Park way for a Pound. Options

[Exhausted]

According to the Newbury Weekly News, it seems that the sale of Park Way for a Pound wasn't quite what we believe. It appears that the cash payment was for a lease granted by West Berks Council who retain the freehold. It doesn't say how long and if it is the whole of the Parkway development or just the housing but they are using it as leverage to force SLI to transfer the management of the affordable housing to a housing association. No doubt that will upset the marketing of the non affordables.

I wonder if that lease includes Jack Street.

[Gazzadp]

Ah yes, the gift that just keeps on giving.

Our omnipotent and infallible council gifted the land, the access rights away.

Sorry sold it for the huge sum of £1 (our beloved council obviously likes that sum, as they have sold other places for the same amount), then again perhaps that was the going market rate.

So they sold it for £1 and yet the cost of repairs to the park, football pitch, tennis courts, bowling green, footpaths, walls, not to mention the cost of repairs to nearby houses, the nursery school etc.,

Yes Park Way, the gift that just keeps on giving.

Still West Berkshire council, its staff and councillors, what more did we really expect!

Brewery & pi** up, phrase comes to mind!

[JeffG]

Hmm. Well you can't both be right. Either it was leased or it was sold. I would go for the NWN's version.

[Simon Kirby]

As I've argued before, the whole "affordable" homes thing is just smoke and mirrors. The site should have been sold on the open market at the best price possible and the developer should have been allowed to make the most profitable use of the site. To paraphrase Adam Smith, fiddling with the free market just ends up costing us more.

[blackdog]

The Parkway deal is shrouded in mystery and speculation, I certainly wouldn't assume that the NWN article means that WBC still have the freehold.

But the £1 giveaway is something that, in fairness to WBC, does need to be qualified. The WBC owned part of the site was sold/leased for £1 plus an income from the car parking (rumoured at one time to be about £300k a year). Naturally the car park bit is also shrouded in mystery with all sorts of rumours about it a couple of years back some even suggesting that WBC were paying SLI a part of the revenue from their car parks!

As for the affordable housing - WBC paid £1m for it so it's about time they did something about getting it into use!

[Cognosco]

The Parkway deal is shrouded in mystery and speculation, I certainly wouldn't assume that the NWN article means that WBC still have the freehold.

But the £1 giveaway is something that, in fairness to WBC, does need to be qualified. The WBC owned part of the site was sold/leased for £1 plus an income from the car parking (rumoured at one time to be about £300k a year). Naturally the car park bit is also shrouded in mystery with all sorts of rumours about it a couple of years back some even suggesting that WBC were paying SLI a part of the revenue from their car parks!

As for the affordable housing - WBC paid £1m for it so it's about time they did something about getting it into use!

So do you think that SLI carried out their part of the usual Contract of supplying affordable homes as part of the deal for buying/leasing Parkway land for the huge amount of £1?
Or is it only possible for WBC staff to negotiate this kind of deal that lets a major contractor build affordable houses that should be no cost to the community for the the princely sum of £1m less of course the very generous £1 they threw in the gutter for us?

[blackdog]

So do you think that SLI carried out their part of the usual Contract of supplying affordable homes as part of the deal for buying/leasing Parkway land for the huge amount of £1?
Or is it only possible for WBC staff to negotiate this kind of deal that lets a major contractor build affordable houses that should be no cost to the community for the the princely sum of £1m less of course the very generous £1 they threw in the gutter for us?

There is no 'usual contract' - S106 and affordable home quotas are negotiated on all developments and are always dependent on the profitablility of the development. SLI out-negotiated WBC at every turn and got rid of all of the the affordable home quota at the last minute when WBC were so committed to getting Parkway built that they would do almost anything to keep SLI on board.

Once the news got out WBC negotiated a £1m deal to buy an affordable home quota - which has now been sitting empty for over a year. As an add-on it was not really a part of the main deal.

As for the £1 for the freehold of an acre or so of town centre land - sure that sounds dreadful, but £1 plus £300k a year for a lease on the land doesn't seem so bad. The truth seems to be somewhere in between - my complaint it that the deal is still kept secret.

[Andy Capp]

As I've argued before, the whole "affordable" homes thing is just smoke and mirrors. The site should have been sold on the open market at the best price possible and the developer should have been allowed to make the most profitable use of the site.

Or not.

If it had to be sold, perhaps selling when the market is on the up or high might have been a good strategy, however, releasing land to be used for retail outlets seems a folly in the 21st c.

[Exhausted]

The Parkway deal is shrouded in mystery and speculation, I certainly wouldn't assume that the NWN article means that WBC still have the freehold. But the £1 giveaway is something that, in fairness to WBC, does need to be qualified. The WBC owned part of the site was sold/leased for £1 plus an income from the car parking (rumoured at one time to be about £300k a year). Naturally the car park bit is also shrouded in mystery with all sorts of rumours about it a couple of years back some even suggesting that WBC were paying SLI a part of the revenue from their car parks!

If they,WBC, can use a lease deal as owners of the freehold and prevent SLI selling any of the premium properties, then the assumption must be that they really do have ownership and that any potential purchaser has to agree a lease deal with WBC before the sale can complete. All sounds a bit tenuous to me and I would be interested to know if those purchasers already in residence have such a lease.

As Simon said, it's all a bit smoke and mirrors but it will be interesting to see if SLI call their bluff as I'm sure that any early lease negotiations by the SLI legal team would have ensured that their properties could be bought and sold without having to refer to WBC for permission.

The car park income wasn't a rumour, the cat was let out of the bag into the public domain by Pamela Bale. There was rather a humorous but slightly riskque broadsheet titled Parkway Souvenir edition that appeared in October 2011 courtesy of a "Threep" who was fairly active in those days.

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2012/parkway...till-unresolved

[Simon Kirby]

Or not.

If it had to be sold, perhaps selling when the market is on the up or high might have been a good strategy, however, releasing land to be used for retail outlets seems a folly in the 21st c.

Whether or not it was good sense for WBC to sell (or as it turned out, give away) at the time they did is a separate question, though personally I don't see what business it was of our local council to own the site in the first place. WBC shouldn't be in the business of property speculating (or whatever you call the variant where you acquire property assets at public expense and them give them away to your friends at a loss).

[Cognosco]

Whether or not it was good sense for WBC to sell (or as it turned out, give away) at the time they did is a separate question, though personally I don't see what business it was of our local council to own the site in the first place. WBC shouldn't be in the business of property speculating (or whatever you call the variant where you acquire property assets at public expense and them give them away to your friends at a loss).

I believe the saying at the time that is was found that they gave away Parkway land was
"Well they gave us a new shopping centre you know"
So they gave us a new shopping centre turned out to be another rather fantastic spin of the facts didn't it?
It has actually cost the taxpayer £1million minus of course the £1 they threw in the gutter for us to pick up with glee! Then we have the Crackgate fiasco wich it would appear has cost us another estimated £100000 and that is of course to date? Now it would appear we are going to have to stump up another rather large wedge to repair the tennis courts as it would appear there is not even a sniff on the horizon of compensation from Costains and that is not including the repairs to date. Then there is the signing away of Rights of Way through Parkway? This of course does not include how much SLI are being paid for a share of the parking fees in Newbury?
So taking all this into account, let alone what ever else we don't even know about yet, it appears that shopping in Newbury for Precept payers is a rather expensive option don't you agree?

[Andy Capp]

Whether or not it was good sense for WBC to sell (or as it turned out, give away) at the time they did is a separate question, though personally I don't see what business it was of our local council to own the site in the first place. WBC shouldn't be in the business of property speculating (or whatever you call the variant where you acquire property assets at public expense and them give them away to your friends at a loss).

Why? The fact is WBC did. They also facilitated a development that does nothing useful.

[Simon Kirby]

Why? The fact is WBC did. They also facilitated a envelopment that does nothing useful.

A public authority has a role in providing services that can't reasonably or properly be provided by private industry, and for that a public authority has a need for some operational property, but not otherwise. A public authority has no place operating as a landlord or landowner, and if it finds itself with property for which it no longer has an operational need then it should sell it. To do otherwise puts it in competition with private industry.

[Simon Kirby]

I believe the saying at the time that is was found that they gave away Parkway land was
"Well they gave us a new shopping centre you know"
So they gave us a new shopping centre turned out to be another rather fantastic spin of the facts didn't it?
It has actually cost the taxpayer £1million minus of course the £1 they threw in the gutter for us to pick up with glee! Then we have the Crackgate fiasco wich it would appear has cost us another estimated £100000 and that is of course to date? Now it would appear we are going to have to stump up another rather large wedge to repair the tennis courts as it would appear there is not even a sniff on the horizon of compensation from Costains and that is not including the repairs to date. Then there is the signing away of Rights of Way through Parkway? This of course does not include how much SLI are being paid for a share of the parking fees in Newbury?
So taking all this into account, let alone what ever else we don't even know about yet, it appears that shopping in Newbury for Precept payers is a rather expensive option don't you agree?

The Crackgate debacle is entirely down to the mismanagement of the serially inept town council and can't really be laid at the door of the WBC. Only the Kafkaesque NTC could suggest that the crapulance of the chronically under-maintained tennis courts was in some way the responsibility of the four-year distant construction of Parkway, just like spending £100k on legal fees in support of a claim predicated on a hydrogeological report that can't be used in evidence because of a confidentiality agreement that no one was meant to see is not seen as a problem at NTC towers.

[Andy Capp]

A public authority has a role in providing services that can't reasonably or properly be provided by private industry, and for that a public authority has a need for some operational property, but not otherwise. A public authority has no place operating as a landlord or landowner, and if it finds itself with property for which it no longer has an operational need then it should sell it. To do otherwise puts it in competition with private industry.

I disagree; the land is at very least asset and might be looked on as a public space.

[Simon Kirby]

I disagree; the land is at very least asset and might be looked on as a public space.

Sure, if it's public open space by design then that's a perfectly legitimate public asset, but I do thoroughly object to public authorities hanging on to assets because they have some vague notion that they might some day want to use it for something, like some mad cat-woman with boxes of old jam jars and egg boxes stacked up the stairs because she can't bear to part with them. It's just poor public administration.

[Andy Capp]

Sure, if it's public open space by design then that's a perfectly legitimate public asset, but I do thoroughly object to public authorities hanging on to assets because they have some vague notion that they might some day want to use it for something, like some mad cat-woman with boxes of old jam jars and egg boxes stacked up the stairs because she can't bear to part with them. It's just poor public administration.

OK, but because you don't like it doesn't make a valid argument (I don't like the idea that all land is private) so what is your rationale for your POV? In my view, the authority has a duty to get best value and to make decisions based also on inclusion.

[The Hatter]

That's interesting, but what does 'inclusion' really mean? It's one of those weasel words that is used as an excuse to do what you like.

[Andy Capp]

That's interesting, but what does 'inclusion' really mean? It's one of those weasel words that is used as an excuse to do what you like.

It simply means for something to be of benefit to most people regardless of their status.

[Exhausted]

That's interesting, but what does 'inclusion' really mean? It's one of those weasel words that is used as an excuse to do what you like.

Same question. What does 'affordable housing' really mean.