|
|
 blackdog |
| November 11, 2009, 5:27pm |
|
Posts: 1,321
Posts Per Day: 1.20
|
It is also worth noting that the paving was put down only a few years after spending another fortune laying York stone pavements etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 78 |
| November 11, 2009, 8:59pm |
|
Guest User |
So it doesn't concern you that it cost a thick end of £1,000,000.00, so long as it looks nice?
Looks are subjective, but to me it looks over kill. As if there was a job lot of paving that was needed to have get rid of. For me, it was a BIG waste of money by people who seemingly didn't know what to do with the space available.
It suggests to me the TCP and in part WBC, had more money available than sense.
I don't really care about the cost. It could be that the council needed to spend spend spend to avoid missing out on funds from central government. |
|
 Logged |
|
|
|
|
| Greenham Common |
| November 11, 2009, 9:13pm |
|
Posts: 1,974
Gender:  Male
Posts Per Day: 1.80
Location: Equine way
|
Quoted from 78
I don't really care about the cost.
That explains a lot.
Quoted from 78
It could be that the council needed to spend spend spend to avoid missing out on funds from central government.
Meanwhile, there were plenty of roads in the outlying areas that were neglected and in need of attention. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 78 |
| November 12, 2009, 12:08pm |
|
Guest User |
That explains a lot.
Meanwhile, there were plenty of roads in the outlying areas that were neglected and in need of attention.
nice to see where your priorities lie. |
|
| Logged |
|
|
|
|
| Greenham Common |
| November 12, 2009, 1:03pm |
|
Posts: 1,974
Gender: Male
Posts Per Day: 1.80
Location: Equine way
|
Quoted from 78
nice to see where your priorities lie.
Yes, practicality over vanity any day of the week. |
|
|
|
|
|
| brian |
| November 12, 2009, 2:54pm |
|
Posts: 1,965
Gender: Male
Posts Per Day: 1.79
|
It suggests to me the TCP and in part WBC, had more money available than sense.
There seems to be a trend on these forums that suggests that theTCP are involved in deciding how and where the taxpayers money is spent and are also involved in the finances. This is not the case even though some of the vision group take part and are members of the TCP. Now that the minutes are in the public domain, that may become clearer. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Greenham Common |
| November 12, 2009, 3:15pm |
|
Posts: 1,974
Gender: Male
Posts Per Day: 1.80
Location: Equine way
|
There seems to be a trend on these forums that suggests that theTCP are involved in deciding how and where the taxpayers money is spent
By being advisory, they are 'involved' in deciding how and where the taxpayers money is spent, but I accept that they don't determine where money is spent. Having said that, the New Greenham Common Trust, a TCP member, used money from their coffers to finance the pavilion proposal. So while it wasn't strictly tax payers money, it was money intended to finance municipal projects. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Bartholomew |
| November 12, 2009, 3:24pm |
|
Posts: 167
Posts Per Day: 0.16
|
There seems to be a trend on these forums that suggests that theTCP are involved in deciding how and where the taxpayers money is spent and are also involved in the finances. This is not the case even though some of the vision group take part and are members of the TCP. Now that the minutes are in the public domain, that may become clearer.
The TCP must be influenced by the fact that some of the TCP members are decision makers on other committees and councils and these bodies also provide some of the finances. The minutes certainly haven't made it clearer but have highlighted who are making these decisions and what they are. |
|
|
|
|
|
| blackdog |
| November 12, 2009, 3:56pm |
|
Posts: 1,321
Posts Per Day: 1.20
|
By being advisory, they are 'involved' in deciding how and where the taxpayers money is spent, but I accept that they don't determine where money is spent. Having said that, the New Greenham Common Trust, a TCP member, used money from their coffers to finance the pavilion proposal. So while it wasn't strictly tax payers money, it was money intended to finance municipal projects.
You need to remember that New Greenham Trust (are they really a TCP member?) have a vested interest in getting the pavillion built, They want to redevelop the site of New Greenham Arts after they move to the pavilion. |
|
|
|
|
|
| user23.3 |
| November 12, 2009, 10:39pm |
|
Posts: 1,664
Posts Per Day: 1.51
|
By being advisory, they are 'involved' in deciding how and where the taxpayers money is spent, but I accept that they don't determine where money is spent. Having said that, the New Greenham Common Trust, a TCP member, used money from their coffers to finance the pavilion proposal. So while it wasn't strictly tax payers money, it was money intended to finance municipal projects.
As yet, no one's been able to highlight a TCP proposal that wasn't taken up by WBC. |
|
| Logged |
|
|
|
|
| brian |
| November 12, 2009, 10:43pm |
|
Posts: 1,965
Gender: Male
Posts Per Day: 1.79
|
As yet, no one's been able to highlight a TCP proposal that wasn't taken up by WBC.
Neither has anyone been able to highlight a TCP proposal that was taken up by WBC. |
|
|
|
|
|
| blackdog |
| November 12, 2009, 11:14pm |
|
Posts: 1,321
Posts Per Day: 1.20
|
Neither has anyone been able to highlight a TCP proposal that was taken up by WBC.
Or a TCP proposal. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Greenham Common |
| November 13, 2009, 12:38am |
|
Posts: 1,974
Gender: Male
Posts Per Day: 1.80
Location: Equine way
|
Neither has anyone been able to highlight a TCP proposal that was taken up by WBC.
Or a TCP proposal.
Isn't the evidence around us? Since the TCP and its collaboration with WBC was rather secretive, it would be difficult to see what has been proposed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
