IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

11 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> SLI parking money to West Berks Council
Cognosco
post Oct 29 2011, 05:28 PM
Post #41


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (Weavers Walk @ Oct 29 2011, 06:19 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.


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? rolleyes.gif


--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Oct 29 2011, 06:19 PM
Post #42


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (blackdog @ Oct 29 2011, 05:29 PM) *
Er, um. The de-watering report is nothing to do with WBC.

The reason why it was needed might be.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Oct 29 2011, 06:19 PM
Post #43


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,025
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



Should the proposed changes to Business Rates go through, I wonder how much extra revenue WBC would gain from Parkway?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Oct 29 2011, 06:24 PM
Post #44


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (user23 @ Oct 29 2011, 07:19 PM) *
Should the proposed changes to Business Rates go through, I wonder how much extra revenue WBC would gain from Parkway?

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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Oct 29 2011, 06:56 PM
Post #45


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



QUOTE (user23 @ Oct 29 2011, 07:19 PM) *
Should the proposed changes to Business Rates go through, I wonder how much extra revenue WBC would gain from Parkway?


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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Oct 29 2011, 07:01 PM
Post #46


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,025
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Oct 29 2011, 07:56 PM) *
So let's vote through the BID, to spend £120k a year on advertising (at least), get more people shopping in town and both the council and SLI make more parking revenue? THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT NONE OF THE WBC PARKING OWNED CAR PARKS REVENUE SHOULD BE GOING TO SLI... END OF STORY!!!
Er, are you feeling OK Richard?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Oct 29 2011, 07:02 PM
Post #47


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



QUOTE (user23 @ Oct 29 2011, 08:01 PM) *
Erm, are you feeling OK Richard?


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!!! :-)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Oct 29 2011, 07:09 PM
Post #48


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,025
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Oct 29 2011, 08:02 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!!! :-)
Fair enough.

I was just hypothesising, giving away parking revenue for a bigger income from business rates might be a rather good idea.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Oct 29 2011, 07:38 PM
Post #49


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (user23 @ Oct 29 2011, 08:09 PM) *
Fair enough.

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



Even simpler - share 50% of increased car park profits.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Oct 29 2011, 07:40 PM
Post #50


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Oct 29 2011, 07:41 PM
Post #51


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Oct 29 2011, 08:40 PM) *
So is that what the council line now is?

dunno.

Seems pretty obvious to me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Oct 29 2011, 07:43 PM
Post #52


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Oct 29 2011, 08:41 PM) *
dunno.

Seems pretty obvious to me.


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".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Oct 29 2011, 07:47 PM
Post #53


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Oct 29 2011, 08:43 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".

You don't think PW will increase visitors to the town? Many who will pay to park?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Oct 29 2011, 07:50 PM
Post #54


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



I really hope it does. But why should we share revenue from council owned car parks?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post Oct 29 2011, 07:51 PM
Post #55


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Oct 29 2011, 08:38 PM) *
Even simpler - share 50% of increased car park profits.


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. rolleyes.gif


--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Oct 29 2011, 07:53 PM
Post #56


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



QUOTE (Cognosco @ Oct 29 2011, 08:51 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. rolleyes.gif


The concept of agreeing terms and holding a developer to said terms is lost on West Berkshire district council!!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Oct 29 2011, 07:57 PM
Post #57


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Oct 29 2011, 08:50 PM) *
I really hope it does. But why should we share revenue from council owned car parks?


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

Your own schemes for Newbury involved consessions of one type or another.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Oct 29 2011, 08:03 PM
Post #58


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Oct 29 2011, 08:57 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.


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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Oct 29 2011, 10:59 PM
Post #59


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (user23 @ Oct 29 2011, 07:19 PM) *
Should the proposed changes to Business Rates go through, I wonder how much extra revenue WBC would gain from Parkway?


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post Oct 30 2011, 09:38 AM
Post #60


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (blackdog @ Oct 29 2011, 11:59 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.


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! angry.gif


--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

11 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
3 User(s) are reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th April 2024 - 01:27 AM