IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> London Road Industrial Estate/Faraday Plaza, The saga rolls on
Lolly
post Sep 8 2016, 11:05 AM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 151
Joined: 28-June 12
Member No.: 8,763



http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/home/19...evelopment.html

Can't find a thread specifically discussing this development, although it's been discussed in other threads.

What I'd like to see is the full judgement and the arguments put forward by both sides as there seems to be a bit of cherry picking in the quotes.

What struck me in particular is the differences between the NWN report & WBC's press release.

http://info.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=33306

Well done NWN for not printing the press release almost verbatim! Not so sure I'm ready to congratulate WBC on their 'win' - especially if Duncan Crook is going to appeal, as 'value for money' in the public sector is very subjective, and some services/assets (eg the football club) are very difficult to put a value on.




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Sep 9 2016, 05:47 AM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

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



Yes,I'd agree, we ought to see the whole picture. Sadly, past experience suggests that's simply not going to happen. We'll just end up with whatever 'they' deem is fit and that's that. I feel very uncomfortable about this whole 'development plan' the executive at the Council are pursuing it feels very much like the discredited development plans of the late 1960s when high rise flats and vast shopping centres was the vogue and much concrete was laid at the expense of our historic city centres. Whatever happened to T.Dan Smith and his mates?



--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lolly
post Sep 14 2016, 07:05 AM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 151
Joined: 28-June 12
Member No.: 8,763



QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 9 2016, 06:47 AM) *
Yes,I'd agree, we ought to see the whole picture. Sadly, past experience suggests that's simply not going to happen. We'll just end up with whatever 'they' deem is fit and that's that. I feel very uncomfortable about this whole 'development plan' the executive at the Council are pursuing it feels very much like the discredited development plans of the late 1960s when high rise flats and vast shopping centres was the vogue and much concrete was laid at the expense of our historic city centres. Whatever happened to T.Dan Smith and his mates?


Well, courtesy of Cllr Fredrickson's letter in the NWN, I have been able to locate the full judgement on Bailli:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/2166.html

Understanding it is another matter.....

From a layman's perspective it seems like my observations about equating 'best value' with 'value for money' are correct. Decisions appear to have been made based on future rental streams for WBC which I am uncomfortable with because it a- compromises the planning process, b- will inevitably lead to a high density development and c- disadvantages existing tenants ( including the Football Club).

There is a lot of reference to papers being taken to the Executive, but I think these were mostly Part 2, so we (the Public) can't access them. Nevertheless, thanks to Duncan Crook's persistence/challenge more bits of the jigsaw are emerging & personally as a ratepayer I don't think he should be criticised for that. If the case hadn't had some merit it wouldn't have been heard.

It doesn't look as though he's been allowed to appeal though, or at least not on the grounds initially put forward. Maybe there's more to come?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Sep 14 2016, 08:03 PM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (Lolly @ Sep 14 2016, 08:05 AM) *
Well, courtesy of Cllr Fredrickson's letter in the NWN, I have been able to locate the full judgement on Bailli:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/2166.html

Understanding it is another matter.....

From a layman's perspective it seems like my observations about equating 'best value' with 'value for money' are correct. Decisions appear to have been made based on future rental streams for WBC which I am uncomfortable with because it a- compromises the planning process, b- will inevitably lead to a high density development and c- disadvantages existing tenants ( including the Football Club).

There is a lot of reference to papers being taken to the Executive, but I think these were mostly Part 2, so we (the Public) can't access them. Nevertheless, thanks to Duncan Crook's persistence/challenge more bits of the jigsaw are emerging & personally as a ratepayer I don't think he should be criticised for that. If the case hadn't had some merit it wouldn't have been heard.

It doesn't look as though he's been allowed to appeal though, or at least not on the grounds initially put forward. Maybe there's more to come?


I woudn't disagree with any of that, thanks for sharing your research. I'd certainly support your view that Duncan Crook shouldn't be criticised for the challenge, let alone one that got as far. It certainly leaves me feeling very uneasy that WBC, being a public authority, weren't able to better defend it right from the start.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: 28th March 2024 - 09:54 AM