This is a press release from the Newbury Labour Party, which has been reproduced in it's entirety without any editorial comment.
West Berkshire District Council Chief Executive Nick Carter has been asked to provide an explanation to taxpayers on a number of issues relating to the acquisition of the land on which the new Parkway Shopping Centre was built and incentives that were given to developer Standard Life Investments. It comes as Newbury Labour Party raise questions about revenue from council owned car parks being shared with Standard Life Investments and whether the parking revenue promised in return for ownership of the land where Parkway stands will actually be paid.
Labour spokesman Richard Garvie said that with the Chief Executive taking the credit for the new shopping development, he should provide the explanation. "My biggest concern relates to whether the council have done deals that will effectively leave taxpayers out of pocket once again. The land where Parkway stands was sold for just £1 on the basis that a £300,000 fee was paid each year. We know that only £100,000 is going to be paid this year, how do we know we are going to get what we are owed next year? Potentially more serious is the fact that West Berkshire Council have admitted that they will be sharing revenue from council owned car parks. Has this been agreed by elected members? If it was, when did this meeting take place and why haven't we been told about it? The officers at West Berkshire Council are there to act on the will of the elected members, who are in turn elected by residents of West Berkshire. For a decision like this to be taken in secret flies in the face of democracy. The revenue from car parks should be paying for road safety and public transport, not lining the pockets of wealthy investors."
The full email sent to Nick Carter is attached below:
Dear Nick,
I would like you to launch an investigation into the Parkway development and various decisions made throughout the lifespan of the project. I would like to know:
a) How much (if anything) was paid from public money to Debenhams b) How much the s106 contributions were reduced for SLI versus what was promised in the initial application c) How much the land that Parkway stands on was sold for and whether it is deemed value for money for the local taxpayer d)How much the council has paid towards affordable housing and how many units are included in the development versus what was promised in the initial application e) What process was used to select SLI as the developer and whether the value they have delivered is better than what others proposed f) How much parking revenue the council will receive from SLI g) How much revenue the council will have to pay SLI from parking charges in council car parks and an explanation as to why this is proposed h) How much income has the council made from the project (sale of land, s106 payments, other revenue) i) How much money has the council given to SLI in total j) What was the commercial land value of the land sold to SLI at the time the sale was agreed
I think in order for the results to be taken seriously, a senior officer from a neighbouring authority may be best placed to carry out the review. I will be supporting Parkway now that it is here and I think it will be a valuable asset for the town if it is successful. Despite my support for the facility, I have serious concerns about the way the project materialised and believe that only an investigation will dismiss the concerns that I and others may have. When elected, Graham Jones and the Conservatives promised an end to complicated, back room deals like the cinema agreement that the Lib Dems had originally put in place. We now know that the cinema deal at the Kennet Centre and the Parkway deal are far more complicated that the Lib Dems could have ever imagined, and it's only proper that there is a full explanation as to why we are in this position.
I trust that this enquiry will be dealt with promptly and with the respect it deserves.
Best Wishes,
Richard Garvie Community Organiser Newbury Labour Party
RG, do you think this initiative has been mis-reported. When I read the report in the NWN today I assumed from the article that the Parkway carpark would provide an income to WBC of £300k per annum and that it was guaranteed no matter what SLI made from the parking. But then I re-read it as what I had read didn't make sense. Then the penny dropped. If the article has got it right, surely WBC is not financing SLI from the remaining car park income and if that is the plan, it looks like Pangbourne Pam has blown the gaff. I hope that it is a reporting error or a misunderstanding but whichever, your email seems to ask the right questions. Some of the questions are a little subjective but perhaps you should have asked the questions under the FOI act. That way, they must answer and it must be the truth. If it is the truth, then I believe we must ask for a vote of no confidence in the council and that persons responsible for cobbling up such a deal should be asked why such a deal has been brokered. As SLI have gone back on all the deals with WBC I see no problem with WBC reversing the deal with SLI.
Nick Carter has passed it to the information team for a reply under FOI rather than respond directly.
Again, what I heard was the council would not get paid. Having read the piece twice, it does appear that the revenue from WBC to SLI will outweigh the revenue from SLI to WBC and that will result in the original payment not being paid, so the rumours appear to be true. It's very strange that the council has gone into lockdown on this, even the WBC brigade are silent. Looks like Pangbourne Pam has dropped them in it from a great height.
The newspaper article did prove that the town's two biggest car park operators have been colluding on prices. But I do fear the OFT will not take this cartel seriously?
Not about colluding, for me, why is revenue that belongs to the taxpayer going to SLI??? SLI have no right to expect any money from any car park but their own, and from that car park they should be paying what they agreed. Simple, end of story.
Not if the deal to get a £150m investment in Newbury included SLI getting a share of WBC car park cash.
I think it is £150m invested in a private concern. You make it sound like a 'gift' to Newbury. The council's alleged reticence, speaks 'volumes'. It seems the constituents have been decieved.
I care and I'm sure most people will care. If there is £2m a year coming into council coffers, and suddenly £850,000 of that could be going to SLI in future, that is a scandal.
I think it is £150m invested in a private concern. You make it sound like a 'gift' to Newbury. The council's alleged reticence, speaks 'volumes'. It seems the constituents have been decieved.
Of course it is a private concern.
Any private concern, with cash to spend, gets concessions from those wanting to see the money spent in their backyard.
I care and I'm sure most people will care. If there is £2m a year coming into council coffers, and suddenly £850,000 of that could be going to SLI in future, that is a scandal.
No it isn't a scandal. It is a way of getting things done. But you know this.
Logged
Male
