up to a nice income

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 4 2013, 08:03 PM

I counted something like 45 traders, each paying between £2.4k and £3.5k for the hire of their chalet. I think the Christmas Market could afford to pay £82 per trader from that to cover the cost of the Park hire - and yet every councillor bar one disagreed. They saw us coming.

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 5 2013, 04:43 PM

Can't see the problem Simon? Most of Newbury has been given away so why not some income from Viccy Park?
Standards must be kept up!

Posted by: nerc Nov 5 2013, 06:36 PM

Perhaps Pegasus Child Care or Pegasus Property Investments can help sponsor the event as they are registered from the same address as Pegasus Events.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 7 2013, 10:34 PM

Councillor Adrian Edwards from Wash Common argues in the letters page today that Cllr Uduwerage-Perera was wrong to expose the town clerk to public criticism over his unauthorised decision to waive the £2.5k booking fee, saying that the matter should have been resolved quietly in private between the leaders of the two parties.

I don't agree. The town clerk wasn't authorised to make the decision, and the decision was properly the responsibility of the Policy and Resources Committee to make, or if there was pressing need then an urgency sub-committee. The decision having been made, albeit without authority, but it was still a binding decision on the council, so there was no urgency to review that decision, and as the P&R Committee had the responsibility for the matter then it was entirely right that it was heard by that committee.

The press and public have a legal right to attend committee meetings and can only be excluded if it serves the public interest, so Cllr Edwards could have asked for a vote on a public interest exclusion, but he didn't.

If Cllr Edwards agreed then that it was in the public interest to hear the matter in public, I think it's pretty cheap politiking to criticise RUP for exposing the town clerk to public humiliation, when that's exactly what Cllr Edwards has done by airing this latest snafu in the letters page of the local paper.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 7 2013, 10:54 PM

Also in today's paper, Julian Swift-Hook defends the Council's decision to waive the £2.5k booking fee: he says that it hasn't created a precedent for waiving future booking fees because he wouldn't waive the fee for a future Christmas Market.

Huh? So it's so obviously a bad idea to waive the fee for a commercial market that he's already decided that he'd never vote for it again, but yet waiving this year's fee was the right decision? How's that work then?

Cllr Adrian Edwards also criticises the Lib Dems for bringing the town clerk's unauthorised decision to waive the fee before the Policy and Resources committee, saying that he dreads to think what the consequence would be if the council had actually resolved that the clerk's decision was the wrong one.

I would suggest that the Councillors should have been deciding the question on its merits, and not out of any dread for the consequences of the decision being wrong.

Posted by: The Hatter Nov 8 2013, 09:23 AM

What a stitch up! So they are implying there is no need for discussion and there is no difference between the parties. Why should we waste time voting; just let them get on with it. I'm certainly not going to bother next time. All you need to know about local politics is summed up in one word - pay.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 8 2013, 11:28 AM

I have not read the paper yet, so I take Simon's posts in good faith, but if true, who the heck do these two councillors think they are???? If any one's actions seek to bring the political system in to disrepute it is those actions and words of Julian Swift-Hook and Adrian Edwards!

So the matter should have been hushed up and the other clown thinks that this doesn't set a precedence because, although the decision was correct, they would say no next time!




Think: people vote for these people!!!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 8 2013, 01:41 PM

JSH is quoted in the NWN (Page 2) saying:

AE says in his letter on page 23:


The town clerk was at least given an opportunity to answer the criticism, and I wasn't given that opportunity when the council publicly attacked me declaring me to be a Vexatious Complainant, and as far as I am aware Adrian Edwards didn't write to the local paper in my support despite being my ward councillor.

http://www.newburychristmasmarket.co.uk/about.php says that Newbury Christmas Market is managed by Pegasus Promotions & Events Ltd in partnership with Newbury Town Council and Newbury BID" and displays the Town Council and BID logos in endorsement.

I'm concerned that this partnership has obliged the Town Council to support the market where otherwise it might not have. If the Council was just leasing the park then that's one thing, but a partnership is a more committed relationship. The Christmas Market makes much of the potential benefit to the town's businesses, talking about the £3.6M boost to the Salisbury economy from their Christmas market, and so I can fully understand why the BID would partner with the market, but the commercial interests of the town's retailers are not the Town Council's business. If the market serves the BID's commercial interests then I expect the BID to pay the park rental, and it looks like the Council has been more concerned about the commercial interests of its partners than it has of the public interest.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 8 2013, 02:18 PM

I wonder what response the promoter got when he asked for a reduction of their price, after all £2,000 plus to rent little more than a spruced up garden shed does seem excessive, particularly as B&Q sell some quite reasonable ones for half that price? Similarly, has our well qualified CEO ever heard of negotiation? We might have accepted a smaller sum, or delayed payment, but give the lot - even my old mum could do better than that!

Posted by: On the edge Nov 8 2013, 02:29 PM

Of course, and this may be the reason for the squealing councillors, no one has actually picked up the conflict of interest issue. Mr H is on the BID Board and the CEO of the Town Council. Does the BID Board really have authority over NTC processes and in effect spend our money?
I'm quite happy that the BID acts as what is in effect a single issue pressure group, but not as a local authority, certainly not without democratic representation

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 8 2013, 03:29 PM

Did 'Ablaze' pay the fees to use the park too?

Posted by: On the edge Nov 8 2013, 04:30 PM

I would assume so as these are NTC rules. Unless they fit a published exceptions, they should have done, or we have a rather more serious issue on our hands. In that case, did they actually 'use it' - in terms of fencing areas off?

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 8 2013, 04:37 PM

Didn't you go?

Yes areas were fenced off. And it was for commercial gain.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 8 2013, 04:51 PM

dannyboy's deflection is irrelevant. This seems to be about an old-school set of councillors and one that just might understand proper conduct. I think all that is wrong with politics lives in the actions and views held by Cllr Edwards and Cllr Swift-Hook, and the sooner those types of politicians are out of politics the better.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 8 2013, 04:55 PM

Then they should pay.

No I didn't go, just out of hospital and in bed -want a medical certificate?

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 8 2013, 04:57 PM

You are correct that this is about party politics. That is exactly what it is all about.

However you are wrong if you think the paying of the fees by other events is irrelevant. It depends entirely. Did the council approach Pegasus & ask 'can you run us a Xmas Market' or did Pegasus ask the coucil to rent the park to run an Xmas market.

The fact that you think such a fundamentally important question is irelevant makes me wonder if you know more than you are letting on.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 8 2013, 04:57 PM

Wholly agree, they are simply taking away what little credibility NTC has remaining.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 8 2013, 04:57 PM

Naw, I've seen it.

Who should pay and for what - that is a serious question btw

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 8 2013, 05:00 PM

Your deflection is irrelevant, not the rather guarded point you appear to make. Spit it out, then we might better appraise what you are trying to say.

The CEO's actions might have been questionable, but the follow-up replies by Cllr Edwards and Cllr Swift-Hook are laughable, if not so serious.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 8 2013, 05:02 PM

Did the council approach Pegasus & ask 'can you run us a Xmas Market' or did Pegasus ask the council to rent the park to run an Xmas market

if it is the latter than leting them off the £2500 is rather serious.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 8 2013, 05:05 PM

I'm not sure letting them off is the most serious feature, it is the way that decision was come by and then the actions of the council trying to white-wash the affair. That for me, is the problem.

Posted by: Mr Brown Nov 8 2013, 05:10 PM

Does anyone know if the town council get a kick back for the use of his services on the BID work? These negotiations generally take a long time - when he can't be doing NTC stuff?

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 8 2013, 05:15 PM

You mean the decision to let off a commercial enterprise the rent - yes that's rather damning.

Thats what I'm asking - is that what happened? If so, then the party bickering over the way it was done is clouding the issue - I'd be furious however it was decided. I don't care if it was by a majority vote or a single person's decision.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 8 2013, 05:19 PM

Yes, so would I, but I would have little argument if due process has been followed. 'We' have an opportunity to vote out people at the next election if we believe they make poor decisions on our behalf, however, that decision, if left to Cllr Edwards and Cllr Swift-Hook, would not be known to the public if they had their way.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 8 2013, 05:23 PM

Oh, well, that's all right then.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 8 2013, 05:27 PM

Not following due process is worse!


If due process is observed, then 'being OK' is otherwise only a matter of ours' opinion.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 8 2013, 05:28 PM

They'll be printing that out & using it as an excuse for anything.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 8 2013, 05:41 PM

Looking at how they operate, they have adopted the tenet already.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 8 2013, 05:42 PM

It's a very good question, and I agree, the two situations are completely different. Perhaps someone can answer that one - would you ask the Council?

Posted by: Exhausted Nov 8 2013, 05:44 PM

Not quite true as Mr Hunt CEO of NTC is not an elected councillor and like the remainder of the staff both full and part time, are paid employees.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 8 2013, 05:44 PM

Careful, dannyboy is likely to throw a wobbler over the insinuation there!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 8 2013, 05:58 PM

I feel that dannyboy makes an important point. If the Christmas Market was something that the Town Council had decided in committee that it wanted to happen and had, perhaps in partnership with the BID, invited an operator to make it happen, then the clerk would in essence have been doing little more than actionioning the Council's decision as best as he was able.

But if this was not initiated by the Council and was simply a commercial booking of the Park and the clerk made the unauthorised decision to waive the rent when there was no good public-interest reason for not phoning round a couple of councillors at the very least, then I think it is indeed a serious matter, especially when the leader of the Council says that he wouldn't agree to waive the rent again and doesn't suppose any of his colleagues would either.

I think it's something that perhaps the NWN should clarify.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 8 2013, 05:59 PM

No, I meant it seriously. I think someone should ask the Council which it was, and as I'm a Vexatious Complainant it can't easily be me.

Posted by: Exhausted Nov 8 2013, 06:06 PM

As far as Blaze was concerned.....

I went and I didn't reckon that it was for commercial gain unless I missed something. As far as I can see, the use of the park was for fun. Areas were fenced off but I thought that was mainly for the safety of the visitors.
The charge, if I am correct, should have been waived but I can't say the same for a Christmas market. Nice to have, but it is a commercial event and the dues should be paid. At what point did the organisers realise that they had insufficient funds and why the rush to get this 100% concession. Did they think the CEO was a soft touch and stressed the urgency accordingly because they thought, if they made a formal request, the council might say no!.
The conduct of the CEO should have resulted in a written warning and the action should not condoned by the council. I bet they thought they would "get away with it" and if it wasn't for Mr U's abstention, they might just have done so.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 8 2013, 06:16 PM

That's probably quite right. Just one thing though, if an organisation is not for profit, open to all and good for Newbury should NTC charge for the use of rooms etc?

Posted by: Exhausted Nov 8 2013, 06:31 PM

Probably yes because there is an overhead that goes with the use of the room, Security, cleaning, insurance, heating and lighting etc. I would expect a concession for local worthies doing their local bit however as opposed to a seance organised by the chat to your dead relatives association. (EDIT just looking at the scale of charges there is a 50% reduction available to the former)

The NTC publish a code of conduct which I assume applies to all members of the council including the paid staff.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 8 2013, 06:48 PM

No, I don't think so. "Members" of the council usually refers to the elected members and not the employees.

Posted by: Exhausted Nov 8 2013, 07:05 PM

It's a mute point, from the same document



"appointed" is a word that would cover the CEO and all his minions I would have thought.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 8 2013, 07:52 PM

Exactly.

If it is the latter, then the event should have been cancelled.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 8 2013, 08:34 PM

From the http://www.nalc.gov.uk/Document/Download.aspx?uid=97de7568-8547-4192-8790-97a3faa50c2d: "Local councillors are often referred to as “Members” – for example in the Code of Conduct."

There is provision in the Local Government Act 2000 for a code of conduct for employees but I don't know it's compulsory or what teeth it has.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 8 2013, 08:38 PM

I can't find any mention in the Council minutes of the Council coming up with the idea and deciding to invite someone to organise it. It was first mentioned in the Annual Town Report that it was going to happen which I think pretty conclusively says that it wasn't at NTC's instigation.

There was a proposal from 2007 from the TCP that they would organise a Christmas Market (in West Mills) so maybe the proposal came from the BID, I don't know.

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 8 2013, 08:54 PM

That's the problem there is too much we don't know, as usual, both of our local authorities are not open and transparent enough by a long chalk. If it is a commercial event then taxpayers should not be paying in any shape or form in my opinion.

If council procedure has not been followed then why? An answer should be given. If the council will not allow free use of the park for others or a Xmas market in future what makes this year so different apart from a major council gaff?

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 8 2013, 10:02 PM

This is the point, if this was a long held event, that had local dependencies, then there would be some validity to help keep it going, but the action chosen by the CEO in effect brings the council into disrepute. I find it impossible to believe that he of such experience didn't think to seek opinions from his 'board' or other councillors.

Posted by: blackdog Nov 8 2013, 10:38 PM

In West Mills? Where on earth would they site a couple of dozen sheds in West Mills for a few weeks?

I don't see the councillors response to this issue as being party political - more the opposite. We have all but one councillor on the same side - not the two parties at loggerheads in the all to common 'if he's for it I'm against it' party shenanigans. What we have is one councillor stepping out of line (good for him, he went as his conscience dictated) and not toeing the party line. Quite refreshing.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 8 2013, 11:15 PM

Search me, it was the TCP's idea, not mine.

Posted by: Exhausted Nov 9 2013, 08:58 AM

This whole saga just goes to show how out of touch the town council is and that it has its roots in the way the Victorian and Edwardian councils were run. A few of the local elite making decisions on behalf of the rest of the elite. As the local media was part of that group and the forelock touching of the population was the way it was, then they were free to do what they wanted without hinder.
Today we have our own media, the internet, and we can, to some extent, point out the errors of their way, but they know that in the long term, a few dissidents won't be able to hold them to account and by the time the elections come round, we will have forgotten anyway.
I wonder how many decisions of this type are made on our behalf by the CEO of WBC without reference to the elected members. So, on reflection, is this a mountain out of a molehill and has this employee of NTC exceeded his authority. If he has and this decision should have been made by the council alone then why do we need him, as his role surely then is that of a manager rather than an executive.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 9 2013, 10:52 AM

If we had abolished 'politics 'at local level, I'm inclined to agree. But as they all want to play wanabe Westminster, they must remember the duty of an opposition is to oppose!

Why bother with Moss Bros let us stitch you up!

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 9 2013, 01:11 PM

Not only all that, it perhpas shows how feeble the CEO is a negotiation. How could anyone expect to get something for free?

Posted by: On the edge Nov 9 2013, 02:03 PM

Yes - he'd make the Supplier I'd love to meet! It's not even commercial noise that's missing, just plain old common sense.

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 9 2013, 03:58 PM

And there is certainly a dearth of that in our local council it would seem?
I would not mind but as a ratepayer I end up having to pay for these Captain Mainwaring types fiascos.

Posted by: blackdog Nov 9 2013, 04:03 PM

Couldn't agree less - the duty of all politicians is to ensure the best performance of their level of government to the benefit of the inhabitants they represent. If the opposition happen to agree that the ruling party has got it right the last thing they should do is oppose.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 9 2013, 04:25 PM

I think the word should be test. Let face it, arguably a disciplinary matter involving a significant loss of revenue, all swep nicely under the carpet...he won't do it again will he and no one would have ever known.

Now, let's take an imaginary case in one of our posh dress shops, a sales assistant is serving a customer in the gowns department. There is a lovely one for £2,500 - but the purchaser, though she is the wife of a local VIP, simply can't afford it. Can you guess what would have happened to the sales assistant if they'd said, go on have it, I know the ball is important and will bring prestige to the town. No one will ever know!

Umm - if our peers can't act with integrity, why should a low paid sales assistant?

Posted by: nerc Nov 9 2013, 05:18 PM

Pegasus events apprroached the council and asked if they could hire the area for a Christmas event

Posted by: On the edge Nov 9 2013, 05:21 PM

Quite so!

I negotiate with suppliers, part and parcel of commerce. Never seen such generosity! Pegasus were bound to ask - for them Christmas came early.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 9 2013, 06:11 PM

There are clearly questions that the Council still needs to address. I would like to understand

• Who authorised the reduction of the usual £3,700 fee down to £2,500, and why.
• What due diligence the town clerk used in establishing that the success of the market does indeed depend on the waiving of the £2,500 fee.
• Where the public interest is in subsidising a commercial Christmas Market from the precept.
• If there is a commercial benefit for the wider retail community why isn't the BID subsidising the market?

You may have your own questions.

But these questions need to be put to the Council. I think the Civic Pride, Arts & Leisure Committee meeting on Monday the 18th November could answer those questions. As I am a Vexatious Complaint I can't ask the questions, so perhaps someone else will take the Council to task.

Ellis Baker (ellis.barker@newburynews.co.uk ) is also http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2013/questions-over-potential-profits-as-market-says-it-cant-afford-rent so perhaps someone would like to ask her to ask the Council for clarification.

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 9 2013, 06:20 PM

I don't see any substance in the Pegasus group of companies. The single Director is at least a bit local but I don't see much to justify a local authority of any level granting an operation licence.
Perhaps there is something we don't need to know…..

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 9 2013, 08:40 PM

This is another reason why the decision should not have been made: the 'deal' smells fishy, if not inept.

To add to Simon's questions, I'd ask why is it OK to waive the fee in 2013, but not in 2014?

Posted by: nerc Nov 10 2013, 05:50 AM

How do the Council vet applications for events?.
Given that the events organiser has no previous experience of running a Christmas Market and the company was only setup just 1 year ago must require questions to be asked.
To say that the council will charge for 2014 is utterly nonsense as it cannot be sure that the event will continue after this year.
I also think that the site fee quoted should have been more as i guess it will take 4 or 5 days prior to and after to erect and dismantle the sheds etc.
Perhaps the council should have agreed to look at a reduction of the fee after seeing a full set of audited accounts from Pegasus

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 10 2013, 03:04 PM

IMHO the council will simply state that the rental for the park being waived is their 'contribution' to the event.

I can't imagine that £2.5k is the difference bwtween a 3 week event, with 45 stalls happening & not happening.

As usual the way in which such information is presented is bolloxed up & makes all involved look like an incompetent bunch of crooks.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 10 2013, 03:30 PM

And for all those reasons I think questions needs to be put formally to the Council so that they can give an honest and open account of themselves.

I wasn't at the Council meeting so I can't say first-hand what reaons the clerk gave for waiving the fee, but the NWN report the following:


I too find it less than credible that a month-long commercial even that's been in the planning for a year and will have a turn-over in excess of £100k could at this late stage be cancelled for the want of £2.5k, but that is apparently what Pegasus are saying.

I think some formal questions should be put to the Council to explore these issues.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 10 2013, 03:51 PM

Sounds bollox to me - I can't understand how renting a job lot of chalets, then subletting them individualy can end up with a promoter only breaking even so long as the Coucil lets them off the ground rent.


If it is the cae, I can't see their being a market in 2014.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 10 2013, 04:04 PM

I've tried to find out how much the promoter is renting the chalets for, but I can't. I think they're from http://www.chaletevents.net/ (that's where the pictures of the chalets on the market web site were taken from), but they don't publish the price. Challet Events rent out their chalets to a lot of Christmas markets around the country so they're a big operation, and it's reasonable to assume that they rent them at a price that still allows the market operators to turn a profit. Mind, Challet Events have a ticker at the bottom of their site of Christmas markets their chalets are at, and Newbury isn't listed as far as I can see.

And it's not as though £2.5k (which was already reduced from £3,700 for some reason) is a lot of money to find - according to the market web site it's the rent on a single chalet, and they're renting 35 with some other space and marketing opportunities too.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 10 2013, 04:45 PM

What is wrong with the whole thing is that it is a purely commercial event, thought up by & for the benefit of the promotor. I'm guessing Nick Houghton will stil be making a tidy sum out of it.

The council should not be funding this. Unless they are going to start letting off the Farmers Market & any other Market / enterprise that care to use coucil owned land / premises their rents.

Posted by: user23 Nov 10 2013, 04:49 PM

How are they funding it?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 10 2013, 04:57 PM

Couldn't agree more DB. I would like to understand more from the Council why they think it is in the public interest to subsidise this market.

Mind you, I can't see the public interest in funding the charter market either - and now we're not talking about foregoing revenue, we're talking about spending real tax-payer's money on a moribund commercial operation that, through NTC's inept management, runs at a loss of £25k each year. This current excitement if frankly ridiculous is we're not prepared to challenge the Council on the main issues.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 10 2013, 04:57 PM

how is who funding what?

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 10 2013, 05:46 PM

The weekly market IMHO is a diffrernt matter as it is the councils choice to run it. It makes a loss in that some of NTC budget is spent on running it rather than it make a surplus.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 10 2013, 05:47 PM

The promoter has had his bill for the rent of the park torn up.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 10 2013, 06:38 PM

I accept, as you noted earlier, that the two situations are different in that it is the Council's resolved decision to run a charter market whereas the Christmas market is simply a third-party commercial venture, and I would accept in principle that there could be some small public interest in having a charter market even if it cost the tax-payer money, but for our particular market which is ineptly managed and moribund there is no benefit to keeping that sorry corpse plugged in and getting out of the way to allow the BID a chance to run it might well turn its fortunes around as well as saving the tax-payer £25k - win-win.

Posted by: nerc Nov 10 2013, 08:49 PM

I agree that the 2 situations are different.
The council can afford to give FREE rent to a commercial operation but not support the Charter Market.
At one time the Charter Market did make a profit but when they changed the management the whole thing went backwards.
The regular market is now a closed shop and will never improve under its present management.
I doubt that the BID could make a difference.
However we are beeing distracted from the main subject of a commercial operation being given free rent

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 10 2013, 08:58 PM

I felt the two were sufficiently related to contrast and compare, but I'm happy to let it drop.

Posted by: nerc Nov 10 2013, 09:08 PM

Good idea Simon.

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 10 2013, 09:12 PM

With no explanation of why? Apart from we would have had no Xmas market, which beggars belief! Also the more serious complaint of why one person made the decision to waive the, already heavily, discounted Park Hire Charge. This on top of already announced heavy spending cuts to other essential services make it look as if a private commercial company making a profit is more important to the council than ratepayers needs.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 12 2013, 10:19 PM

The leader of NTC has just said that expecting the council to take on extra functions without funding will lead to some difficult decisions......certainly will if he keeps up his present record

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 12 2013, 11:18 PM

I read that too. My immediate thought is that he is simply positioning NTC to mop up the tourist information office and increase the precept to pay for it. I hope I'm wrong.

Posted by: Sherlock Nov 13 2013, 05:58 AM

For the benefit of those who, like me, haven't really being paying attention to this: is it true that the Thursday and Saturday markets are being run at a cost to council tax payers? Insane if so but maybe I've missed the point.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 13 2013, 08:48 AM

That's right, it costs the Newbury precept-payer £25k net cost to run the charter market.

There's £36k in running costs, £21k in staff costs, and £32k in revenue.

In addition to that a third of the Council's budget goes on back-office and admin so the full commercial cost of providing the charter market is arround £52k.

And no, you haven't missed anything, it is absolutely insane that we should be paying £52k to support a moribund commercial enterprise. Give it to the BID to run: They actually have some commercial nous, their admin costs are a tiny fraction of NTC's, and if there is any benefit to the town's economy in running the charter market even though it makes a loss then it is appropriate that the BID pays the bill.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 13 2013, 09:18 AM

If you're interested the breakdown of what you pay for in those running costs is this:

Market management £6,000

The Council sub-out the actual management of the market to one of the market traders. That does make the Council's own staff costs of £21k puzzlingly high when you consider that the market only runs two days a week and the Council don't actually run it.

Lease of market facilities £1,852

I don't know what facilities these are or who they are leased from.

Rates / BID contribution £7,700

That is a substantial payment to WBC. I'm guessing that the BID payment is just their levy, though I could be wrong.

Energy supplies £1,200
Repairs & maintenance £5,000

Refuse contract £0

The Council previously paid £46,261 to WBC for a bit of sweeping up which was nothing but a scam. I have never seen any evidence that the contract was ever put out to competitive tender and the Council cancelled it after I made a noise about it. The market traders now self-clean and it costs them virtually nothing - ask them, I did.

Refuse contract risk fund £9,000

This is a slush fund that the Council say they will "possibly use to assist funding of additional Northbrook Street electricity supplies"

NABMA subscription £330

Marketing £5,000

Security £130


That's a total of £36,212 that the Council spend on running costs. On top of that there's £21k of Council staff costs and £27k of back-office and admin costs, with a revenue of £31,900.

The charter market is run at a loss simply because that kind of thing doesn't bother the Council. The Town Council is a franchise to print money and normal commercial pressures simply don't apply, their only challenge is finding enough bricks to build their administration empire. Why would they want to hand the charter market over to the BID? - it's worth £84k of turnover.

[Edit: I'm not quite right right with the £21k staff costs, it's actually £18.5k. The Council don't publish the breakdown so I have to pull it apart in a spreadsheet from the various figures that they do publish, and I haven't accounted for everything properly in the spreadsheet. I can see where it's wrong but I can't see how to put it right and while the error is relatively small I can't really be asked because it's the big picture that's important, but you know how these little details can divert an argument so I thought it helpful to mention.]

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 13 2013, 02:01 PM

Anything that a council does its run at a cost.

It depends on your interpretation of what a council does.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 13 2013, 03:48 PM

I think that's a bit simplistic. Certainly, in my small government, free trade world, that would be spot on. That indeed is the moot point.

Why should I, with a fruit and veg shop, paying business rates have to suffer competition from someone not paying?

The collection of the fees is really the only additional duty the council has. This means that if NTC are spending more to collect a 'tax' than it raises, then they break Rule one of Taxation.

I learned this at Primary School!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 13 2013, 05:30 PM

Actually that's not true, and it's not really the point either.

Newbury's charter market was cost-neutral up until 2010 but through inept and inefficient management the market has become less and less successful and has cost more and more to run.

In general public services of all kinds are going to be run at a cost to the tax-payer - that's really rather why they're public services, because the service wouldn't be available at reasonable cost, or wouldn't be available at all on commercial terms.

But the charter market is hardly a service is it. OK, 400 years ago it was probably a useful social function to designate times and places of market days so that people meet to trade, but we have shops now and there is no good reason to tax us in order to provide what is, in fairness, a moribund market.

There is perhaps a case to be made that the market attracts trade to the town and supports the retail economy (which it doesn't, but whatever) but the town council has no remit to support the town's retail economy with out precept, and if anyone wants the job it's the BID - though I'm not sure they'd want to touch it with a barge pole.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 13 2013, 05:54 PM

Not only that, a few years ago, ~£800,000.00 was spent on some cobbles so the market had a nice new surface to trade from!

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 13 2013, 06:34 PM

Whatever your opinion, Newbury is a Market Town & it has a market run by the town.

Slagging it off given any chance won't alter that.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 13 2013, 06:35 PM

Dunno but apparently in Kingsclere some fruit & veg shop owner isn't that pleased that B&D BC are using his rates to fund a bus to take pensioners to Tadley Sainsbury's twice a week.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 13 2013, 06:41 PM

I wouldn't be so sure... unless you know something I don't!

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 13 2013, 06:46 PM

I guess it might make one feel a bit better.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 13 2013, 06:56 PM

In fairness, my argument is a bit more fully developed than "it's rubbish, init".

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 13 2013, 07:15 PM

Not really.

Actually that's not true, and it's not really the point either.

The market run by an entity that is paid for by local taxation. Having the market run differently isn't going to mean a reduction in taxation.

Newbury's charter market was cost-neutral up until 2010 but through inept and inefficient management the market has become less and less successful and has cost more and more to run.

I'll take your word for it that is was 'cost neutral'. If this is the case I'm assuming that it is because the number of traders has droped whislt the costs of running the market have stayed the same that has resulted in the revenue from the market not equalling the costs of running it. Why that should be classed as ineptitude & inefficiency I'm not sure. Maybe the rents for the remaining traders shoudl have been increased pro rata to offset the reduced number of traders but that is unfair.


In general public services of all kinds are going to be run at a cost to the tax-payer - that's really rather why they're public services, because the service wouldn't be available at reasonable cost, or wouldn't be available at all on commercial terms.

But the charter market is hardly a service is it. OK, 400 years ago it was probably a useful social function to designate times and places of market days so that people meet to trade, but we have shops now and there is no good reason to tax us in order to provide what is, in fairness, a moribund market.

It isn't a service no - unless you use it that is. We could do with out it, but like other things the council does it is part of the towns heritage to have a market. Just becasue we have shops though is no reason to do away with it. We also have several gyms / swimming pools around town, yet taxpayers have just forked out for 6 months of refurbishment at Northcroft. Not only that but the shops in town benefit from a fair bit of taxpayers cash ( directly & indrectly & regardless if they want the cash spent or not ) . Such as the information signs soon to be unveiled all over town.

There is perhaps a case to be made that the market attracts trade to the town and supports the retail economy (which it doesn't, but whatever) but the town council has no remit to support the town's retail economy with out precept, and if anyone wants the job it's the BID - though I'm not sure they'd want to touch it with a barge pole.

Rather a lot of opinion & you can't be wrong on that count. Making sure that a town is economically viable & vibrant is one of the remits of a council.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 13 2013, 07:23 PM

Then find out, and make an informed comment.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 13 2013, 07:26 PM

Can't be bothered.

I fear there is nothing to 'find out'.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 13 2013, 07:58 PM

The better way would be to have pressurised Sainsbury's into providing a mobile shop and pressurising the Grant collectors into running proper public transport. Of course that smacks of grown up leadership rather than nanny wiping runny noses.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 13 2013, 08:02 PM

But it might mean freeing up cash for else where.


Or maybe the rents should have been commensurate with demand. Having a market that is not very popular, while being flanked by towns alleged with popular markets suggests that Simon might have a point about ineptitude.


The rest of your post I agree with.

Posted by: user23 Nov 13 2013, 08:20 PM

Some people still like to think of Newbury a small market town.

These same people would probably be very vocal if the Town Council were to close the market down.

I'm afraid people will complain if they do support it, and others will complain if they don't.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 13 2013, 08:46 PM

LOL,

If running a twice a week service to a number of destinations, one of which happens to be Sainsbury's Tadley ( naturally that was the stop the shop owner in Kingsclere was upset about & which he capitalized on ) isn't 'running proper public transport' I'd like to know what is.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 13 2013, 08:50 PM

The cash could be used elsewhere.

I'm of the opinion that if the market was commercially unviable the traders wouldn't show up.

As for the popularity with the people of Newbury - well, you can take a horse to water.....

Posted by: On the edge Nov 13 2013, 09:01 PM

A daily interval service with no subsidy.

Where are we again? Scottish Highlands 1956.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 14 2013, 12:04 PM

So who pays for a bus with 2 passengers?

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 14 2013, 12:39 PM

To a certain extent, that's what has happened.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 14 2013, 01:18 PM

Who wants anything?

Posted by: CBW137Y Nov 14 2013, 06:13 PM

I was at my local market today (as I am every Thursday), and it was packed as always. I would love to know the difference in demographic/rents etc (which I could research, I suppose), but having grown up in Newbury and visited the market each week as a child when it was busy, it's a shame to see it go down the drain.

Posted by: nerc Nov 14 2013, 09:12 PM

I would like to know your interpretation of Packed?, talking to some of the traders today they were all saying the market is dead.
Listen to the few people who visit the market and ask them what they think about it?.
Most will tell you that there is no variety and lack of stalls.

Posted by: Exhausted Nov 14 2013, 09:54 PM

You are referring to a market in another town I assume. What do you think makes your market work and what lessons could Newbury learn from your observations. Serious question by the way, no sarcasm intended.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 14 2013, 10:29 PM

I can't answer for CBW137Y, but I suspect location is significant. I felt that a good market would attract the punters into the market square, but I think I was probably wrong. I think that the Market needs to go entirely in the high street where the punters are. That's the strong view of the market traders and I'm sure they're right.

Sited in the high street I think the market would stand a much better chance of attracting an interesting and diverse range of vendors, and with more interest and diverse a range the market would be much more worth visiting, and that would attract more vendors still - success breeds success.

A change in location is unlikely to be enough though. I would guess that the charter market would need some serious promotion and branding, and I don't think NTC is currently up to the job.

Making the market cost-neutral for the tax-payer is a bigger challenge because NTC books so much time and overheads to the market.

I feel on both counts the best option may be to convince the BID to take it on, though whether they'd agree that the market could enhance the town's retail experience is up to them - they may just see it as competition and be happy to let it go.

Posted by: CBW137Y Nov 14 2013, 10:38 PM

My definition of packed is queuing to be served, and negotiating your way through the crowds to get from one end to another. Given I knew I would respond to this, I took some pics whilst I was there this morning which I didn't post earlier, given I was supervising a small person

Anyway, let me work out how to post the pictures, and I'll demonstrate my definition.

Exhausted: I'm not entirely sure what exactly makes it work, which is why I said I wasn't sure of the demographic difference between the two 'market towns' these days, and rents etc. I shall endeavour to find out though, if I get the time (unless anyone else would care to do so?). One obvious factor is Newbury now has a younger shopping culture. That said, given the UK is an aging population, I would have thought there were enough people who would normally use one to support the market?

Simon: The market is in the market square, and a very short walk from the main shops. Again, I think I need to look at the details as mentioned above.

Posted by: CBW137Y Nov 14 2013, 10:45 PM

Not the best shot, in all honesty.....

http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af315/charleygpCBW137Y/2013-11-14111623_zpse23a8fea.jpg

Better shot.

http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af315/charleygpCBW137Y/2013-11-14112036_zps9e0089d2.jpg

I didn't bother attempting to take any in the aisles between the stalls, as I value my ankles

This was just gone 11:15 ish, I think. I like to go to the market a little later in the morning to haggle some bargains from the butcher!

Posted by: MontyPython Nov 14 2013, 11:36 PM

Thanks CBW looks busy!

Also shows you don't need to spend the best part of a million pounds repaving it either!

Posted by: nerc Nov 15 2013, 04:54 AM

Devizes Market looks busy as usual i see.

Posted by: CBW137Y Nov 15 2013, 08:57 AM

Indeed! Never fails to draw custom.

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 15 2013, 09:53 AM

Are there as many out of town retail parks?
Are the supermarkets out of town?
What are the parking charges?
What are the alternatives to shopping in Devizes?
Newbury has a few such as Reading and Basingstoke plus the public transport system in Devizes is probably not as good (they have no railway) so maybe the opportunities to shop elsewhere may be more limited.
Just suggestions and speculations, I don't really know!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 15 2013, 10:23 AM

Devizes, along with quite a few others in the Wiltshire market towns, are run by the Wiltshire unitary authority and not the town council. That gives Wiltshire a fighting chance of retaining staff with retail management knowledge and experience.

One of the challenges in Newbury is the difficult relationship between WBC anc NTC, so for example moving the market into the high street becomes a major negotiation project rather than a simple executive decision.

And Devizes market square is still full of shops whereas the Newbury market square has restaurants, pubs, and charity shops so shoppers don't tend to leave the high street for what has become a rather dull street market.

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 15 2013, 10:49 AM

That raises another question - why is that?

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 15 2013, 11:01 AM

A few reasons -

the Market place is part of the 'cafe quarter'

the people of Newbury by & large only buy from large chains.

rentals in Newbury are stratospheric & the only businesses that can afford the units are chains. The shop chains are either in Northbrrok st on on a retail park, leaving the restaurants in the Market Place.

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 15 2013, 11:18 AM

Well maybe http://en.parkopedia.co.uk/parking/devizes/ has something to do with it?
I don't know how this compares with Newbury as I never pay to park here but I note that the Market Place car park is free for the first 60mins.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 15 2013, 11:20 AM

Hard to park though when the market is there.........

As for paying to park, me neither. Sainsbury's always has space.

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 15 2013, 11:24 AM

Yes I thought that, not sure if it is closed during market hours but the website shows it as Mon-Sat 8:00-18:00. with no closures.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 15 2013, 11:38 AM

Devises simply demonstrates that an open market needs to be where the retail customers expect it - i.e where the shops are. That's a basic trading dynamic. So a vibrant open market is still possible.

Two posts have shown the answer:

1 in the vision of our Unitary authority WBC, Market Place is the CAFE QUARTER, so not where customers expect to find an open market.

2 the market is managed by the Parish Council, which has no authority or indeed professional resource, to do the job properly.

End result, Newbury Open Market in terminal decline.

The secretariat and executive at both councils are intelligent people.

Only conclusion I can draw is that the Political establishment in Newbury does not want an Open Market.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 15 2013, 11:42 AM

It is the people of Newbury that don't want a market. If they did they'd use it. End of story. And Market.

Posted by: motormad Nov 15 2013, 12:13 PM

That's one way of putting it

Posted by: CBW137Y Nov 15 2013, 12:39 PM

Not quite. WH Smith, a kitchen shop and the rest is coffee shops, pubs, banks and estate agents before you get to the side road (Little Brittox) which leads you to the main shopping area (The Brittox). I wouldn't say it was that much different, shop wise, to Newbury market square.

There are no out of town retail parks, and most of Devizes' residents whinge about having to travel out of town to do some decent shopping. Sound familiar?

Will answer more later, but the child has just woken up!

Posted by: CBW137Y Nov 15 2013, 12:46 PM

Parking is 55p for an hour (not sure after that without looking, as I usually walk into town). The market place is free to park, but only for half an hour, not an hour. There is talk of doing away with that, though. Funny you mention parking, as there is a lot of local debate about the higher than average fume situation in Devizes, and parking issues on the whole. Research has indicated that a huge part of the problem with traffic congestion on Devizes (which is awful at times, to the point I'd rather try and get from one side of Newbury to the other), is due to people driving around in circles trying to find a free space!

Posted by: Sherlock Nov 15 2013, 12:52 PM

There was a Greggs, a Superdrug and a dry cleaners, at least when the Google Street View pics were taken https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=devizes&hl=en&ll=51.352613,-1.995413&spn=0.00105,0.002411&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=8.141191,19.753418&hnear=Devizes,+Wiltshire,+United+Kingdom&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=51.352497,-1.995304&panoid=Ye8Oev8iQPZezQh6aXacrg&cbp=12,132.54,,0,15.85

Posted by: CBW137Y Nov 15 2013, 12:57 PM

Ha, I forgot about Superdrug! Probably because it's a pain in the bum to get the push chair in and out of

Several of those establishments have changed since 2009, including the loss of the wine shop, JAG and I think the photographer has now gone as well. The main dry cleaner is now the other end of The Brittox.

Posted by: Biker1 Nov 15 2013, 01:32 PM

Ah!

Posted by: On the edge Nov 15 2013, 01:44 PM

Consequently, the peoples representatives, the Councillors will all be against the market, so you are implying we have yet another example of where the CEO is ignoring the views of the people. We now have the perfect excuse, we simply can't afford it, so as we are so sort of funds, let's just let it go.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 15 2013, 01:47 PM

Some of the people.

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 15 2013, 03:08 PM

Only if the stalls were retailing what the customers require and at the correct price and quality too.
Or could it be that the current rules are acting in a protectionist manner? By preventing new stallholders from considering Newbury Market to purely protect the, few, existing stallholders. Not sure of course but I do know you will only survive by supplying what the customers require. Of course by NTC being involved means the market will be hindered in the survival struggle to say the least!

Posted by: On the edge Nov 15 2013, 03:19 PM

The people of Newbury.....

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 15 2013, 03:28 PM

Naturally.

I think there is/was a policy about not having too many of the same type of stall. Can't imagine that the current traders would be bothered by that.....

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 15 2013, 03:33 PM

Pick and choose eh dannyboy?

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 15 2013, 03:37 PM

not really.

If the people of Newbury don't want a market they'll not use it & no amount of financial support from the council will alter that.

Currently, due to various factors the market isn't as busy as it once was, but is still used by what must be enough people to warrant the traders bothering.

So not all of the people of Newbury use it, but some do and in sufficient numbers to see it continue.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 15 2013, 04:03 PM

No issue with that at all. So then, all the stall holder needs to do is pay for a space at Tourist Information, and that's it. No cost to us the charge payer.

Well done, think you've solved it....

Posted by: nerc Nov 25 2013, 05:07 PM

I see the Christmas Market is already beeing erected so that a few extra days of rent free time

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jul 4 2015, 04:58 PM

Just doing a bit of research and came across this post - nice crystal ball you have there AC.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jul 4 2015, 09:27 PM

LOL

Posted by: Ciderdrinker Jul 7 2015, 12:39 PM

I know the Beer tent and Bratwurst stand were very popular the first year, I made several visits myself. The other stalls were a bit hit and miss, I would have liked to have seen more local produce.