District councillors face an uphill struggle tonight as they try and lift the lid on the secret society currently deciding the future of Newbury.
West Berkshire Council meets tonight to decide whether Newbury Town Centre Partnership chairman Liz Chandler should be hauled in front of a council committee.
Opposition councillors want to explore whether any individual members have gained financially from the mysterious group. The councillor leading the push for openness, Lib Dem leader Jeff Brooks, wrote: “[There is] concern over how people are chosen for this body – some of whom gain business or other advantages from so doing."
The debate is expected to centre on the influence of local architect Patrick Griffin, who’s firm has won design contracts for the Faraday Plaza, Camp Hopson, St Bartholomews School, Newbury Racecourse, Park Way, and Stirling Industrial Estate. Mr Griffin is one of five directors of the Newbury Town Centre Partnership Community Interest Company, and his firm is one of the funders of the group.
Ms Chandler said in a statement last week that the Partnership is an ‘advisory’ body, but it has emerged that members decided what should go in the controversial 20,000 sq ft pavilion – also designed by Mr Griffin – planned for Victoria Park.
The Partnership was secretly briefed last week on plans for an 11-storey block of flats with underground car park planned for the Stirling Industrial Estate in Kings Road. Members have been told not to tell the public. Newbury.net also understands that two organisations are currently reviewing their involvement with the partnership.
Meanwhile, on Friday last week, Vision councillor Pamela Bale assured Partnership members that the item “will not” be included on the Tory-controlled Overview & Scrutiny Committee’s agenda.
The debate is expected to centre on the influence of local architect Patrick Griffin, who’s firm has won design contracts for the Faraday Plaza, Camp Hopson, St Bartholomews School, Newbury Racecourse, Park Way, and Stirling Industrial Estate. Mr Griffin is one of five directors of the Newbury Town Centre Partnership Community Interest Company, and his firm is one of the funders of the group.
Ms Chandler said in a statement last week that the Partnership is an ‘advisory’ body, but it has emerged that members decided what should go in the controversial 20,000 sq ft pavilion – also designed by Mr Griffin
Back in the bad old days they'd have been accused of corruption but I'm sure they only won the contracts because they were the best available. After all, it's not as if there's much competition locally - http://bit.ly/4nsK5m
Back in the bad old days they'd have been accused of corruption but I'm sure they only won the contracts because they were the best available. After all, it's not as if there's much competition locally - http://bit.ly/4nsK5m
No one is accusing them of corruption. On the TCP, Mr Griffin is there to represent the views of the property sector, via the Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce, which itself represents fewer than one in six local businesses.
The Lib Dems have a problem with an unelected club where you can buy a voting membership for yourself for under £500 a year. In this way, out of town businesses have been able to join and gain valuable business intelligence BEFORE it's made public, giving unfair competitive advantage.
Blackdog insists they're scapegoats, but these are no naive do-gooders. WBC has bankrolled this group for several years without ever questioning its effectiveness, accountability, etc etc. Nick Carter has personally arranged for extra subsidies from your taxes to be handed to this mysterious self-appointed group.
It's a shame it has to be party political, as the Lib Dems were just as useless at introducing democracy to the old TCMSG, so as ever it's a bit rich coming out agin it, because there's a media storm.
Liz Chandler must now resign, the group disbanded, and Carter forbidden from using my money to prop up the Town Centre Matey Club.
At least you knew where you were then: most councils were corrupt, as I recall, and everyone the other side of the Iron Curtain was our mortal enemy.
When you say 'buy a voting membership for £500' I assume you mean a Chamber membership.
Perhaps if the TCP is to be retained memberships could be auctioned to the highest bidder. It would bring some much needed income into WBC at a time when we're about to see truly savage (quote Nick Clegg) cuts in public expenditure so that bankers can pay themselves huge Christmas bonuses. At least, I think that's how it's supposed to work.
Blackdog insists they're scapegoats, but these are no naive do-gooders.
I am sure most members are there because it is in their commercial interest - but do you really think that the Newbury Society or Admin (to name a couple) are corrupt supporters of the plans for the park?
Most members of the TCP had not seen the plans, or been consulted over them during their preparation until the recent presentation. I am sure that some members had a more priviledged access to them - what I want to find out it who is in this inner cabal, and who else from outside the TCP is involved?
Ultimately the responsibilty for any building in the park lies with WBC - how come they are getting so little adverse publicity? Because everyone has turned on the TCP - I smell a rat or two.
I certainly would have no problem with the TCP disappearing - it would be much better to have a public forum where anyone interested can come along and have their say on town centre developments. However, WBC have stopped the local forums and any consultation meeting nowadays comes down to a raft of presentations telling us how wonderful things are and some earnest talk about how important our views are - after which they ignore any criticism and proceed to produce whatever they thought of in the first place.
It is worth noting that WBC are in the process of setting up another unelected body - the West Berkshire Heritage Forum. Individuals were not allowed to attend the opening meeting - it was for the representatives of local heritage organisations only. I hope they learn from the TCP issue and open this new forum up to all comers...
The Partnership was secretly briefed last week on plans for an 11-storey block of flats with underground car park planned for the Stirling Industrial Estate in Kings Road. Members have been told not to tell the public.
Once the Stirling tower has been demolished, the road from Hectors Way will be extended through the new development to provide a one way route EASTBOUND towards Hambridge Road. This means that traffic heading from town towards Hambridge Road will have to cross over the WESTBOUND Kings Road route twice.
I couldn't convince them that it made more sense to reverse the direction of current Kings Road traffic and use the new link through Hectors Way for traffic coming into town.
Once the Stirling tower has been demolished, the road from Hectors Way will be extended through the new development to provide a one way route EASTBOUND towards Hambridge Road. This means that traffic heading from town towards Hambridge Road will have to cross over the WESTBOUND Kings Road route twice.
I couldn't convince them that it made more sense to reverse the direction of current Kings Road traffic and use the new link through Hectors Way for traffic coming into town.
Surely traffic from town will go via Bone Lane and only Sainsburys and Scatts traffic will use the new road?
Ultimately the responsibilty for any building in the park lies with WBC - how come they are getting so little adverse publicity? Because everyone has turned on the TCP - I smell a rat or two.
...
There has to be a reason for the secrecy but what has slipped by the net is that although the TCP were shown the plans and asked for some input, it was WBC that set the seal of secrecy. The ploy appears to be that the whole hiatus has been neatly deflected by them to another direction, the TCP in this case. Sounds like a right set up to me, I think I smell the same rat. I'm beginning to think that the consultation questionaire that the whole development is based on is flawed and this is a smokescreen being laid down.
The Partnership was secretly briefed last week on plans for an 11-storey block of flats with underground car park planned for the Stirling Industrial Estate in Kings Road. Members have been told not to tell the public.
The secrecy is now extended to the Sterling Estate development but it seems to have slipped through the net into public domain.....
Once the Stirling tower has been demolished, the road from Hectors Way will be extended through the new development to provide a one way route EASTBOUND towards Hambridge Road. This means that traffic heading from town towards Hambridge Road will have to cross over the WESTBOUND Kings Road route twice.
I couldn't convince them that it made more sense to reverse the direction of current Kings Road traffic and use the new link through Hectors Way for traffic coming into town.
The road, as envisaged in various Local Plans was to be two way, turning Kings Road (east) into a cul-de-sac. No doubt the developers are deciding about roads as well these days and didn't want that busy a road going through their lovely new tower hamlet.
The road, as envisaged in various Local Plans was to be two way, turning Kings Road (east) into a cul-de-sac. No doubt the developers are deciding about roads as well these days and didn't want that busy a road going through their lovely new tower hamlet.
That is correct, as I remember it there was to be a roundabout on the Boundary Rd/kings Rd/Hambridge Rd junction and that Boundary Rd was also to be blocked off on the North side of the railway bridge. I assume that the large development on the racecourse might have scuppered that as that will possibly need to be kept open to allow for the increased traffic.
I see from the NWN that only some members of the TCP have voting rights - anyone care to enlighten us as to who these select few are. And why the others are not allowed to vote?
I see from the NWN that only some members of the TCP have voting rights - anyone care to enlighten us as to who these select few are. And why the others are not allowed to vote?
So, let's just clear things here. Are we saying that there is a local chap who sits un-elected on a publicly funded panel (who seem to meet in secret) and who gives out public funded contracts to his own private firm, whilst preventing other firms from entering their own plans? .....and, would this private firm be responsible for the cock-up at the library which resulted in a delayed opening?
So, let's just clear things here. Are we saying that there is a local chap who sits un-elected on a publicly funded panel (who seem to meet in secret) and who gives out public funded contracts to his own private firm, whilst preventing other firms from entering their own plans? .....and, would this private firm be responsible for the cock-up at the library which resulted in a delayed opening?
Let's cut to the chase...
Threep.
You are suggesting that the TCP has the power to give out contracts or commission schemes. They certainly do not and the fact that this architect sits on that committee does not provide a route to being instructed by them. My understanding is that the finance for the plans has been supplied by the Greenham Trust. They also have a place on that committee. Ummm. However, the whole thing is the dream of WBC as part of their vision and the TCP has only been consulted at a late date by WBC who in turn have set the embargo on any publicity. I would suppose that this has been a WBC scheme from start to finish, that they have got the Greenham trust to finance it and that between WBC and the Trust, they have instructed the architect. Smacks of an undesireable funny handshake deal which should be investigated. I think the TCP should set the record straight in the amount of their involvement or have they been sworn to secrecy in that direction as well.
Smacks of an undesirable funny handshake deal which should be investigated.
On that we can all agree.
It is interesting though that some who used to be quite 'chatty' about the workings of the TCP and others have now all clammed up. Why, it's almost like children being caught with their hand in the cookie jar being naughty.
If you listen carefully, you can just hear the unmistakable sound of Teflon jackets being put on...
The Council is run, not by Councillors or Council Officers, but by the minority interests of a few. No doubt our local MP has a view, I've already experienced how he stands up for the people he allegedly represents, though he's no worse in this than his Lib-Dem predecessor. If our representatives to our law-making assembly take no notice of our wishes, you can't expect anyone local not to follow his example. I suspect that our MP is as 'corrupt' as the rest of them. I do not accuse him of 'corruption', but I do accuse him of a complete lack of interest in the day-to-day problems of his constituents, and my opinion is that he is either part of the 'secret society' or at least is aware of it but knows his place...
By the way
Quoted Text
You are suggesting that the TCP has the power to give out contracts or commission schemes. They certainly do not and the fact that this architect sits on that committee does not provide a route to being instructed by them. My understanding is that the finance for the plans has been supplied by the Greenham Trust. They also have a place on that committee. Ummm. However, the whole thing is the dream of WBC as part of their vision and the TCP has only been consulted at a late date by WBC who in turn have set th ...
Oh, do grow up! Of course that's what the TCP is doing - QED. All the words in the world don't stop people seeing what goes on in front of them, actions speak louder than, and all that! The Greenham Trust - don't you think there are some shared players on these two allegedly disparate teams? (Pause for official denial).
Oh, do grow up! Of course that's what the TCP is doing - QED. All the words in the world don't stop people seeing what goes on in front of them, actions speak louder than, and all that! The Greenham Trust - don't you think there are some shared players on these two allegedly disparate teams? (Pause for official denial).
Yes to your final statement, the Greenham Trust give away money so they have everybody in their pocket but I would like to hear what evidence you have to support your opening statement.
.... I do accuse him of a complete lack of interest in the day-to-day problems of his constituents, ....
In my experience, not true. I am not a Tory, not a Lib Dem either. Richard B. has at least made First Great Western sit up and think - the early trains to London are more comfortable and just about keep to time. That wasn't just one lettter he kept on, and on, and on, and on...stayed with it when even the more robust (like me) were thinking it was a wasted cause. Similarly, he's been at Thames Water keeping the pressure on. He does actually listen and the proof of that is his responses are sometimes not what you want to hear. So, he'll get my vote even though I'm card carrying Labour Cooperative. Good man in a bad system.
Richard B. has at least made First Great Western sit up and think - the early trains to London are more comfortable and just about keep to time. That wasn't just one lettter he kept on, and on, and on, and on...stayed with it when even the more robust (like me) were thinking it was a wasted cause.
I'm not sure the problems are sorted. I used to take the 08:31, which is timetabled to get me into Reading about ten minutes before I start work. During a two week period at the end of last month, I was (at least 20 minutes) late on seven out of ten days, so I've had to get another train 45 minutes earlier. And that one rarely seems to run on time, either...
Logged
Male
