This is a press release from the Newbury Labour Party concerning the Town Councils unanimous decision that fencing was not required around the new play area in Victoria Park. The press release has been reproduced in full without editorial comment.
Newbury Labour Party spokesman Richard Garvie has hit out at Liberal Democrat and Conservative town councillors for once again failing to listen to members of the public on an important local issue. At the start of the year, Mr Garvie questioned the lack of fencing within the designs for the new play area in Victoria Park, and whether parents had been consulted. Although no consultation documentation was ever produced by Newbury Town Council, councillors insisted that parents were supportive of the council's position on the matter.
With over 1,000 people signing a petition to install a fence around part of the play area, the council risk disenfranchising people by once again failing to listen to the needs of parents and park users. Mr Garvie said "This whole episode is another example of a small number of elected officials refusing to listen to local people. Parents use the park on a regular basis and have rightly raised concerns about the deep water beside the play area and other safety issues such as dogs without a leash. My concern is that those who have engaged with the council since the play area has opened will now think that there is no point interacting with councillors or officers because they don't listen to public opinion, and if you look at CCTV, day centre closures and the pavilion issue, it's becoming very clear that public opinion is often ignored."
1,00 isn't a great number of people - unless you compare it with the number voting Labour of course!
100 is a significant number actually. I wonder how many more would have opted for a fence if an actual consultation had taken place - instead of an alleged consultation as stated by the council - When did the consultation take place and who had the chance to take part in the consultation. I for one certainly never had the chance to parcticipate any one know who was consulted? I would request the council to give evidence of this consultation but I know they do not read or take notice of this forum do they or the taxpayers either?
The overall total was something just over 1,200. These are parents and park users who like me (and cognosco) must have "missed" any mention of a consultation. Does anyone have links to the consultation results and where can it be viewed?
Is this just a matter of cost or are the town council now miffed because the users know better than them what is needed for the safety of their children. Mums want to go to the park with their offspring, have a chat with other mums without having to continually watch the child or children to make sure they haven't wandered off. Nearly every play area around town in the smaller parks are fenced so why isn't this one fenced when there is a possibility that a child can wander off or dogs can wander in and take a dump in the play area. Even an owner picking up the package still leaves the mess on the grass. That said, the play area was never fenced when I was a kid nor when my lads were young. I don't remember any accidents but in those days, a child falling in the pond would be unlikely to make the headlines in the Newbury Weekly.
Is this the same Richard Garvie who couldn't even fill out the simple form to get nominated for election to the Town Council correctly?
So run out of reasoned arguments then User? So I take it from your desperate reply and attempt to divert yet another thread there was no consultation then? Come on get a grip the Supreme Leader will expect more that this you know, remember cuts will have to be made and though you have done sterling work as the councils Firewall well times are hard........
Because I don't understand why he seems to be telling the organisation he failed at the first and simplest hurdle to join, what to do.
I'm not diverting the thread, I'm commenting on the competence of the local politician who issued the press release.
You have to move on. Whatever the reasons for not getting on the polling paper, you can't hold that against him for ever.
The park and the playing area fence need a champion and he has the ear of the press at the moment and he is positive about it. You, conversly, appear to be on the opposite side of the fence if you will excuse the pun.
You have to move on. Whatever the reasons for not getting on the polling paper, you can't hold that against him for ever.
The park and the playing area fence need a champion and he has the ear of the press at the moment and he is positive about it. You, conversly, appear to be on the opposite side of the fence if you will excuse the pun.
Just until the next election. I'm sure Newbury Labour Party are positive about every bandwagon they jump on.
Just until the next election. I'm sure Newbury Labour Party are positive about every bandwagon they jump on.
Whatever, since the other two parties are effectively one, the Newbury Labour Party are the only opposition. Obviously this is not acceptable to you and your masters.
I disagree. Labour jumping on the local bandwagon usually makes it LESS likely that anything will change.
Read this statement....what alternative is Labour offering? It's just a warning saying don't ignore public opinion, so it adds nothing to the debate, and is far too quick to try and steal the glory of real people pushing for change with smug "I told you so" broadsides. I never knew socialists were so shallow!
This town's in a mess because of ineffective politicians. Garvie & Co are going to have to be much more effective to be taken seriously around here.
I disagree. Labour jumping on the local bandwagon usually makes it LESS likely that anything will change.
Read this statement....what alternative is Labour offering? It's just a warning saying don't ignore public opinion, so it adds nothing to the debate, and is far too quick to try and steal the glory of real people pushing for change with smug "I told you so" broadsides. I never knew socialists were so shallow!
This town's in a mess because of ineffective politicians. Garvie & Co are going to have to be much more effective to be taken seriously around here.
I think the point is that I asked the council about the lack of fence in the designs before it was even built and was told parents had been consulted. Obviously they missed the 1,200 or so people who signed the petition, and me, and other users on this forum. Just exactly who did they speak to?
It's not about jumping on bandwagons, I raised this as an issue before the thing was even built or became a local campaign, so how can I be accused of jumping on the bandwagon? I highlighted the issues about the skatepark before that was built and the subsequent complaints and petitions, I raised the issue of CCTV weeks before it was published in the papers and we also led the way on fighting cuts to day centres and youth clubs alongside people who asked us to raise those issues. As for Victoria Park, we will continue to speak up for what is right and on the whole support the town council in what they hope to achieve. That being said, they need to listen to what people want and be proactive, not reactive.
I'd love to hear your reasoning for that last post, it just doesn't make sense and it doesn't match the facts either.
Just until the next election. I'm sure Newbury Labour Party are positive about every bandwagon they jump on.
Nice pun, by the way.
Excellent, so before the election we were accused of "electioneering" and "grandstanding" because elections were imminent. Even though the next set of elections are 3.5 years away, you are sticking with that old chesnut? Working for the council, surely you got the email about not giving me information or engaging with me and to direct me through David Lowe before the election? What goes into the papers, radio, tv and here is often the tip of the iceberg and the result of a lot of work leading up to that. What bandwagon have I (or Labour) jumped on?
There is a pond beside the toddler play area and a concern that dogs can mix with young children / foul in the play area. They are genuine concerns of any parent.
I'd love to hear your reasoning for that last post, it just doesn't make sense and it doesn't match the facts either.
I'll be brief. Like many others, it's refreshing to see someone young and energetic take on local issues. But I think you have such a polarising effect on the authorities that it's less likely that people will join a cause if you're the one waving the flag.
I don't want to give you too hard a time though, I can see you've got your handsful providing evidence of your own at the moment!
I'll be brief. Like many others, it's refreshing to see someone young and energetic take on local issues. But I think you have such a polarising effect on the authorities that it's less likely that people will join a cause if you're the one waving the flag.
I don't want to give you too hard a time though, I can see you've got your handsful providing evidence of your own at the moment!
Its worth noting in last weeks Free Press that Mr Garvie said that if Spalding wouldn't play ball with him, he would try the ideas elsewhere, which would imply that he is out to flog his ideas where and when he can
Whilst Mr Garvie has been serenading Newbury as his one and only love it seems he's got a strumpet on the side called Spalding.
I feel cheated by the Head of Sustainable Spalding
Hold on, I think I have made it clear throughout that my employment is in the Midlands and Lincolnshire, any project within a certain radius of Newbury I had to give up to ensure there was no potential conflict between personal and political interests. I'm squeaky clean in that regard, you won't see me having a vested interest in a certain project, regardless of what it is. Can all of our current councillors / officers say the same?
None of this has anything to do with the subject matter of fencing in Victoria Park.
Interesting comment on the page you postedWhilst Mr Garvie has been serenading Newbury as his one and only love it seems he's got a strumpet on the side called Spalding.
I feel cheated by the Head of Sustainable Spalding
Hold on, I think I have made it clear throughout that my employment is in the Midlands and Lincolnshire, any project within a certain radius of Newbury I had to give up to ensure there was no potential conflict between personal and political interests. I'm squeaky clean in that regard, you won't see me having a vested interest in a certain project, regardless of what it is. Can all of our current councillors / officers say the same?
Does the Conservative councillor mentioned know you're a Labour spokesperson?
I understand that he lives in the parliamentary constituency of Newbury. He also allegedly lives within the limits of council boundaries to qualify for NTC.
I understands that he lives in the parliamentary constituency of Newbury. He also allegedly lives within the limits of council boundaries to qualify for NTC.
I believe he's made it fairly clear that he lives in Thatcham (you can stand for NTC if you live within 3 miles of the ward).
And he's also made no secret about being invovled in some regeneration project elsewhere,
I believe he's made it fairly clear that he lives in Thatcham (you can stand for NTC if you live within 3 miles of the ward).
And he's also made no secret about being invovled in some regeneration project elsewhere,
Correct. But let's not let the facts get in the way of a User23 damage limitation excercise. When he is short on answers from above, he resorts to digging around in peoples private lives to try and deflect from the subject matter at hand.
Correct. But let's not let the facts get in the way of a User23 damage limitation excercise. When he is short on answers from above, he resorts to digging around in peoples private lives to try and deflect from the subject matter at hand.
Hang on.
You were the one to bring up where you think I work first (digging around in peoples private lives as you put it) which you consistently do and it wasn't me that posted the link to Spalding Today first.
Not sure about answers, but you certainly seem short on something above making a mistake like that.
You were the one to bring up where you think I work first (digging around in peoples private lives as you put it) which you consistently do and it wasn't me that posted the link to Spalding Today first.
I don't think I was actually. I reposted something that somebody else had writtn on the forum previously. The question is, you are an employee of the council and you trash anyone who dares raise an issue with West Berks. Vested interest? I think so.
As for me, I don't work in West Berkshire deliberately, this means my political and employment interests an unconnected and can't conflict with each other. I've always been upfront about what I do and where, so none of what you flagged up is anything new. Why would anyone be bothered that I am the lead consultant on a project in Lincolnshire? I still live in the Newbury area, I still spend most of my time here and I still go to all of the council meetings. I have a better attendance record than most of the elected members, and I've certainly asked more questions that anyone else, both at meetings and in private.
The fact is, you just try to divert any bad attention by disrupting threads with pointless comments that are not connected to the subject.
The fact is, you just try to divert any bad attention by disrupting threads with pointless comments that are not connected to the subject.
All the posts by User in this thread have no connectionto the play area and the fencing in Victoria Park.
To save anybody reading back fron the start here they are.
Is this the same Richard Garvie who couldn't even fill out the simple form to get nominated for election to the Town Council correctly?
Because I don't understand why he seems to be telling the organisation he failed at the first and simplest hurdle to join, what to do.
I'm not diverting the thread, I'm just commenting on the competence of the local politician who issued the press release.
Just until the next election. I'm sure Newbury Labour Party are positive about every bandwagon they jump on.
Interesting comment on the page you posted
Whilst Mr Garvie has been serenading Newbury as his one and only love it seems he's got a strumpet on the side called Spalding.
I feel cheated by the Head of Sustainable Spalding
Does the Conservative councillor mentioned know you're a Labour spokesperson?
I don't think he does live in Newbury.
Hang on.
You were the one to bring up where you think I work first (digging around in peoples private lives as you put it) which you consistently do and it wasn't me that posted the link to Spalding Today first.
Not sure about answers, but you certainly seem short on something above putting your foot in it as you just have done.
I don't think I was actually. I reposted something that somebody else had writtn on the forum previously. The question is, you are an employee of the council and you trash anyone who dares raise an issue with West Berks. Vested interest? I think so.
As for me, I don't work in West Berkshire deliberately, this means my political and employment interests an unconnected and can't conflict with each other. I've always been upfront about what I do and where, so none of what you flagged up is anything new. Why would anyone be bothered that I am the lead consultant on a project in Lincolnshire? I still live in the Newbury area, I still spend most of my time here and I still go to all of the council meetings. I have a better attendance record than most of the elected members, and I've certainly asked more questions that anyone else, both at meetings and in private.
The fact is, you just try to divert any bad attention by disrupting threads with pointless comments that are not connected to the subject.
This thread isn't about "West Berks", it's about a press release Labour wrote regarding the Town Council.
I was discussing the press release from the Newbury Labour Party until you bought up the subject of where you think I work (or started digging around in peoples private lives as you put it) to deflect me highlighting Labour's many mistakes in Newbury.
The subject matter of this thread is the press release from the Newbury Labour Party.
If Newbury Labour Party cannot take criticism perhaps Newbury Labour Party shouldn't issue press releases.
So does that mean WBC are going to stop issuing press release. User is really is talking crap this time. What is Mrs User going to do if they can't issue any press releases!
There is a pond beside the toddler play area and a concern that dogs can mix with young children / foul in the play area. They are genuine concerns of any parent.
When you say beside, do you actually mean 20+ foot away?
No, the pond would have to be moved for the pavilion, but there is no way that is happening now anyway. There is no funding for it!!!
Well according to User the new council policy is you can have it if the people who want it pay for it! Again according to User there are only a small minority of forum members who were against the Pavillion Pigeon Loft. Therefore the Pigeon Loft will go ahead as soon as the, supposed, silent majority who want it submit their donations to User.
The only way WBC can move forward with the pavilion is through self funding, and that will never happen. By the time that councils have money to burn again, the TCP will be dead, in it's current form anyway, and there will be no organisation pushing for it to be built. Let's face it, there's only one person who wants it to be built anyway.
The only way WBC can move forward with the pavilion is through self funding, and that will never happen. By the time that councils have money to burn again, the TCP will be dead, in it's current form anyway, and there will be no organisation pushing for it to be built. Let's face it, there's only one person who wants it to be built anyway.
The press release was about fencing, what contribution have you made about the subject matter???
That's something I'd like to know as, after three pages, all I can see is misdirection. I often think that User gets a hard time on this forum, but from his very first comment here he's tried to draw attention away from the subject matter, and generally be a nuisance.
Well, one person wanted it so he got his chums to support him via a certain unelected and unrepresentative organisation that has large chunks of council funding. Does it even have a constitution? Anyway, as Mr Carter and Pangbourne Pam are part of this little clique, it's no wonder that the council adopted the scheme as part of policy.
Everyone was banking of funding from GCT, but now that GCT can see that the public don't want it, they have ditched it completely. With no way of funding it, it will remain the dream of one man and his chums unless the council decide to self fund it, and that's not going to happen for years. Could you imagine Graham Jones cutting day centres then trying to justify spending millions on a vanity project?
That's something I'd like to know as, after three pages, all I can see is misdirection. I often think that User gets a hard time on this forum, but from his very first comment here he's tried to draw attention away from the subject matter, and generally be a nuisance.
User has no interest in the fence issue as it's nothing to do with WBC. Why he chose to try and disrupt this thread is beyond me. I agree with you though, he does get a raw deal sometimes but he brings it upon himself with his behaviour in threads like this.
User has no interest in the fence issue as it's nothing to do with WBC. Why he chose to try and disrupt this thread is beyond me. I agree with you though, he does get a raw deal sometimes but he brings it upon himself with his behaviour in threads like this.
This thread is about Newbury Labour Party, I don't see what I've done to "disrupt" this it. I've just commented on their competence and their mandate to make statements such as this given their track record and their lack of support in Newbury.
This thread is about Newbury Labour Party, I don't see what I've done to "disrupt" this it. I've just commented on their competence and their mandate to make statements such as this given their track record and their lack of support in Newbury.
I didn't know that one required a mandate to make a statement? A mandate is usually granted to the executive. Are you suggesting that it is illegitimate for the opposition to make statements?
I didn't know that one required a mandate to make a statement? A mandate is usually granted to the executive. Are you suggesting that it is illegitimate for the opposition to make statements?
It's only illegitimate if it knocks the Local Councils or User's Supreme Leader!
I didn't know that one required a mandate to make a statement? A mandate is usually granted to the executive. Are you suggesting that it is illegitimate for the opposition to make statements?
The opposition?
Don't you need at least one seat to be a legitimate opposition party?
I'm not too sure what the Town Centre Partnership have to do with the pavilion or Victoria Park for that matter. Was this a slip and did you mean GCT (Greenham Common Trust). The TCP at the moment couldn't finance anything certainly not another carbuncle.
I didn't know that one required a mandate to make a statement? A mandate is usually granted to the executive. Are you suggesting that it is illegitimate for the opposition to make statements?
"Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony"
"Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony"
"Very nice. And how'd he get that, eh? By exploiting the workers. By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society."
I'm not too sure what the Town Centre Partnership have to do with the pavilion or Victoria Park for that matter. Was this a slip and did you mean GCT (Greenham Common Trust). The TCP at the moment couldn't finance anything certainly not another carbuncle.
Who was the one person who suggested the Pavilion scheme? Who asked the members of an unelected body with no mandate from the public or businesses in the town centre (TCP) to support his "vision"? That's why the council adopted the scheme, because the TCP put it forward to the council for consideration. The TCP would never fund it as they get most of their funding from the council itself, the council were relying on Greenham Common Trust to fund it but now that money has gone away, the council would need to fund it themselves.
Who was the one person who suggested the Pavilion scheme? Who asked the members of an unelected body with no mandate from the public or businesses in the town centre (TCP) to support his "vision"? That's why the council adopted the scheme, because the TCP put it forward to the council for consideration. The TCP would never fund it as they get most of their funding from the council itself, the council were relying on Greenham Common Trust to fund it but now that money has gone away, the council would need to fund it themselves.
PS. It wasn't Nick Carter.
That is not the case. The TCP never suggested the pavilion in Victoria Park to WBC. The whole project came about within the walls of WBC between them, the Greenham Trust and an instruction, for want of a better word, to a local favoured architect. It was done and dusted and then presented to the TCP but under an embargo that bound them to secrecy. When the designs were released into the public domain, then WBC gave the impression that the scheme was somehow or another connected with the TCP. A set up in my opinion so, if you believe the case is different, then I would like to hear how you believe it came about.
That is not the case. The TCP never suggested the pavilion in Victoria Park to WBC. The whole project came about within the walls of WBC between them, the Greenham Trust and an instruction, for want of a better word, to a local favoured architect. It was done and dusted and then presented to the TCP but under an embargo that bound them to secrecy. When the designs were released into the public domain, then WBC gave the impression that the scheme was somehow or another connected with the TCP. A set up in my opinion so, if you believe the case is different, then I would like to hear how you believe it came about.
Normal standard operating procedures for WBC. Keep it within the Newbury few eh User!
I know no facts on this, but it seems to me that the pavilion situation came about organically. I think it only went wrong due to no apparent project manager. The Waterside is ageing, and I think the pavilion started off as a modest project to combine all utilities in the park. Where I think it went wrong is that some money become potentially available, mixed with some rather grandiose ideas, and we ended up with the controversial design.
I actually supported the idea of a pavilion, but only the one I saw as a model in the doorway of the old council offices. I was not, however, won over by the final design.
I think with this project, there were too many chefs (or interested parties) and it all lacked cohesion. It wasn't helped by the rather controversial few years we've had with the roadworks and the burgeoning 'mission creep' of the Parkway project.
I actually supported the idea of a pavilion, but only the one I saw as a model in the doorway of the old council offices.
I was under the impression that one of the reasons the project was being considered was that the Greenham Common Trust wanted to relocate New Greenham Arts into town, which sounds like a good idea to me. I think it was idea of building it in the park, particularly in the proposed prime location next to the canal, which offended many people.
If there is a case for a New Greenham Arts facility in town, what do you think about the idea of locating it in Northbrook Street assuming a site could be found? Northbrook Street (unlike Bartholomew Street, which seems to be doing very well) needs all the help it can get, doesn't it?
I was under the impression that one of the reasons the project was being considered was that the Greenham Common Trust wanted to relocate New Greenham Arts into town, which sounds like a good idea to me. I think it was idea of building it in the park, particularly in the proposed prime location next to the canal, which offended many people.
If there is a case for a New Greenham Arts facility in town, what do you think about the idea of locating it in Northbrook Street assuming a site could be found? Northbrook Street (unlike Bartholomew Street, which seems to be doing very well) needs all the help it can get, doesn't it?
Why do they need to move into town? is the New Greenham Arts viable? Or is it just a case they want to dump a loss making venture onto the local taxpayers by not having to purchase land or property, building on Victoria Park, and confusing the issue by incorporating it with other uses? I still believe it is a hugely expensive vanity project that will be utilised by a select few and we the taxpayers will be footing the bill for the future running costs.
is it just a case they want to dump a loss making venture onto the local taxpayers by not having to purchase land or property,.....Yes building on Victoria Park, and confusing the issue by incorporating it with other uses?.......Yes I still believe it is a hugely expensive vanity project that will be utilised by a select few and we the taxpayers will be footing the bill for the future running costs.......Yes
I was under the impression that one of the reasons the project was being considered was that the Greenham Common Trust wanted to relocate New Greenham Arts into town, which sounds like a good idea to me. I think it was idea of building it in the park, particularly in the proposed prime location next to the canal, which offended many people.
If there is a case for a New Greenham Arts facility in town, what do you think about the idea of locating it in Northbrook Street assuming a site could be found? Northbrook Street (unlike Bartholomew Street, which seems to be doing very well) needs all the help it can get, doesn't it?
I'd like the Waterside to be rebuilt and ungraded. The old Waterside was a nice location for that type of thing and it would be nice that you don't need to buy a flat to get to be in an area like that. Or put another way, for us not to have more public land in town surrendered to private concerns.
I'd like the Waterside to be rebuilt and ungraded. The old Waterside was a nice location for that type of thing and it would be nice that you don't need to buy a flat to get to be in an area like that. Or put another way, for us not to have more public land in town surrendered to private concerns.
But this would go against the whole ethos of the council would it not? Everything comes down to the bottom line. Why do we have to keep practically giving everything away? What happens when there is nothing left to give away? How will the private concerns react then?
I know no facts on this, but it seems to me that the pavilion situation came about organically. I think it only went wrong due to no apparent project manager. The Waterside is ageing, and I think the pavilion started off as a modest project to combine all utilities in the park. Where I think it went wrong is that some money become potentially available, mixed with some rather grandiose ideas, and we ended up with the controversial design.
I actually supported the idea of a pavilion, but only the one I saw as a model in the doorway of the old council offices. I was not, however, won over by the final design.
I think with this project, there were too many chefs (or interested parties) and it all lacked cohesion. It wasn't helped by the rather controversial few years we've had with the roadworks and the burgeoning 'mission creep' of the Parkway project.
Careful GC, this kind of eloquent, reasoned debate with no recourse to scoring cheap points & letting bias spoil a post is simply not allowed on this forum.
Why do they need to move into town? is the New Greenham Arts viable? Or is it just a case they want to dump a loss making venture onto the local taxpayers by not having to purchase land or property, building on Victoria Park, and confusing the issue by incorporating it with other uses? I still believe it is a hugely expensive vanity project that will be utilised by a select few and we the taxpayers will be footing the bill for the future running costs.
Move it into town - so more people can use the facility I'd guess. You'd be the first to be complaining if an public facility of any kind was being moved out of the town.
NGA viable - it isn't a 'for profit' organisation.
Loss making - it is a charity supported by Greenham Common Trust.
Not Purchasing land - sensible option. You prefer WBC to pay the going rate & add to their portfolio?
Mutliple uses - sensible option, better than having the building underused
Footing the bill - Shouldn't the Taxpay help fund local ammenities? Were you not bemaoning the current situation with the museum?
Move it into town - so more people can use the facility I'd guess. You'd be the first to be complaining if an public facility of any kind was being moved out of the town.
So what you are saying is it was put in the wrong place from the start?
NGA viable - it isn't a 'for profit' organisation. Nor do they want it to be a drain on the finite resources? What was the outgoings and what was the income for the time it has been in operation?
Loss making - it is a charity supported by Greenham Common Trust.
Again you do not want to pump money in if there is no demand or much use for it?
Not Purchasing land - sensible option. You prefer WBC to pay the going rate & add to their portfolio?
Why should a perfectly good open space designated for public use as a park be built over so that GCT can offload a drain on their resources onto the taxpayer? Does not the Corn Exchange perform a suitably similar function? Is this facility fully utilised does this facility require taxpayers subsidy? Is it run at a loss or does it break even?
Mutliple uses - sensible option, better than having the building underused
If there is such demand for an Arts Centre why would it be underused if it was run purely as an Arts Centre in a different location especially if it was run by GCT as a charity as you suggest?
Footing the bill - Shouldn't the Taxpay help fund local ammenities? Were you not bemaoning the current situation with the museum?
Yes the taxpayer should help fund local ammenities providing there is a real need for them and the taxpayers are consulted. In this economic climate there is a limit on what can be funded. I do not believe the majority of taxpayers want an Art Centre especially at the cost of losing valuable open space which is disapearing an an alarming rate in Newbury by being given away by our local councils.
For the few - No idea what you are on about here
This vanity project is not for the majority of taxpayers this is for a small elite with grandoise ideas which is par for the course for Newbury councils.
NGA isn't a drain on the $$$$$ NGP have in the bank.
The only thing it is in the way of is the further development of NGP.
Try educating yourself of the situation before posting.
Why do they need to develop NGP? Could it be about money perchance? If they are developing NGP why not incorporate a new Arts Centre there? Plenty of parking and good access I would have thought?
Always ready for being educated and have difficult posts explained to me. That is part of the reason for being a member of a local forum.
Anyway all ears if you wish to explain the facts and the financial benefits to the taxpayers for wanting to build over a green and open part of Victoria Park? Once explained and the majority of taxpayers in favour, fairly consulted of course, then go ahead.
I would suspect that the Greenham Trust want to use the space at Greenham taken up by arts centres so that they can add to the current collection of industrial, rent paying clients. Have a drive round there sometime and look at the industry that is there and being developed. Being magnanimous and shelling out loads of dosh, it would suit the trust's purposes to get shot of the arts to some other location and get a pat on the back for so doing. We can help you out there says WBC. Why don't we all get together and build something in Victoria Park. From there, it all snowballs and the bad news from our point of view is that the whole thing got wildly out of hand with grandiose plans for Arts, Drug rehabilitation and other facilities that bear no relationship to the park, with a grossly oversized cafeteria and with meeting rooms for want of a better description. Then of course to fit it in we have to move the play area and of course the pond is in the wrong place but it does alleviate some of the problems with loss of facilities with the closure of the Waterside. The Pavilion can become part of the Wharf and Parkway vision, that will take the public's eye off the fact that the council are grabbing green space in Newbury town, what does it matter, it's sinking anyway. If the public want such a construction in the park, so be it but it will be there for a hundred years, will be yet another intrusion into Victoria Park and Parkway is an intrusion, albeit visual, turning a pleasant play area into a city centre backyard. The next thing will be the residents in the Parkway tower blocks complaining about the noise from the bandstand concerts. Before any consideration is given we need to ask the Newbury people what they want in a fair and honest way, not wrapped up in the usual misleading questions that WBC are so good at asking in order to be able to fudge the figures to get the result they want.
Anyway, why not just fence the small children's play area.
Anyway, why not just fence the small children's play area.
I hear some parents are considering further protest, including chaining themselves to the play equipment. I know it sounds extreme, but it's one of the next steps under consideration.
I hear some parents are considering further protest, including chaining themselves to the play equipment. I know it sounds extreme, but it's one of the next steps under consideration.
Why don't they chain their kids to the equipment then we won't need a fence!
I hear some parents are considering further protest, including chaining themselves to the play equipment. I know it sounds extreme, but it's one of the next steps under consideration.
This vanity project is not for the majority of taxpayers this is for a small elite with grandoise ideas which is par for the course for Newbury councils.
Does this Small Elite at NGA include the HUNDREDS of people that goes to the shows, concerts and plays. Also the hundreds of people that go to see the exhibitions on display. Also the 10 resident RENT PAYING artists, some of which are internationally renown. Or does it contain the elite that you think exist with out checking on any facts.
Does this Small Elite at NGA include the HUNDREDS of people that goes to the shows, concerts and plays. Also the hundreds of people that go to see the exhibitions on display. Also the 10 resident RENT PAYING artists, some of which are internationally renown. Or does it contain the elite that you think exist with out checking on any facts.
That is a very small percentage of the tax payers then boo boo (indeed some of them are probably from other areas and don't contribute at all!)
Therefore cognosos description of a small group with grandiose ideas sounds appropriate.
That is a very small percentage of the tax payers then boo boo (indeed some of them are probably from other areas and don't contribute at all!)
Therefore cognosos description of a small group with grandiose ideas sounds appropriate.
WBC contribute towards the Corn Exchane but GCT pay for NGA, so there is no tax payers cash involved. As there are many customers to the shows from afar this brings in more cash to the area.
WBC contribute towards the Corn Exchane but GCT pay for NGA, so there is no tax payers cash involved. As there are many customers to the shows from afar this brings in more cash to the area.
Are we able to see the figures for the last couple of years for the Arts Centre? If it is such a cash machine as you suggest why are they so eager to ditch it?
Sorry I am too old to not be cynical? I am too long in the tooth to take the word of the local councils, unless they prove otherwise then it is going to be a heavy cost on the taxpayers for a long time to come.
Spend some money on a play area fence instead, but I would suggest they get some different quotes first, seems way over priced to me and a lot of others?
Are we able to see the figures for the last couple of years for the Arts Centre? If it is such a cash machine as you suggest why are they so eager to ditch it?
Sorry I am too old to not be cynical? I am too long in the tooth to take the word of the local councils, unless they prove otherwise then it is going to be a heavy cost on the taxpayers for a long time to come.
Spend some money on a play area fence instead, but I would suggest they get some different quotes first, seems way over priced to me and a lot of others?
NGA isn't being 'ditched'. The idea was to move it to a more suitable location.
ie not on an industrial estate / technology park.
The council has nothing to do with NGP, NGA or GCT.
I actually think NGA should be in the town centre, combined with the museum to offer a much more viable facility and close to the Corn Exchange. I just didn't think it should go in the park.
As for the canal basin, that should certainly not be built at the library or anywhere else. And the Waterside can be knocked down, once the council have built and opened an alternative facility (adjoining Northcroft Leisure Centre anyone?.
Back on topic, surely if the fence was self funded by park users, there would be no issue?
What is wrong with getting some commercial use from the canal?
I suspect that any mooring fees would be dwarfed by the parking fees currently gained from the two car parks that would disappear under the scheme.
The plans originally presented are also problemattic as the original basin has not only been filled in but the entrance has the A339 bridge on top of it. That entrance was roughly parallel with the current (which is very strong at this point, in terms of canal transport, as the river and canal are one and the same through Newbury centre); the new entrance shown in the Wharf consultation is perpendicular to the current. It would take a very experienced narrowboat driver to get in and out without touching the sides - I can readily imagine the scene if some chap who has collected a boat from the Aldermaston hire company a few hours back attempted to park in the basin! I suspect one of the first instructions to hirers will be not to attempt it.
The other issue on the Wharf is whether the majority are happy for land to be handed over to developers for a new pub and a new restaurant on the wharf?
.... The other issue on the Wharf is whether the majority are happy for land to be handed over to developers for a new pub and a new restaurant on the wharf?
I thought that didn't matter as long as Carter and his favourite architect wanted it!
The other issue on the Wharf is whether the majority are happy for land to be handed over to developers for a new pub and a new restaurant on the wharf?
If it means we get a river / canal side pub with proper outside seating that does not charge LSB prices - then yes.
NGA isn't being 'ditched'. The idea was to move it to a more suitable location.
ie not on an industrial estate / technology park.
The council has nothing to do with NGP, NGA or GCT.
Perhaps not yet but soon to change if a certain few get their way? How much money will this project cost the taxpayers?
Any way of finding the financial figures for the last couple of years for the present arts centre to determine the viabiltiy of an arts centre without being subsidised by the taxpayer?
Perhaps not yet but soon to change if a certain few get their way? How much money will this project cost the taxpayers?
Any way of finding the financial figures for the last couple of years for the present arts centre to determine the viabiltiy of an arts centre without being subsidised by the taxpayer?
Referring to NGA it notes (2009-10) that 16,000 visitors used NGA and that they (GCT) spent £212,000 on NGA. Moving NGA into town would not significantly alter this support from GCT as they are committed to supporting it to the tune of £200,000 pa and there is no obvious reason for them to cease doing so.
The Pavillion, as planned, was to house several functions currently funded by NTC (storage), WBC (Waterside part-replacement) and GCT (NGA). On top of this a bar/restaurant/cafe would be a new function, presumably contracted out to the highest bidder. As such I would expect local taxpayers would continue to contribute to the funding of these functions but the bulk of the running costs would probably be met by GCT. The whole thing is not that bad an idea in concept - except for the proposed location and the naff design.
Referring to NGA it notes (2009-10) that 16,000 visitors used NGA and that they (GCT) spent £212,000 on NGA. Moving NGA into town would not significantly alter this support from GCT as they are committed to supporting it to the tune of £200,000 pa and there is no obvious reason for them to cease doing so.
The Pavillion, as planned, was to house several functions currently funded by NTC (storage), WBC (Waterside part-replacement) and GCT (NGA). On top of this a bar/restaurant/cafe would be a new function, presumably contracted out to the highest bidder. As such I would expect local taxpayers would continue to contribute to the funding of these functions but the bulk of the running costs would probably be met by GCT. The whole thing is not that bad an idea in concept - except for the proposed location and the naff design.
Thanks Blackdog very interesting. Is there any sort of guarantee from GCT that they will indeed carry on supporting it do you know? I agree with you rotten location and design turns the stomach to say the least. Seems to be rather a small building to cover all the proposed uses you have listed though and access to it if it does go into Victoria Park is not ideal. Totally against building on the park. I am confident there should be plenty of empty buildings elsewhere in Newbury that would be more suitable when Parkway drains the rest of the town. Would still like a consultation with all relevant taxpayers to see if it is actually wanted though before any more action taken.
Perhaps not yet but soon to change if a certain few get their way? How much money will this project cost the taxpayers?
Any way of finding the financial figures for the last couple of years for the present arts centre to determine the viabiltiy of an arts centre without being subsidised by the taxpayer?
Are you paranoid? anyway,
Luckily Blackdog has taken the trouble to explain the current situation to you - saving me the bother.
Greenham Common Trust was set up to stop the land once occupied by RAF Greenham being sold off in bits & pieces & developed. GCT purchased the 1000 acre site & restored 750+ acres to common land & used the 250 acres covered by old RAF buildings & hangars to create New Greenham Park. The reason for this is that NGP - with all those tennants - generates pots of cash which GCT can then spend on local 'good causes'. Almost £15 million spent so far, part of which will be the funding for New Greenham Arts. So as NGA is funded by GCT which has a rather healthy revenus stream from NGP - the tax payer won't be having to pay for much.
Not that tax payers funding this sort of local ammenity is a bad thing.
Thanks Blackdog very interesting. Is there any sort of guarantee from GCT that they will indeed carry on supporting it do you know? I agree with you rotten location and design turns the stomach to say the least. Seems to be rather a small building to cover all the proposed uses you have listed though and access to it if it does go into Victoria Park is not ideal. Totally against building on the park. I am confident there should be plenty of empty buildings elsewhere in Newbury that would be more suitable when Parkway drains the rest of the town. Would still like a consultation with all relevant taxpayers to see if it is actually wanted though before any more action taken.
No guarantee is forever, but GCT was certainly up for funding the pavillion for years to come - as well as putting a million or so into the building fund. RG has recently stated that they have decided to spend that additional money elsewhere - effectively killing off the Pavillion for the time being. I have no idea if he is right.
You can see from the acconts that GCT has plenty of cash, earning considerably more than it spent in 09/10. It has spent £4 million buying properties in the area for use by charities and may well opt to buy an existing building to relocate NGA at some point. If, as they say, the current NGA buildings are about to fall down they may even do this soon.
As for the space - the plans are available on WBC's website. The main thing to bear in mind is that the Waterside's largest element (climbing wall & water sports) would not move to the Pavillion but to a new location in Northcroft.
Unless WBC come clean on the demise of the Pavillion in the Park very soon NTC's latest bid for lottery cash to revamp the park will collapse like the previous attempt (more taxpayer cash down the drain).
Luckily Blackdog has taken the trouble to explain the current situation to you - saving me the bother.
Greenham Common Trust was set up to stop the land once occupied by RAF Greenham being sold off in bits & pieces & developed. GCT purchased the 1000 acre site & restored 750+ acres to common land & used the 250 acres covered by old RAF buildings & hangars to create New Greenham Park. The reason for this is that NGP - with all those tennants - generates pots of cash which GCT can then spend on local 'good causes'. Almost £15 million spent so far, part of which will be the funding for New Greenham Arts. So as NGA is funded by GCT which has a rather healthy revenus stream from NGP - the tax payer won't be having to pay for much.
Not that tax payers funding this sort of local ammenity is a bad thing.
Do I have experience of the local councils... then you know why I need to be sceptical?
Just how much is not much? If GCT has so much spare cash from their revenue then they should not mind the extra cost for purchasing or leasing a property in the town centre rather than building on the rapidly dwindling green open spaces in Newbury. Especially if the stated hundreds that use the existing NGA Centre are going to carry on using it. Or perhaps using a small section of Greenham Common to build an arts centre on. Or would this be sacrelidge as building on Victoria Park would not be?
As long as the taxpayers are given all the facts, not spin, and are given the chance of a referendum on do they actually want an arts centre.
No guarantee is forever, but GCT was certainly up for funding the pavillion for years to come - as well as putting a million or so into the building fund. RG has recently stated that they have decided to spend that additional money elsewhere - effectively killing off the Pavillion for the time being. I have no idea if he is right.
You can see from the acconts that GCT has plenty of cash, earning considerably more than it spent in 09/10. It has spent £4 million buying properties in the area for use by charities and may well opt to buy an existing building to relocate NGA at some point. If, as they say, the current NGA buildings are about to fall down they may even do this soon.
As for the space - the plans are available on WBC's website. The main thing to bear in mind is that the Waterside's largest element (climbing wall & water sports) would not move to the Pavillion but to a new location in Northcroft.
Unless WBC come clean on the demise of the Pavillion in the Park very soon NTC's latest bid for lottery cash to revamp the park will collapse like the previous attempt (more taxpayer cash down the drain).
Absolutely. Despite there being no viable plan to build the pavilion now, the reluctance to admit it's dead in the water could kill off the NTC bif for £1m+ funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund. If that bid fails, heads should certainly roll at WBDC.
No guarantee is forever, but GCT was certainly up for funding the pavillion for years to come - as well as putting a million or so into the building fund. RG has recently stated that they have decided to spend that additional money elsewhere - effectively killing off the Pavillion for the time being. I have no idea if he is right.
You can see from the acconts that GCT has plenty of cash, earning considerably more than it spent in 09/10. It has spent £4 million buying properties in the area for use by charities and may well opt to buy an existing building to relocate NGA at some point. If, as they say, the current NGA buildings are about to fall down they may even do this soon.
As for the space - the plans are available on WBC's website. The main thing to bear in mind is that the Waterside's largest element (climbing wall & water sports) would not move to the Pavillion but to a new location in Northcroft.
Unless WBC come clean on the demise of the Pavillion in the Park very soon NTC's latest bid for lottery cash to revamp the park will collapse like the previous attempt (more taxpayer cash down the drain).
Absolutely. Despite there being no viable plan to build the pavilion now, the reluctance to admit it's dead in the water could kill off the NTC bif for £1m+ funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund. If that bid fails, heads should certainly roll at WBDC.
Absolutely. Despite there being no viable plan to build the pavilion now, the reluctance to admit it's dead in the water could kill off the NTC bif for £1m+ funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund. If that bid fails, heads should certainly roll at WBDC.
You're fast becoming the boy who cried "heads should roll".
Logged
Male
