Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 25 2011, 08:31 AM

Can anyone confirm or deny the rumour that the Council will no longer be paid the £300k parking revenue from SLI? I was told this rumour yesterday, and nobody at the council or SLI seem to want to discuss the matter. Perhaps unsurprisingly as they don't discuss anything with me, but it would be interesting to know how accurate this rumour proves to be (or not).

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 25 2011, 04:11 PM

Yes

Posted by: JeffG Oct 25 2011, 04:15 PM

So you can confirm or deny the rumour? Which is the answer to the question posed.

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 25 2011, 04:21 PM

Precisely. Concise and to the point

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 25 2011, 05:00 PM

Ha that's a cracker - it's the way he asks them!

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 25 2011, 05:10 PM

Will SLI be paying WBC the £300,000 p/a?

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 25 2011, 05:11 PM

Not a scooby

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 25 2011, 05:15 PM

Well make it up then!

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 25 2011, 05:15 PM

That will be up to SLI. WBC will accept whatever they dictate as normal!

Posted by: spartacus Oct 25 2011, 06:38 PM

Doh! I wish I'd seen your answer before I answered Richard's thread (same question) on 'the other channel'.... Makes me look like I'm incapable of an original thought....

Posted by: user23 Oct 25 2011, 06:52 PM

Great minds and all that.

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 25 2011, 07:17 PM

Are we to assume from the deafening silence from the usually vociferous WBC mouthpieces that the rumour is true? WBC are not going to recieve the £300.000 PA!

Posted by: spartacus Oct 25 2011, 07:43 PM

Freedom Of Information request perhaps?

(I rather suspect that a local news forum inhabited by a small number of Newbury keyboard tappers is not the right channel to get a serious answer - unless you're after responses such as "Yeah I 'eard that too dahn the pub off a mate wot works at the cahncil.... 'e said it's disgusting")

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 25 2011, 08:17 PM

There are umpteen opt-out's from a FoI, so WBC would just need to feel that disclosure would harm SLI's or their own commercial interests and they could simply ignore the request.

Public pressure is about the only thing that public authorities fear, and asking on here is quite a convenient way of tapping in to that.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 25 2011, 08:22 PM

I'd imagine Newbury Weekly News's snarling journalistic Pit Bulls will soon get to the bottom of things!

Posted by: spartacus Oct 25 2011, 08:35 PM

Meanwhile..... in Faraday Road..........

Posted by: Nothing Much Oct 25 2011, 09:11 PM

Actually, just for once I will poke my nose into politics. I Know nothing of Newbury these days.
However a relative was part of a group that democratically brought down the LBRUT Liberal Democrat Council this year.
I won't link... It is easy to find if you are interested.
Vince Is still the MP for the area and acts like a Marxist as he always was.
ce

Posted by: Mark NWN Oct 26 2011, 08:29 AM

Yes indeed, that is me nearest to the camera after a quick browse of the forum.


In all seriousness we have got to the bottom of it and the story will be in tomorrow's NWN.

Posted by: Strafin Oct 27 2011, 07:44 PM

So - any news on this? I couldn't find anything in the paper.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 27 2011, 08:08 PM

Allegedly, SLI and WBC are going to divvy up all town parking proceeds between themselves. Unconfirmed though.

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Oct 27 2011, 08:15 PM

Page 6. Column 1, 2, and 3.

It appears that Garvie R. is correct. Shoppers coming into Newbury, and not parking or shopping in Parkway, are still likely to have 50% of their parking charge given to SLI. Since WBC apparently make £2m from parking, (according to their own website) that'll be the best part of a tidy £1m going to SLI per annum.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 27 2011, 08:45 PM

Pamela Bale has made it clear that any revenue in the council owned car parks over £300k is to be split 50-50 between the council and SLI. I heard a rumour that SLI would be paying nothing to the council, and that was denied. But when you take into account what Pangbourne Pam has said in the paper, the money due to SLI would no doubt be greater than what is due to WBC.

WBC is in lockdown today, no doubt trying to come up with a explanation. Nick Carter has forwarded my request for an investigation to the FOI team instead of answering directly and he appears to have dodged requests for a comment from local media too. I emailed Keith Ullyat to ask him what the official council line on this was and he didn't bother replying. Whenever things go this quiet, you know something is up. No User on here either, guess waiting to hear his instructions from above??

This was all rumour, I asked the question and Pamela Bale has all but confirmed it in the NWN today. I wonder if this will be like the CCTV fiasco, elected members, officers etc. all saying different things so nobody knows what the truth is?

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 28 2011, 12:35 AM

Not quite, and regrettably, our diligent news hounds haven't done as good a job as they might.

If the NWN is to be believed, these are the facts.

• SLI will pay WBC £300,000.00 p/a (pro rata-ish)
• 50% of money beyond £300,000.00 received from all other town centre council carparks (excluding Kennet Shopping and Parkway) will be paid to SLI.
• Last year, WBC collected £2,386,330.00* from all parking income (projected). Costs: £1,335,330.00, profit: £1,051,000.00. This amount obviously doesn't include Parkway (being built).

*PCNs/ECHG: £263,235.00
Residents' Permits: £33,904.00
Season Tickets: £112,666.00
Car Park Income: £1,976,525.00


The questions I have are:

• How much money was earned from the applicable carparks?
• Is the £300,000.00 'divvy threshold' applied to net or gross receipts?

It is possible, depending on the answers to the above, that SLI get Parkway for 'free'.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 28 2011, 06:54 AM

The way I read it was that Pamela Bale said parking revenue above £300,000, that would suggest gross income (based on the tickets sold rather than minus costs).

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 28 2011, 08:19 AM

Unfortunately the article is ambiguous. In paragraph 2, it clearly states 'all profits' will be split 50/50. Mrs Bale went on to say that SLI would only get money if the council made money above £300,000.00 (no mention of revenue). To me, 'made money' could mean either net or gross, but I would interpret that as net. Perhaps Mark Taylor would clarify?

I will repeat Richard: please do your home work, otherwise you simply look like a vexatious complainant.

Posted by: JeffG Oct 28 2011, 08:23 AM

Re Andy's post (which may be removed) - this was the subject of another thread which was removed by the moderators while NWN staff try to get to the true facts.

Edit: Admin beat me to it - unless you subtly edited Post #25 while I was typing.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 28 2011, 08:24 AM

I don't know why as everything I have written is in the public domain.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 28 2011, 08:30 AM

I don't know what you mean.

Posted by: admin Oct 28 2011, 09:30 AM

In the interests of accuracy, can I ask you to 'watch this space' regarding this thread and post no more comments for the time being. We are in discussion with WBC about some of the facts surrounding this story and we will let know when this has been resolved.
Thanks for your co-operation.

Posted by: Squelchy Oct 28 2011, 03:47 PM

Ever felt you've been used?

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 29 2011, 12:11 PM

Posted by: Squelchy Oct 29 2011, 01:34 PM

Please don't even discuss this until WBC tell us we can?
Clearly they, (WBC) need at least a weekend to get their story straight, and, apparently, the Newbury Weakly is going to let them have it.

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 29 2011, 01:44 PM

Too late the cats so far out of the bag now I think it has just gone on holiday to Australia.
Perhaps the NWN are unable to handle a scoop as they say? Perhaps they don't want the profit from an exclusive?

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 29 2011, 01:46 PM

Yes admin, how long does it take to read a paragraph in a contract? The pause stokes the conspiracy.

Posted by: JeffG Oct 29 2011, 02:03 PM

Admin, if you really didn't want any more comments, why didn't you lock the thread?

Posted by: Weavers Walk Oct 29 2011, 03:42 PM

Seems to me that these comments aren't about SLI and WBC, but more to do with the craven way the NWN has folded to pressure. Back-handers? Old School Tie? Funny Handshakes? take your pick.

Or, to read between the lines, maybe admin hasn't locked it because he/she is also unhappy with the situation and is still giving space for people to air views.

Still, it's an interesting precedent, nothing should be discussed on this forum until WBC have given their side of the story first. And if that is delayed by years (anyone remember the report on the de-watering - still not here) then so be it.

I have so far resisted the temptation to join the 'other place' but this is so shameful they can't be surprised if there's a mass exodus.

Posted by: user23 Oct 29 2011, 04:00 PM

Just a thought, but perhaps they'd like to make sure everything published is factually correct?

A strange concept for some of our national newspapers I know, but not for the NWN; good on them.

Posted by: blackdog Oct 29 2011, 04:29 PM

Er, um. The de-watering report is nothing to do with WBC.

Posted by: blackdog Oct 29 2011, 04:36 PM

It's pretty clear that the entire thread is based on a rumour based on one Councillor's statement and that the facts are being witheld - so I'm not sure why the NWN want to stop harmless speculation. If WBC are upset then they should state the facts and be done with it.

Posted by: Weavers Walk Oct 29 2011, 05:19 PM

You're quite right. It was the way I expressed it, I was trying to show the foolhardiness of waiting. The de-watering report was supposed to take, what was it? 4 weeks, 6 weeks? The suggestion here that nobody should point out the bowling green is / was unusable 'before the facts were in' i.e. assembled in a way that blamed no-one is ludicrous.
I wasn't suggesting WBC were to blame, merely that Newburytoday seems to have double standards.

The full and final costs of the Pavilion along with it's final design, and the full and final costs of the Museum along with it's final design haven't been released, yet we are allowed to comment on them.

A simple question to WBC, "is it true that SLI have got themselves a deal whereby they get a percentage of the take from the other car-parks in Newbury that are nothing to do with them"? does not need several days to answer correctly.

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 29 2011, 05:28 PM

No but it takes several days to put the correct spin on something that was not supposed to be made public!
I fear we may not get answers for some time yet? How do they put this over in a good light?

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 29 2011, 06:19 PM

The reason why it was needed might be.

Posted by: user23 Oct 29 2011, 06:19 PM

Should the proposed changes to Business Rates go through, I wonder how much extra revenue WBC would gain from Parkway?

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 29 2011, 06:24 PM

With they way WBC behave, that might be difficult to establish. I don't think the measure of how good a town is, should be based on how many shops it has got.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 29 2011, 06:56 PM

So does that mean we should sacrifice parking revenue, because we may get a share of business rates IF PArkway is a success and IF the law changes on business rates?

Posted by: user23 Oct 29 2011, 07:01 PM

Er, are you feeling OK Richard?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 29 2011, 07:02 PM

I'd just changed my post, with the discussion on the BID being at the forefront of my mind, for a second I thought business rates + revenue = BID. I hastily changed my post when I come to my senses!!! :-)

Posted by: user23 Oct 29 2011, 07:09 PM

Fair enough.

I was just hypothesising, giving away parking revenue for a bigger income from business rates might be a rather good idea.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 29 2011, 07:38 PM

Even simpler - share 50% of increased car park profits.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 29 2011, 07:40 PM

So is that what the council line now is? Every penny of that money should continue to go into the general budget, not into the pockets of a company that should be paying us £300k a year for the privaledge of having that land for just a £1.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 29 2011, 07:41 PM

dunno.

Seems pretty obvious to me.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 29 2011, 07:43 PM

The fact the documentation is hidden and the elected members and officers have gone into lockdown, it's hard to tell really. You must have some inside info if it's "obvious".

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 29 2011, 07:47 PM

You don't think PW will increase visitors to the town? Many who will pay to park?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 29 2011, 07:50 PM

I really hope it does. But why should we share revenue from council owned car parks?

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 29 2011, 07:51 PM

Even simpler - keep the whole profit from the car parks for the taxpayer and let SLI Give £3000.000 a year as we were first led to believe. I should have listened to the office of Fair Trading when they stated "when an offer seems too good to be true then it probably is" especially where WBC are concerned.

WBC have not only let Newbury be robbed but they help carry away the swag as well.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 29 2011, 07:53 PM

The concept of agreeing terms and holding a developer to said terms is lost on West Berkshire district council!!!

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 29 2011, 07:57 PM

Because, if true, that was the deal needed to get PW built.

Your own schemes for Newbury involved consessions of one type or another.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 29 2011, 08:03 PM

But the council owned car parks are not part of the Parkway site, and never will be. The council have hidden this for three years and more, if it's such a good deal, why are we only finding out about it now?

Posted by: blackdog Oct 29 2011, 10:59 PM

Zero.

Under the proposed changes WBC will only benefit from developments that come on line after the changes to the law are enacted. We would be better off if Parkway opened a year later.

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 30 2011, 09:38 AM

With the deal that is rumoured to have been finalised, WBC are rushing to find out what exactly this is for us as I type apparently, it would have been better not to have been opened at all!

Posted by: blackdog Oct 30 2011, 11:01 AM

It's time that WBC came out and told the the people who pay their salaries (the taxpayers) the details of this deal.

1. Is it true that SLI will get 50% of WBC parking income above £300k from most of the WBC car parks?

2. If so, how long will local taxpayers be subsidising Parkway?

3. What is the anticipated annual cost to the taxpayer of this deal?

It will all come out next time the WBC accounts are published, what is the point in hiding it now?

A final question - is there any way that the elecorate of West Berkshire can trigger a council election before 2015 and give us a chance to vote this lot out of office?

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 30 2011, 02:32 PM

How about setting up a protest camp?

Just imagine the headlines "Parkway Protest Camp opens before most of the shops".

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 30 2011, 02:36 PM

They'd need to be mindful of the stampeded of women that have been told that there is a shopping centre open. Well, it is not finished, but it has been opened. It still looks like a building site.

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 30 2011, 03:24 PM

Sister in law visited today. Went off down to have a look paid for two hours parking and come away after half an hour with one and a half hours of parking ticket left???? She expalined it kept saying on the advertising hoardings covering, the majority, of empty shops, "Newbury is back in fashion" but it failed to explain where this was???

Posted by: Squelchy Oct 31 2011, 11:49 AM

Well admin? You've had most of Thursday, all of Friday, (all day Sat and Sun for a few 'off the record' phone calls), it's now Monday lunchtime (almost) Got anything for us?

As mentioned earlier in the thread, how long does it take to answer the question " is it likely that monies taken from Car Parks not maintained, owned, operated or run by SLI could, under certain conditions, make it's way back to SLI's coffers? and that this was agreed by WBC"? We don't need to know the amounts, that's for later. It's a yes / no answer at this stage.

Or can we go back to discussing this now, since we wouldn't want Newburytoday to be seen as an arm of the Council would we?

Posted by: admin Oct 31 2011, 11:59 AM

Sorry, we have been waiting for some figures which are as yet not forthcoming from WBC, but the deal between SLI and WBC which states that proceeds over a certain amount (based on parking income from ticket sales from town centre car parks not including Kennet Centre in 2007/8) is in place and has been confirmed to us by WBC. We will keep you updated as soon as we get the monetary value of the agreement which we have asked for several times.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 31 2011, 02:11 PM

Well it's confirmed then. West Berkshire Council are giving away money to SLI. Let's say it's £850,000 a year, that's £850,000 worth of additional cuts in next years budget that will now need to be found. Whatever they give away, the amount will be too much. That money should be going towards fixing potholes or road safety schemes etc. NOT LINING THE POCKETS OF SLI.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 31 2011, 02:43 PM

How did you arrive at £850,000.00? You should be careful before you start banding figures about.

Posted by: blackdog Oct 31 2011, 03:31 PM

£850,000 is approximately 50% of WBC car parking revenue over £300k.

However, it is too high as it includes parks that are not in the SLI deal - certainly the Kennet Centre park and probably parking fines and parks in places like Hungerford and Pangbourne. I suspect the true figure will be more like £500k passing from WBC to SLI (perhaps lower if the WBC parks lose customers to Parkway). It could be lower still if WBC go ahead with their plans to redevelop several of their car parks. On the other hand I assume that WBC will get from SLI half the revenue from the Parkway car park - whatever that might be (£300k perhaps). Either way I doubt it will result in a nett win for WBC - whereas the deal they were happy for us to believe was in place (it has been mentioned often enough without them correcting our delusion) was that SLI would pay WBC £300k a year from the Parkway car park takings (in essence compensating WBC and, ultimately, we taxpayers for the ludicrously low price of £1 they paid for a large portion of the land under Parkway).

So we will not be getting £300k a year from SLI as anticipated, rather we will probably be handing over a nett £100-200k. As a taxpayer I feel robbed.

If WBC had been clear about the deal in 2008 they wouldn't be facing this PR nightmare now - but they evidently thought they could keep it hidden forever or that, if it came out at the time, the public outcry would scupper the deal with SLI. Either way it is, in my opinion, a despicable act of cowardice that they have not been open about the costs to the taxpayer of subsidising Parkway.

Posted by: Andy Capp Oct 31 2011, 03:44 PM

It hasn't been made clear if the deal it is net or gross, this figure would be gross receipts (less £300,000.00) including carparks not within the town centre.

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 31 2011, 06:01 PM

Unbelievable isn't it? Yet again they try to fob off the taxpayers and the press. They know exactly what the deal is and what the figures are. If they don't then it only confirms that WBC is no longer fit for purpose. They should not be left to run a bath let alone a local authority.

Posted by: Cognosco Oct 31 2011, 07:57 PM

Are you sure that it does not apply to all car parks in the WBC area? I know the Kennet Centre is supposed to be excluded but no mention of any other exclusions? I do believe WBC would be so incompetent as to do a deal like this that it would not surprise me any more!

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 31 2011, 09:20 PM

http://decisionmaking.westberks.gov.uk/CeListDocuments.aspx?MID=337&RD=Agenda&DF=15%2f05%2f2008&A=1&R=0

May 15th 2008. Special Council meeting of the executive. No details given on the contents of what was approved.

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 31 2011, 09:30 PM

I have to say that package is discomfiting. I accept the need for confidentiality in business negotiations, but where there is no competition between suppliers I'm not sure what the extent of commercial need would be. Is there a time limit, after the event, when these confidential reports must become public?

I note the name of the Officer in the matter........ He is such a busy chap when it comes to things that subsequently raise eyebrows... (Deservedly or not)

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 31 2011, 09:33 PM

I've got an FOI in... will get the results at some point in November!!!

Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 31 2011, 09:55 PM

Asking what?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 1 2011, 08:05 AM

How much revenue the council will have to pay SLI from parking charges in council car parks and an explanation as to why this is proposed

Posted by: Amelie Nov 1 2011, 11:09 AM

Which is the thread that has the facsimile newpaper front showing on it? Searching high and low, can't find it. Has it been taken down? Anybody kept a copy?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 1 2011, 12:58 PM

It's on the other Newbury (.net) forum, I have downloaded it so if you still can't find it, email info@richardgarvie.com and I will send you a copy. It's very childish, but highly amusing and scary regarding the potential acuracy

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 1 2011, 01:09 PM

And it would seem satire is not permitted in Cartergrad. I put a link up a few hours ago, but naturally, it has been censored.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 1 2011, 01:17 PM

http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=250634418318858&set=a.250634414985525.56747.171552839560350&type=1&theater

Original credit: "Threepwood" on the other place

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 1 2011, 01:19 PM

Naughty, naughty! Again, you'd better rush before the heavies burst through the door.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 1 2011, 01:22 PM

I'm simply sharing the original image, I can't find it on the other forum. Surely it hasn't been removed???

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 1 2011, 01:52 PM

Cannot open that link.......

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 1 2011, 01:55 PM

I've removed it as I didn't want to get a nasty phone call... But it is available here:

http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=233607513367372&set=a.233607510034039.56800.100001543752639&type=1&theater

Posted by: John C Nov 1 2011, 01:57 PM

Post Deleted

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 1 2011, 01:59 PM

From Labour HQ?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 1 2011, 02:02 PM

No, I just don't want to get sued... Not that there is much in the picture that they could sue for, it's pretty accurate isn't it?

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 1 2011, 02:18 PM

No facts, so cannot be 'accurate' - or false - just a bit of Private Eye style satire. The bit about Mr Benyon is acknowledged as wide of the mark, as I remember.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 1 2011, 02:20 PM

Why does changing the FB wall it is hosted on from Newbury Labour Party to another stop you, the poster, being sued? If there isn't much to sue over, why move it?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 1 2011, 02:34 PM

I put it up on my account then removed it. If somebody else is willing to host it on their wall, that's up to them.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 1 2011, 02:36 PM

LOL, so you were worried!!

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 1 2011, 02:42 PM

Just heard from West Berkshire Council. Still no figures quoted, but they say the deal is only for ten years.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 1 2011, 02:44 PM

Figures would be hard to quote as they depend on the number of people parking.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 1 2011, 02:57 PM

Surely the council are diligent enough to put together projections? Prepare for different eventualities? Or maybe they don't, that's why the financial planning is a bit of a mess.

Posted by: Bloggo Nov 1 2011, 03:08 PM

A little like their adult social care budget?

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 1 2011, 03:09 PM

I'm sure they have plenty of projections.

Problem is you'll take them as gospel & if the actual eventuality is different you'll be claiming the council got their sums wrong.

Posted by: user23 Nov 1 2011, 07:41 PM

This is not something someone who wants to be taken seriously should really be posting, especially not in the name of the Labour Party.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 1 2011, 08:35 PM

And how is that a problem? Surely there was a business plan draft with high and low projections?

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 1 2011, 08:51 PM

I'd hope that was part of the decision making process - the options and their relative strengths/weaknesses....

I think by 'problem' the suggestion is any numbers put up that are found to be wide of the mark will be used to nail the majority party...... But only if they are 'bad'.....

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 1 2011, 08:51 PM

I'm sure there is.

But Politicians & those with an agenda, being what they are, they never use facts & figures correctly do they?

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 1 2011, 08:53 PM

Maybe not, but I'm not sure that is a good reason not to be told?

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 1 2011, 09:26 PM

Problem is we have two sets of politicos busy trying to catch each other out & playing silly buggers with each other.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 1 2011, 10:18 PM

And then we have people like myself who have been fairly consistant in speaking up for normal people. Cut the waffle and just give us the answers please. That's what people are saying.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 1 2011, 10:23 PM

I have to repeat, this isn't a good enough reason for our administration to decide to keep schtum. Perhaps they could actually start by publishing accurate information.

Posted by: user23 Nov 1 2011, 10:24 PM

Indeed, could you answer the questions regarding your petition NWNREADER has posed please.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 1 2011, 10:28 PM

That is an irrelevant post here ... you being one of a few on here that are displaying that disrespectful attitude that some in the council seem to be happy to endorse.

And Richard: you need to sharpen your attitude, you are doing NOTHING to support the beleaguered public you claim to be fighting for, your shoot anything that moves doesn't work. Think before you post, you are sometimes as stupid as the council you appear to resent.

Posted by: user23 Nov 1 2011, 10:31 PM

It's entirely relevant to the phrase "Cut the waffle and just give us the answers please" given Richard's reticence.

Come on Richard, cut the waffle and just give us the answers please.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 1 2011, 10:36 PM

One has a greater obligation than the other, although your post would be more appropriate on the other thread you referred to. This would not normally be an issue for me, but you so often pick other people up for forum etiquette.

But user23 is right Richard: you shouldn't demand anything of people you are not prepared to do yourself. First law of leadership I'd say.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 1 2011, 10:46 PM

I've not made it to random rants yet, I've been in Calcot all afternoon / evening.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 1 2011, 10:52 PM

Just say yes or no to the question of: do you have the required amount of signatures? Two letters.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 1 2011, 10:58 PM

YES. - PS. That's three letters.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 1 2011, 11:01 PM

I was expecting a different answer! You see, truth is best delivered fast and accurate (unlike the WBC), and you appeared to be prevaricating.

Posted by: blackdog Nov 1 2011, 11:03 PM

So how old must a petition be before WBC can ignore it on the basis that 'it was the opinion of the signatories x months ago, what is there to say they still feel like that'?

What right do you have to deny the signatories the referendum they plainly want?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 1 2011, 11:07 PM

Haha, I've been pretty clear that the signatures isn't the issue, we've not been out collecting in a while now, too busy on the diligience and ensuring we have met all of the criteria.

Back to the subject at hand then...

Why are the council refusing to release the financial details??? Best case and worst case for instance? Yes, some may have a go around the worst case figure, but surely if the worst case in terms of money going to SLI does not represent a drop in income to the taxpayer, they still have a very flimsy argument. The reason they are clamming up is that it is indefensible. They are given away taxpayer money, and if it's £100k, £500k or £850k, that's more savings we have to find elsewhere.

How can you sack hundreds of people, close front line services and then justify this? It's simple really, YOU CAN'T.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 1 2011, 11:10 PM

It's not about denying them. It's about verifying the signatures and ensuring that there is no way the council can refuse the petition. These things are not as simple as they appear, anyone can sign it but there is no way of ensuring at the time that the signature is accurate. If you have other questions, please put them on the other thread, otherwise Abuser get's exactly what he wants.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 1 2011, 11:12 PM

I quite agree and it is absolutely disgusting vanity - if true. And if it is true, it shows what a pathetic bunch of councillors we have, both Tory and Lib Dem (at least). It was stories like this that did for the Tories, all those years ago, but we didn't have the Internet then.

Tories pride themselves on efficiency and integrity, but they appear as profligate as the Lib Dems were when they were in charge.



... if the rumours are true.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 1 2011, 11:17 PM

Absolutely. Despite the Tories saying that this is another Garvie conspiracy and despite the officers directing their anger towards me, it was Pamela Bale who exposed this, not me. All I've done is ask for answers.

We now know the deal is in place and that it lasts for ten years. But how much is it going to cost? That's what we want to know.

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 1 2011, 11:22 PM

I couldn't agree more..........

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 1 2011, 11:23 PM

To be fair, he has recently explained most, if not all of the concerns.

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 1 2011, 11:39 PM

Keeping the thread on topic.... If the arrangement is any more than SLI taking a share of extra income (and I mean real terms, not just due to any price increase) which they could lay claim to having helped create then I will be concerned.

The measure is important too, as the period must be a genuine test period (Christmas Day is not a true baseline, for instance).

As I remember SLI were given the land in return for taking the business risk of building the complex and having to market it to realise profit.. Their cash flow will take a good while to turn black, so I could understand them trying anything to increase their ROI. I could also understand WBC feeling driven to deliver the project. However, that should not be at significant cost to the taxpayers, regardless of other financial arrangements.
If there is an answer, WBC would do well to give it pronto, The truth does not go away

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 2 2011, 01:04 AM

Why do you always have to spell out what is bloody obvious?

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 2 2011, 01:10 AM

Who exactly is the information being provided for? Is it a resonable use of resources?

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 2 2011, 01:12 AM

Ha, as if 'normal people' need speaking up for!

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 2 2011, 07:19 AM

So you are saying it should not be available?

Posted by: Bartholomew Nov 2 2011, 08:37 AM

I may be wrong here but my understanding is that the a council is an elected body that is responsible for maintaining the services of the area. As such, they are obliged to act in the public's interest and are accountable for their actions. The information that I think is being referred to here will show this. I'm not sure that it is up to the council to decide if it is "reasonable use of resources" or not.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 2 2011, 08:42 AM

Your posts have reach the user23 level of debate (and that isn't very high). Richard Garvie has clearly rattled the orthodoxy in Newbury.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 2 2011, 09:18 AM

Yeah, I am rattled by his permanant 'look at me - savoiur of Newbury' attitude.

If there was any substance behind his claims - ie he actually was going to make any difference anfd as you yourself have pointed out were not so scatter gun - I might have a bit more time for the bloke & bother to pay heed to his rants.

Anyone with a slight misgiving about anything that happens in WB can email him, sit back & wait for the fun to start. It isn't very productive.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 2 2011, 09:20 AM

In this instance the whole 'acting with the public's interest' depends on whether you think PW is an asset for Newbury or not & to what degree you think that asset should have been supported by the council.

If you don't think it is a boon for Newbury then no matter what the council has done, you are not going to think it is in the public interest.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 2 2011, 09:48 AM

I agree, but I see parkway as an opportunity lost, rather than gained. Poorly negotiated and we 'sold' at the wrong time. I also see these sort of developments as an anachronism.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 2 2011, 10:01 AM

You see, I view PW differently.

I see it as an investment in the town's future & an investment that the town needed. Sure there are huge problems for the traditional retail sector with regard to the internet, but to sit back & do nothing would be an even worse attitude from any council. It is ironic that a regular complaint on this & other forums is the loss of the 'traditional' way of food shopping - and how the supermarket has grown too big. Well, PW is an investment against the same happening to any form of shopping, that PW is an investment to stop Newbury town centre from becoming a ghost town.

Investments need capital & that has been invested. THe council have invested some land & a part share in future car parking profits. Land that the council could not afford to do anything with & surely it is better to invest to protect car parking revenue & share that reveue than do nothing & see revenue fall as the town dies?

Like any investment it is a gamble, but a gamble is better than doing nothing.

Posted by: Bartholomew Nov 2 2011, 10:23 AM

I think that the Parkway argument is irrelevant if the means used to achieve the end result are not acting in the publics interest. The issue here is how public money is being spent. We got to know verry quickly when cuts to essential services were made but it was apparently hidden when large amounts are spent or given away on non essential matters. Is this acting in the public's interest?

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 2 2011, 10:27 AM

No money has been spent. What if car parking revenue goes through the roof based on the success of PW ?

Is it in the public interest to do nothing?

Posted by: Bartholomew Nov 2 2011, 10:33 AM

Is lost revenue not something that would have beeen used to keep essential services going?

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 2 2011, 10:36 AM

Assuming the increase in total car park revenue will not cover the share needed to pay SLI based on 2010 revenues.

As I said - it is a gamble.

Posted by: Bartholomew Nov 2 2011, 10:39 AM

Do you think that it is the council's job to gamble with public money? Is it better than doing nothing? Maybe or maybe not but its important that the public are aware of what is happening and information is not witheld in cases like this

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 2 2011, 10:41 AM

We'll know in about 5 years.

Posted by: Bartholomew Nov 2 2011, 10:47 AM

Do you think that the public ahoud have been aware that this was a gamble with public money?

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 2 2011, 10:53 AM

You mean asked if they wanted a new shopping area & this was the cost to them by having a local referendum?

No - because the 'facts' would have been sexed up by those in favour & derided by those against leaving joe public with nothing but a personal hunch to vote on.

Or just told people & said this is what were are doing, live with it?

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 2 2011, 11:01 AM

Was nothing the only other option? I also see this as a gamble for other areas of the town, rather like what seems to have happened in Basingstoke and Reading.

What it does to to those that care, is show politics in a bad light. It looks deceptive.

Posted by: Bartholomew Nov 2 2011, 11:07 AM

No I don't mean that. I'm asking if you think that hiding from the public that significant public revenue has been given to a commercial developer is acceptable.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 2 2011, 11:12 AM

You could argue that Newbury has not had the same kind of development as Reading / Basingstoke exactly for those reasons.

What it does to to those that care, is show politics in a bad light. It looks deceptive
It doesn't matter - the posters on this forum are just 25 people out of 55000 - hardly a quorum.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 2 2011, 11:15 AM

The council should have announced it, with some spin & gloss. The naysayers would have been spitting feathers, as normal, everyone else would care less.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 2 2011, 11:42 AM

It doesn't matter?

There are readers as well as contributors. Just because people don't post here is not a good reason to overlook accountability.

Whilst yours is a real world view, it doesn't support deceit as a legitimate political process.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 2 2011, 11:43 AM

I don't view it as deceit.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 2 2011, 11:48 AM

You don't, I do. At least one lost Tory (previously Lib Dem) voter.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 2 2011, 11:49 AM

And you think any other party would be different?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 2 2011, 12:42 PM

The fact is, like CCTV, like day centres, like youth service cuts, like education budget cuts, like the pavilion, the canal basin and everything else, it's all beack room deals and private discussions.

So you admit the council is gambling with public money, do you personally think it's a good thing to gamble with taxpayers money? Simple yes or no answer required with that one.

There were numerous companies interested in developing the land at Parkway, and I am led to believe one previous attempt at doing something there had secured all the land (besides the Parkway £1 car parks). Why was that project stopped? Step forward Nick Carter and Patrick Griffin, the TCP colleagues who thought that the development was not prestigious enough.

Everything in this town appears to be linked to this god awful town centre partnership, who elect themselves and their chums and have secret discussions and votes on various things from taking over the running of the bid to individuals like myself. We know that Patrick and Nick stopped the original plan for Parkway, a project that would have been of huge benefit to the town and would have required very little in the way of concessions. It would have also been completed before the recession, so who knows what we would have now if it was not for meddling from certain people on the TCP!!!

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 2 2011, 12:46 PM

Where have I ever asked for credit for what I do? Where have I ever claimed to be a "saviour"?

There is substance, the council have admitted this agreement exists. It's not scatter gun, it's fact.

And yes, anybody who does have concerns can email me: info@richardgarvie.com. Unlike those who get paid a healthy allowance and do nothing but pass the buck, I will chase up your concerns and try to establish the facts. If there is substance there, I will follow it up and raise the issue publicly. Surely that's not a bad thing?

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 2 2011, 01:09 PM

That in my view is no defence.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 2 2011, 01:11 PM

but you agree would make no difference.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 2 2011, 01:14 PM

Admit? I'm not admitting anything. I'm stating my opinion. And I do think it is okay for politicians to gamble with public money.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 2 2011, 01:15 PM

Every project could have been done better the Garvie way according to you.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 2 2011, 01:27 PM

Not the Garvie way as such, but the fit and proper way.

As for gambling with public money, when the council run up over £50m in debt and we are paying almost £10m a year in debt interest, is that acceptable? Instead of gambling, it's time the council put taxpayers first.

Posted by: blackdog Nov 2 2011, 02:02 PM

What part share in future car parking? A part of the WBC parking revenue goes to SLI - does anything come back, is the Parkway car park included in the revenue sharing deal? Do WBC get anything from the Parkway car park after the fee sharing deal ends in 10 years?

As far as I can see it WBC will receive relatively little for their investment of several million pounds worth of land. They will get council tax from the housing side of the development when occupied (not insignificant) until a future government decides West Berks is too wealthy and starts taking part of WBC's council tax (they have effectively been doing this for years by keeping WBC's block grant low).

It appears that WBC will be paying most (if not all and more) of this back to SLI through the parking deal for the first ten years.

I guess that I could see this as a reasonable deal if I thought Parkway was the answer to Newbury's woes. However, I don't. I'm not even sure we had that many woes in the first place (apart from a growing traffic problem that Parkway will only make worse). From what I have seen Parkway has added very little to the shopping available in town - expecially noticeable when so many of the new units are let to shops that already had a Newbury outlet. One can hope that new retailers will come to town, but I fear we will just get more of the same type of stores that we already have.

Time will tell, its far too early to see what effect Parkway will have - lots of people have come to have a look at it and traders nearby have, apparently, benefitted, but how may will be coming shopping in Newbury in six months time, how much difference will Parkway make then?

Meanwhile it looks like WBC have sold SLI a load of land for £1 and, in return, get the privilege of paying SLI a few hundred thousand quid a year for ten years. It's as if SLI said - 'the land is worth £5million' - WBC response - 'will you take it in installments?'

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 2 2011, 03:36 PM

In your opinion.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 2 2011, 03:44 PM

.

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 2 2011, 05:33 PM

It is not very productive in making enquiries from WBC either is it? If Garvie can help get results when ordinary people are unable to get results themselves, through the usual silence from WBC, then it can only be for the good of the taxpayers! Perhaps if WBC were more forthcoming and promptly, with information people like Garvie would not be needed?

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 2 2011, 06:12 PM

The people who pay their wages, the taxpayer. Ask yourself why WBC have not made public the deal made with SLI, normally they would be extolling their virtues and bigging it up at what a good deal they had pulled off. But you know yourself that the only reason it has been secured away somewhere safe, away from the taxpayers and the press, is because even the lowly WBC know that it is in fact a shameful deal.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 2 2011, 06:15 PM

No, I don't know.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 2 2011, 06:24 PM

Let's hope there is a big splash in the paper tomorrow, with all the info we want to know.

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 2 2011, 06:25 PM

Ok highly suspect then?

Posted by: blackdog Nov 2 2011, 06:34 PM

Yes - but ... The Parkway and Kennet Centre car parks are excluded from this deal (I believe) so the money will only go one way, from WBC to SLI - unless SLI have some other car park in town that I don't know about.

If Parkway increases parking revenue in WBC car parks it will only be because folk don't want to pay the extra in the Parkway park. Any addition caused by more people coming to town will be counterbalanced by folk who used to use WBC parks parking in Parkway.

As it happens I drove through Newbury a couple of times today - and was struck by how many spaces were available according to the new electronic signs - about 700 in total. It seems that Newbury wasn't that busy today - I can't remember the last time I tried to park in the Wharf in early afternoon and there were 70 free spaces. The only park that seemed at all busy was Parkway where there were only 200 or so empty spaces out of over 500 (if that many spaces are actually ready for use now - what would the sign read if the car park was empty).

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 2 2011, 06:56 PM

Umm... 500?

Posted by: blackdog Nov 2 2011, 07:12 PM

Possibly - but I suspect that part of it might be out of bounds until they finish the John Lewis lump.

Perhaps xjay1337 can take a look and see how many are available when he's driving back from McD's in the small hours.

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Nov 3 2011, 11:11 AM

Before I ring the bell and have one of the butlers send someone to purchase one of those newspaper thingys, can anyone confirm that the N.W.N. has indeed followed up on this?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 3 2011, 11:31 AM

Yes they have. Apparently Pangbourne Pam giot it wrong, it's not everything over £300k. It's an "overage" agreement based on total ticket sales. Still no details of how much it will cost us though, as it's apparently not been calculated!!! Sounds like the parking revenue projections are done like the Adult Social Care budget!!!

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 3 2011, 11:36 AM

So if PW brings more people into town WBC will pay a commission on a certain proportion of car park ticket sales over a fixed number.

If it does not, they won't.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 3 2011, 11:40 AM

It sounds like a load of old boll... [dialing tone].

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 3 2011, 11:43 AM

...ards?

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 3 2011, 02:13 PM

That is how I interpret what is being said, especially as NWN acknowledges the story last week was inaccurate.

If the 'commission' version is correct, and subject to detail, I am comfortable.

Posted by: HJD Nov 3 2011, 02:48 PM

Here are a few figures for you.
According to the signs at 05.00 this morning there were 481 spaces at Parkway.
At 12.30 there were apparently 422.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 3 2011, 02:54 PM

My only issue NWNREADER is that if you are going to do a deal about sharing revenue, surely you must calculate various outcomes? What the council are saying is that no calculations have been done. Something fishy is going on here, as if there was nothing that could be perceived as poor value by the taxpayer, they would be publishing the facts everywhere.

Instead of simply gambling with taxpayer money, they are pretty much playing blind poker, gambling vast amounts of money without knowing their own hand. Hardly responsible governance?

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 3 2011, 02:57 PM

Hey, gambling was my line.


Poker isn't gambling btw - you can win $$$$

Posted by: xjay1337 Nov 3 2011, 03:51 PM

I gamble every day by crossing roads without looking.

Posted by: HJD Nov 3 2011, 04:52 PM

I gamble everyday checking Newburytoday forum to see if there is not one post that contains a party political comment from Richard Garvie.

Posted by: xjay1337 Nov 3 2011, 04:58 PM

If only betting odds were as good as the likelihood of that happening, we'd all be rich off Richard horse racing.

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 3 2011, 08:46 PM

There can be the case where one side of the negotiation does not want to reveal to the other the hand they hold. If the deal was known to be ok to WBC, and the other side due diligence did not seek the detail I can understand why WBC would not prepare - if they did they would be obliged to produce.

When you consider all the time/price bands involved I can well imagine an agreed baseline being used where WBC should/would hope not to pay out a wedge.

It is essential not to lie, but it is not essential to reveal the whole truth when in such negotiations, methinks.

I have my reservations, but thus far I'm not feeling suicidal.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 3 2011, 09:34 PM

I disagree; it seems like a cop-out. Surely they could publish the formula? Not to have calculated possible out comes is utterly negligent. Ridiculous.

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 3 2011, 10:10 PM

I wonder if there ever was a 'formula'? As above, think how individual car parks have different prices, usage and charges. How could a robust method of calculating what was due to PW and what due to other influences? I hope the calculations were done, but in business terms I can understand they may not be in a publishable form. I don't think it has to be a 'gamble'. For sure the contract will not be changed in the short term and in the absence of grounds for complaint of maladministration we will likely have to wait to see the outcome. After all, if the payments do not kick in the council will have secured extra car parking for nil cost.....

If the scheme ends up costing an arm and a leg I'll be well to the fore seeking explanation....

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 3 2011, 10:19 PM

I'm sorry NWNREADER, but I find it inconceivable that models were not built to estimate outcomes. It might be complex but I don't see it as rocket science.

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 3 2011, 10:38 PM

I fear we are bogged down in semantics. I am not saying the modelling was not done, just that as part of a commercial negotiation it is not always a good idea to prove to the other side a scheme is going to go well for you and bad for them. Perhaps it is wishful thinking that anyone at WBC could have had the contractors over, but I remember the get-out for Amey left the council sitting on some good IT systems and paid for the privilege...

A chap I know says 'The difference between stupidity and genius is often only seen in the outcome'.

If the council have done something daft then the Officers that sold the plan to the Members deserve the chop, and the Members will have their work cut out come election time. If the scheme is a disaster we cannot know that for sure until the payments come due. I just think we have to put the Council on notice they are in the spotlight......

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 4 2011, 12:11 PM

It was the council themselves who said no calculations have been done. Surely Parkway was not built on the same "whim"? They will have a rough idea of projected footfall, number of generated car journeys etc. All of that would have been part of the planning process. It doesn't take a lot for the council to run some projections based on those figures, and then a plus 5%, plus 10%, minus 5% and a minus 10%.

What is pretty much being widely accepted is that the council are not doing their homework, and once again there will be no consequence.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 4 2011, 12:13 PM

Is it?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 4 2011, 12:20 PM

Well, that's the case they are presenting. "we can't tell you how much because we don't actually know". What other business would just do an agreement without looking at the potential costs and exposure?

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 4 2011, 12:24 PM

No you said

What is pretty much being widely accepted is that the council are not doing their homework, and once again there will be no consequence.


But now it is

Well, that's the case they are presenting. "we can't tell you how much because we don't actually know". What other business would just do an agreement without looking at the potential costs and exposure?

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 4 2011, 02:00 PM

The response by the council was woeful and in my view deceitful.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 4 2011, 03:55 PM

So you are saying that they have done their homework? The council have ADMITTED that they have not done any calculations. They are therefore accepting that they have not done their "homework". If they had, they would know the various potential outcomes and would be able to present a prediction, plus a worst case and best case scenario.

Only the same few people are defending the counccil's position, no surprise there though.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 4 2011, 04:00 PM

I'm questioning your claim about the 'wide acceptance' not the way in which WBC decided the idea was good/bad. That is moot.

Only the same few are attacking the council - no surprise there though.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 4 2011, 04:27 PM

I'll 'attack' the council when I see fit, and the idea it is OK to strike a deal without having financial modes in place is utter cobblers. My view is that it is likely the council are lying or have dropped a clanger.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 4 2011, 04:32 PM

I don't care - I have a lovely new shopping 'centre' to walk around.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 4 2011, 04:46 PM

Let me just re-phrase that for accuracy.

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 4 2011, 05:25 PM

Yes rather nice thinking of all the shops that could occupy the empty units... ah well it is Newbury!

Of course we still don't know how much it is going to cost the taxpayer either? But as you say somewhere else to walk round rather than an empty Kennet Centre.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 4 2011, 05:54 PM

It might not cost a penny - good eh!!

Must be something wrong with the KC.....

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 4 2011, 06:16 PM

And WBC are doing their damnedest not to let us know, it seems.

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 4 2011, 06:40 PM

But no doubt if it goes as normal planning with WBC it will cost us a fair wedge? No good asking the council though they have admitted they haven't a clue!

How can you sign a deal of that magnitude without some analyst running figures for answers?
If they are unable to provide predicted figures then I would suggest they get rid of the Project Manager double quick. After getting rid of the chief Exec of course?
It could only happen at WBC. Yes yes yes No!

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 4 2011, 08:39 PM

Cos it is win win.

Must dash - Friday night n' all.

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 5 2011, 09:14 AM

How are you aware it is a win win? According to my information SLI have not even informed WBC of how much they want from the car parking yet?

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 5 2011, 11:24 AM

If that is correct then there cannot yet be a contract, surely?

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 5 2011, 12:08 PM

Of course there could be a contract! Just implicating that WBC may not know what they have have signed up for?

If they are unable to say what the figures are for who gets what if the car parking income is at certain levels then any one could have a guess at what was in the contract and could be corrrect? No?
Really mind boggling to think this but what other decision are you able to arrive at with the very minute information the taxpayer has been allowed?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 5 2011, 12:29 PM

Well we know that the CCTV project was mismanaged with no penalty clauses inserted by the council. We know the bins contract will cost the council if it does not switch to fortnightly collections and on this issue, the council would have us believe that they have not calculated the potential outcomes. No wonder people get suspicious about the council and the way it conducts it's business.

From doing research online, Parkway would have been built years ago if it was not for Patrick Griffin and Nick Carter. Blue Investments had bought up all the land they needed except the £1 car parks from the council. It was at that point that Mr Carter and Mr Griffin decided the proposed scheme was not "prestigious" enough for Newbury. Nick Carter then asked Patrick Griffin to design a project brief of what the Parkway scheme should look like. The project then went out to tender, and Shearer Property / Standard Life won the contract. Now that's fair enough, but who was advising SLI / Shearer on the design / tender process???

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 5 2011, 12:37 PM

I don't know there are no penalty clauses in any of the contracts, but I do know there is a reluctance in some corners of WBC to force delivery. The standard approach was 'we mustn't upset the contractor', but they lost no time in demanding their side of the bargain...... My small area of insight does not prove the whole, but there was not much business mindset in the cases I do know of.

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 5 2011, 12:43 PM

From having lived here at the time I too know there was a proposal that got very near to delivery. However, I'm not so sure about the personal involvement of any named individuals, and I hope you are very sure given the clear implications of what you say!!!
Also, at that time, I'm not sure Nick Carter held a senior enough position within the Council to conduct business the way you say he did. He was only a department head.

I am not saying you are wrong, and I am not defending WBC, but I do think you are on thin ice with what you imply

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 5 2011, 12:51 PM

If there is no detail on what one side 'gets' from a contract, then it is not a legal contract. It may be couched in %age terms as opposed to a specific sum, but there will be a fixed baseline. That too may not be financial, but a reflection of the price band ticket levels at the time of the agreed baseline.

While the outcome would be a cash balance, the way it is calculated could be based purely on numbers of tickets at the individual rates. Thus in terms of numbers of pennies, WBC may not know how many they have to cough up and SLI may not know how many they will receive. What needs to be 'known' is that WBC do not end up getting fleeced. I care not if SLI get nothing/less than they anticipated.

(I understand what I think I am trying to say, but it may be what you understand is not what I am trying to tell you).

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 5 2011, 12:57 PM

It's well documented here and at the other place about why the other development was scrapped. It also says in this weeks NWN who was advising Shearer and SLI. When you add up all of the pieces, it does seem odd that someone who is not either an employee or elected member of the council can have so much power on these issues. For me, this is the one reason why we need to have a more open and transparent town centre steering group, we need to know what is discussed and what is voted on, and certainly what influence they have over the council.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 5 2011, 12:59 PM

I can grasp your position, but surely you do not really believe that WBDC have not done any calculations about potential outcomes? Is that any way to run a business, let alone manage taxpayers money?

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 5 2011, 01:04 PM

I am sure there are calculations, but not in 'cash' terms. If they do not want to let information out, either because the contract is not yet complete or maybe they have (Hail Mary) had one over on SLI, then keeping things confidential for a while longer could be sensible - especially if some issues re future arrangements are still under discussion.


You wouldn't tell your house builder you had scored off him on the cost of the ground floor when he was still fitting out upstairs, would you?

Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 5 2011, 01:06 PM

Maybe, but I read your words as implying something sinister. Repeating something that is (erroneously?) published elsewhere joins you to the action rather than exonerates you. Especially if the other publisher is able to explain away their version....

I'd hate for you to end up in Newgate

Posted by: Bartholomew Nov 5 2011, 01:07 PM

Either you own Betfred (other gambling establishments are available) which is win win or you don't accept that gambling can lose as well as win

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 5 2011, 01:13 PM

I've got it on pretty good authority that this is what happened. The key thing when writing on here is that you can provide sources and paper trail to back up what you are saying (just in case). Some people write on here based on "what somebody was overheard saying in the pub". That's when you can potentially open yourself up to legal problems.

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 5 2011, 01:27 PM

I think you are missing the entire point? Any one can dream up what they like and they could well be correct.

I think what I am trying to get across is, until WBC informs the taxpayer of what they have commited us to then guesstimation will come into play. It begs the question on why they keep doing this? Lets have some answers. If it is a good deal let the taxpayer be the judge. Why is it everything is done in secret? The contract has been signed now so no confidentiallity needed.....unless it really is a case of keep it from the taxpayers.

Keep the language plain and simple for us poor plebs please?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 5 2011, 04:16 PM

Actually, no. In an action for libel you would have a defence if you could prove on the balance of probabilities that what you said was true. Proving that someone else said it first is, in general, no defence. This is why both NewburyToday and their ISP can be sued if you post something defamatory about someone.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 5 2011, 04:22 PM

Anywho, to re-cap: RG finds out from some WBC councillor about some dodgy-sounding deal involving WBC giving SLI carpark revenue, WBC take the weekend to think about it, and now the official WBC story is: It's complicated, but everything's OK, trust us.

Is that where we are?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 5 2011, 05:02 PM

I think that sums it up pretty well, but the councillor told the media that we were paying 50% over £300k parking income, she didn't tell me. Pamela Bale (deputy leader of the council) was the member in question, and although the council have said that what she said is inaccurate, they are yet to provide details of what has been agreed. Apparently, it's far too complicated that the council themselves haven't even tried to work out how much they would be paying to SLI.

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 5 2011, 05:08 PM

Who really knows Simon? There is no one to put pressure on WBC to find out is there? As we are only taxpayers we are not meant to be asking probing questions of contracts etc that WBC have made. We would not be able to understand if they gave us any details so the answer is WBC Business as usual.

This equates to WBC taxpayers probably shafted again!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 5 2011, 06:19 PM

It wouldn't surprise me if councillors didn't understand it, it wouldn't surprise me if councillors thought they became invisible if they closed their eyes, but I'm sure there are folk here who could tease the truth from the words of the contract if WBC were only to publish it, and as they refuse to publish you'll excuse me if I assume the worst.

Posted by: blackdog Nov 5 2011, 06:29 PM

There is no way that WBC will publish the contract - it is very easy to quote commercial confidentiality as a reason for not doing so. It would also allow everyone to see ALL the terms of the contract, including the ones that we have not yet heard of.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 5 2011, 06:44 PM

Quite...