The minutes of the most recent meeting of the NewburyTown Centre Partnership are now available online.

http://www.newburytowncentre.co.uk/tcpminutes091016.pdf

A hard copy is also available to view at the Newbury Library in the Wharf.

My first impression is to realise how 'retail' orientated the group are.  In this meeting, there seems to be no 'heritage' type people in attendance.

Quoted from Greenham Common

My first impression is to realise how 'retail' orientated the group are.

How do you work that out?

Good to see TCP doing the right thing at last.

Some interesting stuff.....especially news that the Broadway will not be finished on time. I am sure the retailers will be delighted.

I still don't understand why they have anything to do with what goes on at sterling estate. Not exactly town centre is it

Quoted from 23

I still don't understand why they have anything to do with what goes on at sterling estate. Not exactly town centre is it

The conspiracy theory is that the presentation on the Sterling tower block was brought out to divert some of the flak from the pavilion.

But I can't see the retail bias suggested in an earlier post. I am more confused by the number of large edge-of-town non-retail operatives involved.

I thought we had Councillors who did this sort of thing?  Seems to be a massive duplication of effort for what purpose?  Interesting to see what employers are able to free valuable resource to attend 'advisory' meetings - when they claim to be short of cash!  If its simply getting information - go to the Council meetings; they are open.  If its influence they are after, use the proper democratic process and go via the ward councillor.

Quoted from 133

How do you work that out?

Well, not retail, but commercial interest.  I'm wondering if there is not enough representation from environmental spokesmen.  Should we be encouraging greater traffic movement, or worried whether a park is used by more people, or not?

Quoted from Greenham Common

Well, not retail, but commercial interest.  I'm wondering if there is not enough representation from environmental spokesmen.  Should we be encouraging greater traffic movement, or worried whether a park is used by more people, or not?

There is not enough representation from the people who really matter - the electorate!  

Quoted from 40

There is not enough representation from the people who really matter - the electorate!  

It could be argued that is the councillor's job.

Quoted from Greenham Common

It could be argued that is the councillor's job.

The difference is that councillors are elected to represent the town.

Quote from the TCP website ( http://www.newburytowncentre.co.uk )

"The Newbury Town Centre Partnership (TCP) exists to improve the vitality of Newbury Town Centre for all who live in Newbury, work in Newbury, shop in Newbury, or visit Newbury.

The TCP is independent of the District and Town Councils, but each council has both elected member and senior officer representation at the TCP table, sat alongside 26 other TCP members, all stakeholders, that have equal status in voting power.

The development plans for Newbury are vast, with plans for the new cinema in Cheap Street, the Market Street Urban Village and the Parkway Development. It is during these times of change that the value of the partnership is felt; the members who are experts in their fields contribute significantly to the core objectives; better town centre access, a safer environment, a quality environment, prosperity for all and leisure and cultural enhancements.

We are confident that through continued growth of the partnership we will be able to build on the successes that have already been achieved."

Quoted from Bartholomew

The difference is that councillors are elected to represent the town.

And they do just that - on the TCP.  They (Pamela Bale, WBC, and Julian Swift-Hook, NTC) are the reprentatives of the electorate on the TCP.

Personally I would prefer to see their representation depoliticised by adding an opposition member from each council - which would also double the electorate's representation.

As companies like Donnington Valley, Vodafone and the Racecourse can get on the TCP perhaps parish councillors from Speen, Shaw and Greenham should also be included?

Quoted from blackdog

And they do just that - on the TCP.  They (Pamela Bale, WBC, and Julian Swift-Hook, NTC) are the reprentatives of the electorate on the TCP.

Personally I would prefer to see their representation depoliticised by adding an opposition member from each council - which would also double the electorate's representation.

As companies like Donnington Valley, Vodafone and the Racecourse can get on the TCP perhaps parish councillors from Speen, Shaw and Greenham should also be included?

How are the rest (Donnington Valley, Vodaphone, the Racecourse etc) elected to be on the TCP? Is this through public voting?

Quoted from Bartholomew

How are the rest (Donnington Valley, Vodaphone, the Racecourse etc) elected to be on the TCP? Is this through public voting?

Of course not - it is not an elected body.

I suspect some get on by being prepared to help fund its activities (notably the salary of the Events Manager) others (like the Newbury Society) are there because whoever started up the group felt they should be there to represent some obvious stakeholders.

Quoted from blackdog

Of course not - it is not an elected body.

I suspect some get on by being prepared to help fund its activities (notably the salary of the Events Manager) others (like the Newbury Society) are there because whoever started up the group felt they should be there to represent some obvious stakeholders.

So, if I understand what you're saying (and the rest of the thread), the TCP membership is unelected but selected by its own members on its own criteria. It then makes decisions and recommendations to fundamentally change Newbury. And it also has members who have funding to make this happen.

As Alice said, "curiouser and curiouser". Brings visions of Mad Hatters and the rest of Alice's experiences

Quoted from Bartholomew

So, if I understand what you're saying (and the rest of the thread), the TCP membership is unelected but selected by its own members on its own criteria. It then makes decisions and recommendations to fundamentally change Newbury. And it also has members who have funding to make this happen.

As Alice said, "curiouser and curiouser". Brings visions of Mad Hatters and the rest of Alice's experiences

The TCP makes decisions and recomendations - but as it has minimal funding it doesn't actually do anything concrete apart from hiring the Events Manager.  

If WBC chooses to follow their recommendations it is WBC's choice - a choice made by democratically elected councillors. The Pavilion in the Park and the other Vision projects are following WBC's Vision 2025 plan.

Quoted from blackdog

The TCP makes decisions and recomendations - but as it has minimal funding it doesn't actually do anything concrete apart from hiring the Events Manager.  

If WBC chooses to follow their recommendations it is WBC's choice - a choice made by democratically elected councillors. The Pavilion in the Park and the other Vision projects are following WBC's Vision 2025 plan.

Have you any examples of WBC not following what the TCP has suggested to support what you say?

Quoted from blackdog

The TCP makes decisions and recomendations - but as it has minimal funding it doesn't actually do anything concrete apart from hiring the Events Manager.  

If WBC chooses to follow their recommendations it is WBC's choice - a choice made by democratically elected councillors. The Pavilion in the Park and the other Vision projects are following WBC's Vision 2025 plan.

Am I wrong in saying that many of the members of the TCP also hold dual roles, namely West Berkshire Council, Newbury Town Council, Greenham Trust and the architects who designed the new propoal?

Do you know who produced the Vision 2025 plan?

So, let me get this right, its a 'good thing' to have a body comprising of businesses and other organisations who are not elected influencing decisions and submitting ideas. Whereas having a public Forum for the electorate to come along and do the self same thing  is a 'bad thing'.  We don't do democracy in West Berkshire, do we?  

Quoted from Bartholomew

Do you know who produced the Vision 2025 plan?

Yes. It was a chap called David Appleton (blackdog's old matey!). In 2002, our Dave (we pay his wages you see) was tasked by the Supreme Leader to come up with the 50 questions that formed the basis of the Cartergrad Project. Cultural Commissar Appleton was thus able to dust down a few pet projects and sneak them past before you wake up.

Such gems included this one, which was actually put forward by the car-hating Lib Dems in 2000.

Q. Do you like traffic coming through the Market Place on market days?
A. No. (hey, who does?)
Action: Remove car park, ban only 90% of vehicles, and exile the kebab vans to create al fresco culture.
result: We don't need to repeat that again!

It was all very different back in 2004 though. The TCP was the TCMSG and you could get a seat at the table for £500 a year. (Cannons gym were on it for a while!). What a bargain for the heads up on loads of inside knowledge.

Meanwhile, our council tax soared.  Then the Tories came into power, promising to review the projects, result...steady as she goes Captain.

Quoted from Meddler

Yes. It was a chap called David Appleton (blackdog's old matey!).

Not sure I'd call David a mate - but we are indeed acquainted. I guess I have had perhaps half a dozen short conversations with him in the four or five years since we met.

I can't say as I have found many of his proposals to my taste.

Quoted from user23.3

Have you any examples of WBC not following what the TCP has suggested to support what you say?

I'm not sure what the TCP has ever suggested - as far as I can see they are used by WBC to provide feedback on their schemes rather than generators of schemes.  The overall scheme is WBC's (Vision 2025 as produced, apparently, by my old mate). Based on that Patrick Griffin (who seems to be the only enterprising architect taking advantage of the opportunity) comes up with another scheme and the ball starts rolling.

The whole situation has been put together by our elected councillors and kept going by our elected councillors.  If you don't like it vote for someone else (if only there was someone else).

Quoted from Bartholomew

Am I wrong in saying that many of the members of the TCP also hold dual roles, namely West Berkshire Council, Newbury Town Council, Greenham Trust and the architects who designed the new propoal?

You are not wrong - all members of the TCP have other roles.  They are representatives of businesses and organisations with an interest in the town centre (some altruistic, some pecuniary).

Given Patrick Griffin's predominance in the genaration of Vision schemes it is certainly odd that he is a member of a group WBC use to comment/critique these schemes.

I am no great fan of the TCP - but I do think that WBC should not be allowed to pass the buck on these schemes.  When I went to the library exhibition there was a WBC councillor, a town councillor, WBC officer and a representative of Sutton Griffin.  I'm not sure any of these are members of the TCP - but they were certainly demonstrating what I would call 'ownership' of this daft scheme.

Quoted from blackdog

Not sure I'd call David a mate - but we are indeed acquainted. I guess I have had perhaps half a dozen short conversations with him in the four or five years since we met.

I can't say as I have found many of his proposals to my taste.



I'm not sure what the TCP has ever suggested - as far as I can see they are used by WBC to provide feedback on their schemes rather than generators of schemes.  The overall scheme is WBC's (Vision 2025 as produced, apparently, by my old mate). Based on that Patrick Griffin (who seems to be the only enterprising architect taking advantage of the opportunity) comes up with another scheme and the ball starts rolling.

The whole situation has been put together by our elected councillors and kept going by our elected councillors.  If you don't like it vote for someone else (if only there was someone else).

You are not wrong - all members of the TCP have other roles.  They are representatives of businesses and organisations with an interest in the town centre (some altruistic, some pecuniary).

Given Patrick Griffin's predominance in the genaration of Vision schemes it is certainly odd that he is a member of a group WBC use to comment/critique these schemes.

I am no great fan of the TCP - but I do think that WBC should not be allowed to pass the buck on these schemes.  When I went to the library exhibition there was a WBC councillor, a town councillor, WBC officer and a representative of Sutton Griffin.  I'm not sure any of these are members of the TCP - but they were certainly demonstrating what I would call 'ownership' of this daft scheme.

Looking at the minutes of the TCP it seems, as far as i can make out, there was a committee present which consisted of 11 members involved in business, 2 from the police and one from Newbury College. I don't know where the seven absentees fit in except for Patrick Griffin (architect). In addition ("attending") there are 6 from WBC, 2 from NTC, 1 from the police and one from Sutton Griffin.

The base committee seems pretty biaised towards commerce which I find strange when the major project they are currently promoting is the Pavilion which is a leisure facility. Does anyone know why those without financial interests are not included?

Quoted from Bartholomew

The base committee seems pretty biaised towards commerce which I find strange when the major project they are currently promoting is the Pavilion which is a leisure facility. Does anyone know why those without financial interests are not included?

One of the non-attendees, Jeremy Holden-Bell represents the Newbury Society.  What other local groups should be included?

Quoted from blackdog

One of the non-attendees, Jeremy Holden-Bell represents the Newbury Society.  What other local groups should be included?

What other stakeholders are there?

Quoted from Greenham Common

What other stakeholders are there?

By using "stakeholder" (One who holds the bets in a game or contest. One who has a share or an interest, as in an enterprise.)  you are implying that there is some commercial interest.
My point is that there really needs to be involvement from other groups that are not interested in the profits from this but the usage of it. Candidates could be youth groups, sports and leisure groups or anyone else that is likely to use the facilities rather than see a financial incentive in it.  

Quoted from Bartholomew

By using "stakeholder" (One who holds the bets in a game or contest. One who has a share or an interest, as in an enterprise.)  you are implying that there is some commercial interest.

Not at all, read my initial impression in this thread.

Quoted from Bartholomew

My point is that there really needs to be involvement from other groups that are not interested in the profits from this but the usage of it. Candidates could be youth groups, sports and leisure groups or anyone else that is likely to use the facilities rather than see a financial incentive in it.

I totally agree.  There seems to be dearth of parties other than those with a primary commercial interest.  First impressions, including reading the NWN, this pavilion scheme has been screwed up.  I think some people with influence on the TCP should consider their position.  At very least, WBC should treat with more caution, the 'advice' they receive from the TCP.

The common recent usage of 'stakeholder' implies someone who has an interest in the topic - not necessarily a financial interest.  Though I suppose we all have a financial interest if WBC money is being spent.

I was really wondering what groups, apart from the Newbury Society, exist and perhaps should be represented.  One I would suggest would be the voluntary sector, someone to represent the interests of local charities.  Another would be a representative of the disabled (if I'm allowed to use that word anymore).

But I don't know of a consumers' group that would represent shoppers or leisure facility users - is there one?

Quoted from blackdog

Not sure I'd call David a mate - but we are indeed acquainted. I guess I have had perhaps half a dozen short conversations with him in the four or five years since we met.

You've failed to mention he used to be your boss there, well boss', boss', boss.

Quoted from user23.3

You've failed to mention he used to be your boss there, well boss', boss', boss.

Probably because he never was my boss. I realise that it is a sad void in my life but I have never worked for WBC.

Quoted from blackdog

Probably because he never was my boss. I realise that it is a sad void in my life but I have never worked for WBC.

Fair enough. You've never worked in the museum then?

Quoted from user23.3

Fair enough. You've never worked in the museum then?

This is getting to be a one way interrogation - perhaps you would like to answer a question before I answer yours.

Do you work for WBC?

Is any of this really necessary? I don't see the requirement to know peoples identities, and their employment history?

Quoted from blackdog

This is getting to be a one way interrogation - perhaps you would like to answer a question before I answer yours.

That's a yes then.

Quoted from massifheed

Is any of this really necessary? I don't see the requirement to know peoples identities, and their employment history?

No it's not. I don't know why people go on about it so much.

Quoted from massifheed

Is any of this really necessary? I don't see the requirement to know peoples identities, and their employment history?

Its not necessary at all - but I did think that as I had been honestly replying to User's questions and inferences it could be a two way thing.

Following his logic I see that he does indeed work for WBC as apparently he reads a nil response as a yes.

So User what is your view on Cllr Beck's comment on golden oldies?

Quoted from blackdog

Its not necessary at all - but I did think that as I had been honestly replying to User's questions and inferences it could be a two way thing.

Following his logic I see that he does indeed work for WBC as apparently he reads a nil response as a yes.

So User what is your view on Cllr Beck's comment on golden oldies?

You asked that question on another forum, on which I have replied.

Speaking other forums, I wonder what our obsessive friend Gumbo posts as on here.

Quoted from blackdog

So User what is your view on Cllr Beck's comment on golden oldies?

He didn't give an opinion on the statement, except to say he preferred councillors to be forthright.  User23.3 has skipped the issue of whether the pavilion should be exclusively a youth centre.

Quoted from Greenham Common

He didn't give an opinion on the statement, except to say he preferred councillors to be forthright.  User23.3 has skipped the issue of whether the pavilion should be exclusively a youth centre.

I gave my view on his comment. That's what was asked for,

Quoted from user23.3

I gave my view on his comment. That's what was asked for,

He wrote what do you think about his opinion.  For the record, he posted...

Quoted from 'blackdog' @ 'Nov 12 2009, 11:31 PM'

What do you think of Cllr Beck's opinion regarding the golden oldies?

I don't think stating you rather councillors say what they think is really saying what you think of his opinion.

You said, however, that you like these people to say what they think and to be honest.  Fair enough, but do you think in this case he was, a) correct and, b) honest?

I'm not sure he was, I think he was making excuses for a likely poor reception to the pavilion project.

This it is all a bit disappointing that a thread with some valid and interesting points about the subject has again been turned into you said/he said bickering.

Frankly I don't care who works where. What I do care about is the issues that affect Newbury, the proposed pavilion being the main one at the moment.

Please get back to the subject or post on another thread.

We are currently discussing the merits of a number of councillors opinions on the subject who sit on the TCP.  Albeit, user23.3 is skipping the issue (which he is entitled to), but I think that the councillors are showing themselves to be even more out of touch than I expected.  Especially for such a sensitive subject.

BTW - This isn't an exclusively 'Pavilion in the Park' thread!  

Quoted from Greenham Common

BTW - This isn't an exclusively 'Pavilion in the Park' thread!  

You're right, I meant to "get back to the subject"!

Quoted from Greenham Common

We are currently discussing the merits of a number of councillors opinions on the subject who sit on the TCP.  Albeit, user23.3 is skipping the issue (which he is entitled to), but I think that the councillors are showing themselves to be even more out of touch than I expected.  Especially for such a sensitive subject.

I think that the problem with the TCP is the composition and the conflict of interests this causes. I for one would feel uncomfortable sitting on two or three bodies that have overlaps in responsibilities. This may be by design or may be because of disinterest from potential suitable members.
The other issue seems to be that the composition of the TCP is principally commercial and doesn't represent a proper slice of the community. It could be argued that questionnaires and surveys provide this but as we have seen, these have been misinterpreted and misunderstood.
If things work as I understand they should, the TCP would have a range of skills, interests and backgrounds and would make recommendations to elected councillors. If this worked properly, I would have no issues with it but it.

Quoted from Bartholomew

I think that the problem with the TCP is the composition and the conflict of interests this causes. I for one would feel uncomfortable sitting on two or three bodies that have overlaps in responsibilities. This may be by design or may be because of disinterest from potential suitable members.
The other issue seems to be that the composition of the TCP is principally commercial and doesn't represent a proper slice of the community. It could be argued that questionnaires and surveys provide this but as we have seen, these have been misinterpreted and misunderstood.
If things work as I understand they should, the TCP would have a range of skills, interests and backgrounds and would make recommendations to elected councillors. If this worked properly, I would have no issues with it but it.

Think you are describing a ‘Local Council’ as most people would see it.  The need to have such groups and worse, to have it sponsored by WBC calls that into question. This simply puts more power into the hands of the Council’s staff.  One reason I don’t like local administration being described as a Local Authority.  Authority in England should be derived from the people.

Quoted from 40

Think you are describing a ‘Local Council’ as most people would see it.  The need to have such groups and worse, to have it sponsored by WBC calls that into question. This simply puts more power into the hands of the Council’s staff.  One reason I don’t like local administration being described as a Local Authority.  Authority in England should be derived from the people.

I think that you have misunderstood what I was saying. I was advocating the TCP should be seperate from the council. By members participating in more than one organisation there are obvious conflicts of interest. Also by having a separate TCP with no conflicts, the local authority would get views of the people and some reality checks. This is why I also think that the commercial bias of the TCP is also a drawback.
Looking at the minutes and the attendees, it is obvious that WBC and NTC have an influence on this organisation which supports your point on the power on the local authority having an influence.

No, I don't see why the TCP should exist at all.  In effect it is just a single interest lobby group.  I'd accept it as a trade association who dod lobby, properly, and through the correct channels. But not 'officially sponsored'.  If you remember, there was a huge fuss in central Government a little while back - where a few MPs were critisised for working with such organisations - Ian Greer Associates (sic) and such like.  Spot the similarity?

I think the main thing about the TCP is to promote Newbury and get people to live and spend money in the town, witness the Halloween night that I think they sponsored - it was a success as I was there with all the family, so I guess more people in town out and about buying things and spending benefits business. A friend of mine said it reminded her of events that are regularly held in other countries. Thats why the pavilion is possibly going to be a draw for the public, you won't just go there you will go to other parts of the town too. Is this sounding a bit idealistic?

Quoted from Saveourpark

...Thats why the pavilion is possibly going to be a draw for the public, you won't just go there you will go to other parts of the town too. Is this sounding a bit idealistic?

I don't think so, although I do think that the pavilion is in the wrong place to get used enough.  Promoting the town is one thing, but some people are against giving away public land to developers to exploit for commercial use.  Open public land is only shrinking, they are not making any more.

Now that the TCP has discovered its sense of civic duty in publishing these minutes, I look forward to the publication of previous minutes for the last 2 years.

Admin - now they're not secret any more, any chance you can arrange this for us?