Quoted from blackdog

But it won't happen - the proposed changes to business rates means that councils will be encouraged to promote development by being able to keep a share (not all) of any increase in business rates in their area.  As Parkway is now built it will not count as new development.

In terms of the benefit you are suggesting WBC have messed up again - we would be better off if they had delayed Parkway by a year or so.

I could be wrong but I doubt the opening could have been delayed any further.

Perhaps not opening all the units at once might be a good idea though?

Quoted from user23.3

I could be wrong but I doubt the opening could have been delayed any further. Perhaps not opening all the units at once might be a good idea though?

If you are SLI or Debenhams, yes.

Quoted from user23.3

I could be wrong but I doubt the opening could have been delayed any further.

Perhaps not opening all the units at once might be a good idea though?

Still trying to protect WBC I see User.

Does anyone else suspect that Carter & Co and / or the WBC pension fund may have shares in SLI??

Quoted from user23.3

Just hypothesising, giving away OUR parking revenue for a bigger income from OUR business rates might be a rather good idea.

Strange thinking. The commercial development of the Parkway has built the properties, the rates paid by the shop owners will go into the government coffers and WBC will get their share and all the council tax from the apartments, so why will that WBC revenue be reduced. It's what it is. I doubt that SLI would have backed out when they were so far down the line, so as far as rates due, it was a done deal from the start and SLI would have known that. You do have to remember that the whole thing was late by a year so that amount of WBC income is gone forever as has the corresponding rental income to SLI. So, as far as I can see, there is no correlation between rates and parking income and there should be no reason why the latter should be given away bearing in mind that SLI are in a position to recover their investment with free development land, ongoing rents from the shops, income from the sale of the apartments and the leasehold and if they haven't done their sums, why should we bail them out by taking a hit on parking income for the town. They owe the town big time so pay up the £300k p.a that they agreed in the beginning and if they don't want to then pay back the commercial rate for the land they were given.

The latest is that the deal is only for ten years. Still no figures quoted.