Quoted from brian

I'm not sure if some of the earlier posts are referring to this original plan which started the ball rolling.

I was referring to this one which was on the same leaflet

Quoted from 133

I was referring to this one which was on the same leaflet

I think that the picture/map you are showing was what NTC were promoting in order to get a parks grant and wasn't on the leaflet which was the initial Wharf proposals.

This is part of the Lottery grant proposal in 2007 and runs to six pages. Where it all went nails up was the bit around the pavilion which was a small replacement building for the existing cafe in the centre of the park and not the giant edifice that WBC ego vision committee want. Thus the loss of the grant.

http://www.newbury.gov.uk/victoriaparkupdate121107.htm

Quoted from brian

I think that the picture/map you are showing was what NTC were promoting in order to get a parks grant and wasn't on the leaflet which was the initial Wharf proposals.

Right that makes sense. Does anyone know what was on the leaflet that accompanied the questionnaire that we have been discussing?

Newbury Town Council made a statement which explains their part of the deal and obviously refer to the WBC prevaricating which meant they had to pay back the £50,000 donated in order for them to put together the proposals. This money was lost and so the finance came from the Town Council coffers (Yours and my tax ).

http://www.newbury.gov.uk/News/victoriaparkupdate.htm

Here is the link to the original WBC document that went with the plan in my earlier post.

http://consultationfinder.west.....Wharf%20Brochure.pdf

This is the 2002 survey which wasn't what they wanted

http://www.westberks.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=4279&p=0

(Statement 24 and 25)

This is very confusing. Was there more than one questionaire?
If so, what was the latest proposal based on?
If not which leaflet was tied to the the questionaire pointed out in this thread?

Quoted from brian

Here is the link to the original WBC document that went with the plan in my earlier post.

http://consultationfinder.west.....Wharf%20Brochure.pdf

This is the 2002 survey which wasn't what they wanted

http://www.westberks.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=4279&p=0

(Statement 24 and 25)

Thanks for that Brian. I thought it was all becoming clearer but what I don't understand is how can a few years make such a difference in the results of a survey. The question in 2002 "All of Victoria Park must be retained as a public open space" had an overwhelming Strongly Agree and Agree response. I notice the age group was more varied on the 2002 survey as well.  The minority were over 65 and yet on the later one they were the majority.  Unless I'm getting mixed up again, which isn't difficult with this issue!

This is the later survey
Summary of results.....
http://consultationfinder.west.....esults%20Summary.pdf

The questionnaire
http://consultationfinder.westberks.gov.uk/uploaddocs/Consult274/070113%20-%20Web%20Q'aire.pdf


The main findings
http://consultationfinder.west.....0Main%20Findings.pdf

Supporting tables
http://consultationfinder.west.....porting%20Tables.pdf

Not boring you am I but you did ask.....

Just looked at this for the first time.   As User 23 seems upset my any negative comments I will try to be positive.
The only good thing I can see is they have given a job to a blind architect!