IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> NTC object to John Lewis
Ziggy
post Dec 11 2010, 08:07 AM
Post #61


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 21-November 09
Member No.: 504



To go back to the OP, I'd welcome a John Lewis in Newbury. I think the ethos of John Lewis creates a superior level of service. Witness Waitrose! We always go to Camps when we are looking to replace furniture, and always, always come away disappointed by what is on offer there. The design of the stock in the furniture store seems to me to be very dated, and the way it is displayed makes it look like a discount store! I tend to go to the John Lewis in Wycombe. I don't mind travelling for a pleasant shopping experience, plus parking is free for as long as you want.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Dec 11 2010, 10:40 AM
Post #62


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (Ziggy @ Dec 11 2010, 08:07 AM) *
We always go to Camps when we are looking to replace furniture, and always, always come away disappointed by what is on offer there.

I'd stop bothering with Camps if I were you! laugh.gif

As for John Lewis, they're not immune from selling tat either. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Dec 11 2010, 10:51 AM
Post #63


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (Strafin @ Dec 10 2010, 09:18 PM) *
laugh.gif No they're not.

What is going to happen to Speenhamland School then? Northcroft seemed to be the favoured new location. Have the ending of the government rebuilding scheme scuppered WBC's plans?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Strafin
post Dec 11 2010, 01:02 PM
Post #64


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,933
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 55



If you pop down to Speenhamland you will see that there is a lot of work going on there anyway, but as far as the staff are concerned it is staying where it is. Why would they move it?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Dec 11 2010, 01:51 PM
Post #65


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (Strafin @ Dec 11 2010, 01:02 PM) *
If you pop down to Speenhamland you will see that there is a lot of work going on there anyway, but as far as the staff are concerned it is staying where it is. Why would they move it?

Back when the Council had more money than sense (I still think that is the case!), there was 'talk' of moving the school to Northcroft. The well publicised economic conditions seems to have changed all that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Exhausted
post Dec 11 2010, 03:16 PM
Post #66


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,722
Joined: 4-September 09
Member No.: 320



QUOTE (Iommi @ Dec 11 2010, 01:51 PM) *
Back when the Council had more money than sense (I still think that is the case!), there was 'talk' of moving the school to Northcroft. The well publicised economic conditions seems to have changed all that.


Sure, they thought that they could turn a nice profit by selling the Speenhamland school land for housing development. As you say, not such a good idea now that there is a downturn in the property market.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Darren
post Dec 11 2010, 09:42 PM
Post #67


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,251
Joined: 15-May 09
Member No.: 61



http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article...?articleID=7649
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Strafin
post Dec 12 2010, 04:24 PM
Post #68


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,933
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 55



QUOTE (Darren @ Dec 11 2010, 09:42 PM) *

So even back in 2008 it looked like nothing more than an ill founded rumour!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Dec 12 2010, 06:44 PM
Post #69


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



...but it all still points to the fact that the 'great and the good' can't see a patch of grass without wanting to pour concrete all over it!


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Strafin
post Dec 12 2010, 07:28 PM
Post #70


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,933
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 55



QUOTE (On the edge @ Dec 12 2010, 06:44 PM) *
...but it all still points to the fact that the 'great and the good' can't see a patch of grass without wanting to pour concrete all over it!

Does it? How?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Exhausted
post Dec 12 2010, 07:58 PM
Post #71


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,722
Joined: 4-September 09
Member No.: 320



QUOTE (Strafin @ Dec 12 2010, 04:24 PM) *
So even back in 2008 it looked like nothing more than an ill founded rumour!


It wasn't ill founded and it wasn't a rumour. It was an active discussion by the worthies of WBC. I'm not sure why it wasn't progressed but it is now , or appears to be, on the back burner.

One could say that all alternatives for development or redevelopment should be reviewed or discussed even if they are only an option.

Covering green grass, the Pavilion in the Park springs to mind. Development for other purposes appears to be commonplace, the Waterside centre which is in the vision plan to be knocked down and replaced with quality apartments, certainly not affordable, is in the same vein as Speenhamland.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post Dec 12 2010, 09:12 PM
Post #72


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,452
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212



QUOTE (Exhausted @ Dec 12 2010, 07:58 PM) *
It wasn't ill founded and it wasn't a rumour. It was an active discussion by the worthies of WBC. I'm not sure why it wasn't progressed but it is now , or appears to be, on the back burner.

One could say that all alternatives for development or redevelopment should be reviewed or discussed even if they are only an option.

Covering green grass, the Pavilion in the Park springs to mind. Development for other purposes appears to be commonplace, the Waterside centre which is in the vision plan to be knocked down and replaced with quality apartments, certainly not affordable, is in the same vein as Speenhamland.


Certainly not affordable! Now that the Lib Dems have decided to go Tory there is only one other real option for voters of Newbury if they don't like the ConDems so affordable housing will be a no no for the Tory WBC. To keep Labour out they will have to get rid of the affordable & Social housing to ensure there are not enough Labour voters left to make a decent challenge. You have heard of ethnic cleansing now be prepared for Political cleansing. tongue.gif

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11979147


--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bofem
post Dec 12 2010, 10:22 PM
Post #73


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 485
Joined: 28-May 10
From: Newbury
Member No.: 924



QUOTE (Exhausted @ Dec 12 2010, 07:58 PM) *
It wasn't ill founded and it wasn't a rumour. It was an active discussion by the worthies of WBC. I'm not sure why it wasn't progressed but it is now , or appears to be, on the back burner.


Quite right. Here's what happened...Ed Balls decided that new schools would raise educational achievement, and announced billions for a massive spending programme.

DCFS asked WBC to nominate 2 primaries and 1 secondary for the programme. WBC chose St Barts, Winchcombe and Speenhamland (the last 2 without even asking the Cllr in charge of education).

The money was approved and put in the 2009-10 WBC budget (£5.5m for both Speenhamland/Winchcombe and £34m for Barts).

New govt has honoured Winchcombe and Barts funding, but took the cash back for Speenhamland upon finding that nothing had been done.

So hardly a rumour - just another load of WBC-created uncertainty!




--------------------
Newbury's #1 ill-informed internet poster
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Dec 13 2010, 05:29 PM
Post #74


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



Back to the OP....
I rather believe the objection by NTC was not to 'John Lewis' but to the building itself.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Exhausted
post Dec 13 2010, 06:20 PM
Post #75


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,722
Joined: 4-September 09
Member No.: 320



QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Dec 13 2010, 05:29 PM) *
Back to the OP....
I rather believe the objection by NTC was not to 'John Lewis' but to the building itself.


It was......
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Dec 13 2010, 06:25 PM
Post #76


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (Bofem @ Dec 12 2010, 10:22 PM) *
DCFS asked WBC to nominate 2 primaries and 1 secondary for the programme. WBC chose St Barts, Winchcombe and Speenhamland (the last 2 without even asking the Cllr in charge of education).

I like the concept of their being a 'Cllr in charge' but the reality is that a few councillors are given 'portfolios' and are responsible for monitoring WBC efforts in their portfolio area. In theory they would set policy and ensure it is carried out, in practice they go into meetings with WBC officers - and come out ethusiastically pushing whatever line the officers have fed them.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 01:38 PM