Shock horror - CEO of NTC apparently exceeds his powers and lets the Christmas Market off paying its fees, without bothering to ask, or even let the Councillors know. When the Town Council meet, one of the ruling party leads raises a strong objection to the CEO exceeding authority and even abstains in the vote the ruling party held to sweep matters under the carpet. Well done Ruwan! - and if that's an example of how your new LiibDems to be, they've gone up in my estimation.

Someone does need a little chat in JS-H shell like, two and a half grand may be loose change to you, but it ain't to most of us Charge Payers, or indeed public servants who are about to loose their jobs in the latest round of cuts. Rather than coming up with sound bites, might be a better idea to work out a better method of managing the staff.

Yes, well done indeed. Cllr Uduwerage-Perera is doing an awful lot of good at the Town Council, and like you say it gives the Lib Dems and local politics generally some credibility that for me they'd lost. I think it'll be even more interesting when he gets elected to WBC.

That's if he doesn't disappear under mysterious circumstances before then!

Why should a company who wish to hold a Christmas Market be given FREE rent by the council?.
If this private company wish to bring something to the town then they must run the event using their own money.
With the amount of money they are charging for traders and the proposed size of the event then the private contractor should have done his homework.
Anyone planning an event would have agreed the rent payable to the council in advance and built this into the budget.
To leave the decision not proceed at this late stage unless they can have FREE rent is very bad management by the event organiser or a way of increasing the final profit that they can make.
The council should have said NO.
This whole thing sends warning signs up that there could be more requests to help fund this from the Council or the BID funds.

It's a standard technique when negotiating with local authorities: get the town all excited, then pull the 'can't afford it' card at the last minute. They all do it, whether it is this, the racecourse or Parkway. It works every time!

Why abstain. If he was against the motion then vote that way or would he offend his oppos in the party. This is what is wrong with local politics when the councillors cannot fully express their views because they are controlled by a pseudo Westminster party.

It's a start, OK a small way, but hopefully he's broken the ring. A considered approach is rather more likely to work.

It also says in the same paper - I am going by memory here - that WBC won't help fund the repairs of the Bowling club because of a lack of money. Not surprised as they can wave such charges.

Isn't the point of putting such events up so that it will benefit Newbury; by bringing money in? Who says they won't get it back?

For the sake of accuracy, It's NTC, rather than WBC. I'm also sceptical that this market would benefit Newbury businesses. It could be argued that some might spend in the market rather than in town. I suspect the benefit would be mainly the stall holders and shoppers having more options of where to shop.

The Town Council has no remit - so no legal power - to spend anything or incur any costs in support of Newbury businesses, so that argument is a non-starter.

If they are arguing that the Christmas Market would benefit the people of Newbury then they need to have a specific statutory power to allow them to spend money or incur cost, and I'm not sure what that would be.

The Market sounds like it might have been an interesting thing to have, and if the regular users of the Park aren't unreasonably inconvenienced by it going in the Park then fair enough, but it's only right that NTC should cover all of its administrative and maintenance costs because I can't see that it's something I'd actually want to be taxed for in order to provide it.

Newbury's Christmas Market last year was an embarrassment of stalls selling cheap crap and tat barely recognisable as anything to do with christmas or anything 'festive'... I'd rather have nothing than that **** again... Better off going to a town where they hold a PROPER Christmas Market.... (like anywhere in Germany for instance....)

If you read my statement again, you might see that I didn't say they were spending money to support local business, in fact I said the opposite.


They evidently don't need any specific statutory power, as they have just gone and done it anyway.

While you might be able to argue with reference to certain laws, it seems, life just goes on, so either you are mistaken, or the tenets you cite are impotent.

Yup, that's for sure.

If the CEO has made the decision off his own back then surely he should be bought to task and reprimanded for his decision.
I still think that a company who have decided to bring an event to the town should have done their homework first.
Having done some small research the company involved in this event was only incorporated approx 1 year ago and have no previous experience in this type of event and i would have thought that the council would have done some types of history checks prior to allowing this to go ahead.

Quite agree. This is a very serious issue and the vote by the Councillors did not resolve it. All they did was bring a failed process back into line.

There should be a thorough investigation because;-
Count 1, the CEO acted without authority,
Count 2, a substantial amount (in NTC finance terms) has been lost to the Council,
Count 3, a significant decision has been made; apparently with faulty due diligence.

Particularly given the regular kicking that the LibDems offer to the Tories at WBC, I am shocked that the opposition did little more than ask why!

A good many charge payers are likely to believe that if the operator was unable to stump up the long time known about rent almost immediately before the start date, then the right decision would have been to cancel. This demonstrates the event isn't well managed, which means it won't be good for Newbury.

Even more kudos for the one single voice who abstained.

And who is going to pay for the probable repairs to the grass etc after all the stalls, vehicles etc are gone?

We are!

There are two issues here: one is that the town clerk is alleged to have exceeded his authority in making the decision to waive the £2.5k fee, and the other is whether the council were right to waive the fee.

Whether or not the town clerk exceeded his authority is a separate matter, but there's a legitimate discussion to be had about how the public interest is served by letting the Park for free, and I can't see how it is in the public interest for the council to let a commercial retail operation use Victoria Park for free.

There's obviously going to be damage to the Park at that time of year and it can't be right that the tax-payer pays for that, and you only have to look at the Council's previous experience of letting the Park to see that the cost of repairs for bogged-down lorries can be significant. It's also going to cost us a packet in administration, because the Council always makes a mountain out of every administrative mole-hill.

It also sets a precedent for any other commercial operation that wants to tout their wares on Council grounds to be allowed to do so gratis, because to charge them now would be blatant discrimination. I'm thinking in particular about the travelling fairs and circuses that at times pay to use the town's parks. It is clearly no less in the public interest to have a circus or fair than it is to have a Christmas Market, so the Council won't now be able to charge them for the use of their parks and won't be able to refuse them either. The Charter Marketeers will obviously now need to get their pitches free too.

If you look back through the Council minutes you'll see how the Council have pursued previous firms who have booked the Park for unpaid fees with the saga running on for years and costing the Council a heap in administration to chase it. It is simply perverse that the Council should now waive a £2.5k fee with such weak justification.

I think it is worth contrasting the Council's recent decision to waive £2.5 with a previous decision by the Council from three years ago and ask what has changed:

I think it would be good for the Council to publish those "Victoria Park terms and conditions" so that we can see what the Council policy is.

Ah, found it.

Hmm, here's the Christmas Market web site. It says it's opening from 30 November to 22 December except for 9 December, so following the Council's standard Victoria Park Terms and Conditions I calculate that as a total hire charge of £3,550 rather than the £2,500 reported by the NWN. Has the booking charge already been partially waived?

It looks to me that Mr Hunt has embarrassed the council. Would they several months ago have agreed to letting the Park out for free? They were forced onto a corner and for the sake of unity have retrospectively passed it through. That isn't how things should be done.

And again, what do we have? Almost complete intransigence. Newbury Town Council should be 'impeached'.

So either someone tabled an untruth, or the organisers had already been let off a significant sum.

There are other possibilities such as the Terms and Conditions have changed or the market isn't actually running for all of those dates as it appears from the web site to be, but it's something that deserves some clarification.

Being as how the Christmas Market is now using the Park for free, what happens if the Park is damaged? Pegasus Promotions and Events is a new company with total reported assets of £1, so if the Market is not a roaring success where will the money come from to repair the Park? If the viability of the Market already turns on the £2.5k booking fee I'd be more than a little nervous that the Town is going to be left holding the baby.

I think it's a good idea and I hope it is a success, but I think if it's being run in partnership with the BID as reported in the NWN then the BID need to stand guarantor, and they need to cough-up the booking fee too - and if it's not worth the risk for the BID, then I can't see it's worth the risk for the Town.

I suspect they won't move all the stalls out for the 9th - so I'd charge for that day as well.

However, £2,500 or even £3,700 is not a lot to pay for an event that may well bring a good number of people in to town. I suspect it is has no immediate effect on the budget as it probably isn't in the budget. I doubt there will be a huge amount of damage, its not as if heavy vehicles are going to be churning it up trying to drag out sunken fair rides. Sure some grass will become mud, but things like that recover quickly at minimal cost. Far better value for money than the cycle race the other year.

My suspicions are aroused by the claim that £2,500 is make or break given the number of stallholders who seem to have signed up for the event. As the company running it has no capital I'd certainly ask for a bond up front to cover any serious damage - or sight of their insurance policy.

The real issue is the Town Clerk overstepping his powers - by doing something all but one of the councillors later approved of him doing. Worthy of a 'don't do it again' slap on the wrist, or even a 'we need to change the rules to give the Clerk more flexibility', but hardly a sacking issue.

If I was struggling to pay my community charge, or if I was in an organisation who'd had my funding cut, or if I was an employee waiting for my redundancy £2,500 is NOT a small sum. I wonder what would happen if I call the revenue team at WBC and say I can't pay my community charge, just this month, will you let me off?

No, it's not a sacking offence, but it is disciplinary and let's face it, the CEO didn't even get a slapped wrist. Frankly, it's a matter of principles, but what would the present incumbents at NTC know about them.

What the Promoters have done doesn't bode well for the event, will that be a similar shambles because they 'couldn't afford'. Yet again, NTC has proved it simply has no idea about running markets!

(NB - those of us who have paid through the nose to hire rooms at the Town Hall to do things 'for the good of the Town' ought to learn from this!)

Yes, the CEO Mr Hunt waived the fee, and the Council leader, Julian Swift-Hook (Lib Dem, Pyle Hill) said:

“There was concern that the issue was decided without reference to any members. In absolute cash terms the amount of money is not huge but we do have processes in place and that when decisions are made they follow the right process.

“My understanding is that the private contractor would not have been able to proceed with the Christmas market if they had to pay the rent but this is to the benefit to the people of Newbury. I think the decision is the right decision to have been made.”

I read that:

"Graham is a keen utility cyclist and is also the Larger Councils Champion and co-ordinator of the Larger Local Councils Network for the Society of Local Council Clerks. He has a Certificate in Local Council Administration and is a Member of the Institute of local Council Management. All this gives him good access to best practice (and new ideas) across the 300 largest town parish Councils in England and Wales".

It raises the question of how independent the BID and NTC are, and whether this is how the NTC and the BID should work? Lets face it, Mr Hunt's action put the council in a difficult position and under the circumstances, it would have been very unlikely the council would have come to a different decision.


Quite right and I wonder how the chartered market stall holders feel about all this charity?

Newbury just doesn't do markets does it? I love all the certificates and qualifications, but it's only a little council. Perhaps he's just too big for the job!

As i see it the two choices were 1) not get £2500 and not get an Xmas market - or 2) not get £2500 and get an Xmas market. There wasn't a choice that involved getting the £2500.

If the Xmas market is as good as their website makes out (okay I doubt that it will be) then it will bring people to Newbury who may not come here normally. Who knows, some of them may look around the town and like what they see - and come back.

The council decided that the right decision has been made.

Personally I would have though that the CEO, who managed a £1,000,000 budget for NTC might be empowered to make decisions at the £2,500 level without having to wait a month or more for the next NTC committee meeting.

Then we'd disagree.

Newbury has survived without such a Christmas Market for years, its also hardly original, so frankly, not having one would hardly be a disaster.

The Council has a £1,000,000 budget and that is managed, that makes no difference to responsibilities. This was a matter of agreeing to go against an agreed policy - the charges for use. Empowering the CEO to this degree actually calls into questions the need for the Councillors - why not let him just get on with it.

There was no need to wait for meetings, even the Councillors have email and mobile phones. As there are processes for everything else, there will be one for rapid decisions. Yes, the Council have agreed - in reality they didn't have much choice.

Democracy, but not as we know it!

I very much doubt they felt they could say or vote any other way. Mr Hunt's actions saw to that.


I don't see the cash value, as such, as the biggest problem; rather this sets a precedent and also draws his office in to disrepute. He made a decision against procedure and with the potential for it to cost more than the loss of income. Why should the council charge others full price, if the Xmas market gets it for free?

On top of all that, I thought this kind of thing, this type of 'expenditure', was for the BID to manage?

Who's responsible for what?

There is no expenditure at issue - the choice was get £0 or get £0 and a market.

The CEO should be there to implement policies set by the council and should be empowered to make decisions at an appropriate level - councillors should not be micro-managing every little bit of non-expenditure.

If the CEO broke protocol I'm sure he is fully aware of it now - and is unlikely to do so in the future. But it seems like a daft bit of protocol to me. He couldn't just ring round a few councillors - protocol would require a committee decision. Yes he could have asked JSH to call a special meeting - but what a waste of time over £0.

You clearly haven't understood my last post, but I agree, the CEO is there to implement policy, but in this instance he failed to do so when unilaterally deciding to wave the rental fee.

Council leader, Julian Swift-Hook (Lib Dem, Pyle Hill) said: “Being faced with [the potential closure of the market] Graham Hunt decided that the council should waive the rent. None of the councillors were consulted on that decision, which is separate but related. We do have a process but that was not invoked. It’s not in the power of one person to make that decision. Spending money or forgoing income then that’s for the council to make. We’re not a business. We have to go through a democratic process. It was the right decision but the wrong process.”

Is he "highly paid"? How much is his salary, per year?

Why can't they charge next year?

Fees and the circumstances in which councils can charge, change all the time.

Look it up in the accounts; it's more than £20k. so it's what Joe Average, the charge payer regards as high.

Why can't they charge next year? Ever heard of a concept called 'precedent'? Been around since time immemorial.

Yeah, fees and circumstances change, and all the time. Like my insurance policy went up, my income has gone down, so I asked for a reduction. Very polite answer, amounted to same thing - no.

I'll have a bit of fun this morning, ribbing the market traders about their prices! Why haven't you passed on at least some of your rent reduction?

More than £20k is "highly paid"?

The average wage is £26k per year, so you think someone on an average wage is "highly paid".

Your insurance went up? Just as the cost of using the park could.

It's hard to believe you're not trolling once again, with these sort of responses.

You just don't get it do you, quite sad really.

I'd be surprised if any of the basic shop workers in town got anywhere near twenty grand a year. Lots of them are on the zero hour kick as well.

£20k really? Sorry but I don't believe that.

What rent reduction?

So Mr Hunt gets his slap on the wrist.

I guess my issue is that I disagree with the process - JSH may be a power hungry micro-manager, but that doesn't mean he is right. Does he expect to be consulted on every bit of expenditure as a West Berks councillor? Of course he doesn't - he is part of the decision making process that sets departmental budgets etc, but WBC employees manage the day to day activities and expenditure and councillors monitor their work. NTC has a turnover of £1,000,000 - perhaps its time it was run a bit more like a business.

I think the town clerk earns in the region of £50,000 to £60,000 basic.

The last year for which the Council appear to have published the analysis is 2009/10, and in that year there was one officer earning between £50,000 and £60,000, excluding pension contribution. It doesn't say who, but it's a fair guess that the officer would be the town clerk.

Staff costs for the year ending 31 March 2013 are £349,831, that's salaries, PAYE, NI, pension, and employment expenses.

In 2010 there were 9 full-time staff, and 6 part-time staff, but I can't tell you what that figure is for 2013, though I believe it is still 12 full-time equivalent. That's an average staff cost of £29,152, which is pretty good going for what are mostly admin assistants.

NTC is a public operation, it can't discriminate. So, if one lot of market traders don't have to pay rent, then the others don't either......

Of course, that would have been taken into consideration wouldn't it; because it was the right decision!

I can see that RUP has ruffled your feathers. Good. With your criticism of JSH I'm even starting to warm to him. What the Town Council needs is councillors who have the enthusiasm and nous to take an interest in how it is being run rather than just assume that everything is fine and believe the spin when they're told that detractors are nothing but Vexatious Complainants.

Nice work if you can get it! Is this the going rate for shop workers in the town? I somehow don't think so.

Actually, he ought to be demanding to be told of any deviation from established practice, or where contract negotiations are failing. That's NOT micro management, more effective leadership. That the CEO even believed he could do this speaks volumes about the state of the Councils management. Empowerment in this particular instance seems to be an excuse for hands off management, or as we call it non management; old Barings method! By the way, the tills in big supermarkets turn over a million a year in many cases, so by your thinking, the check out supervisor should be racking up £50,000pa salary....

I'm happy to be corrected, but as I understand it if the town clerk waives the rent that's a legally enforceable decision even if the officer was acting beyond her authority. I guess if the council had resolved not to waive the rent then they would have had to sue the town clerk for the money.

Conversely, being as how the Christmas Market isn't paying any rent now is there actually an enforceable contract? - contracts need consideration remember. I can imagine that might complicate matters if the wheels fall off this thing.

Absolutely! Agree with JSH spendthrift ways or not, he IS the elected leader. Now in an embarrassing position, but to give him his due, he does seem to take his responsibilities seriously.