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 just cannot think of any logical reason why this story should be true, but several people that I have spoken to seem to verify the story.

I look forward to hearing the reply, although I fear it could be somewhat distorted or evasive.

Quoted from 78

Not if the deal to get a £150m investment in Newbury included SLI getting a share of WBC car park cash.

So at what point did Carter or anyone else ask the elected members to debate it and vote on it?

Quoted from richard.garvie

So at what point did Carter or anyone else ask the elected members to debate it and vote on it?

Who cares?   It got the thing built.

Quoted from 78

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.

Quoted from 78

Who cares?   It got the thing built.

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.

Quoted from Greenham Common

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.  

Quoted from richard.garvie

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.

Quoted from 78

No it isn't a scandal. It is a way of getting things done. But you know this.

It a scandal to me that a deal of this sort is hidden - especially if it was hidden from Councillors.

I didn't want Parkway, I certainly don't want to carry on paying SLI for years to come.

Still a wall of silence from West Berkshire District Council on this one...

Quoted from blackdog

It a scandal to me that a deal of this sort is hidden - especially if it was hidden from Councillors.

I didn't want Parkway, I certainly don't want to carry on paying SLI for years to come.

Luckily the World does not revolve around you.  

It isn't hidden - There is a difference between hiding something & not publicising something.

Quoted from 78

Luckily the World does not revolve around you.  

It isn't hidden - There is a difference between hiding something & not publicising something.

It was hidden from the public and I agree with Blackdog.  This whole Parkway debacle is scandalous.  Ruined park surface (where is that report for heaven's sake!!!!), big ugly builds defying planning policies, and a gift to venture capitalists.  WBC bent over backwards for this vanity project.

Although nothing is being said publicly, it would appear that WBDC are scrambling to get there house in order. If I had to put money on what the explanation is going to be, it's that Pamela Bale got her facts wrong on the issue or she was misquoted.

And I bet they hide behind commercial confidentiality!

Quoted from 78

It isn't hidden - There is a difference between hiding something & not publicising something.

I don't agree with you. If it has not been publicised then that means that it did not appear in any written minutes which as I understand it means that it has been hidden. The only reason for not putting information in the public domain is if there is a competitive commercial aspect to contractual negotiations. The negotiations between SLI and WBC are as far as I can tell complete so the only reason for secrecy now is if there has been some under the table dealing which might cause embarrassment to either the council or whoever brokered the deal, if there was one. There is no evidence as far as I know that there has been any irregularities but that is why WBC need to come clean to ensure that there has not been any personal involvement or that what has been set up is in the public interest.
A full statement should be made by the council to confirm exactly what the financial arrangements are for parking revenue in Newbury. If this does not happen soon, the snowball will get bigger as it is rolled around. The CCTV deal was bad enough but we potentially have a Sligate or a Garviegate on our hands here.

Quoted from Greenham Common

It was hidden from the public and I agree with Blackdog.  This whole Parkway debacle is scandalous.  Ruined park surface (where is that report for heaven's sake!!!!), big ugly builds defying planning policies, and a gift to venture capitalists.  WBC bent over backwards for this vanity project.

Vanity project? Hardly.

Ah yes - the CCTV 'scandal'.   Who even remembers that, apart from the handful of people who post on here?

The man/woman in the street could not care less. They'll be happy at having a third New Look to shop in, and be thankful for it.  

Quoted from 78

Vanity project? Hardly.

They all turned out in style for the back slapping so you might call that support, you might call it the vanity of having your piccie in the paper and if the museum was open, getting your name in the files for posterity. If it all goes nails up, who will turn up then I wonder

Quoted from 78

Ah yes - the CCTV 'scandal'.   Who even remembers that, apart from the handful of people who post on here?

The man/woman in the street could not care less. They'll be happy at having a third New Look to shop in, and be thankful for it.  

...and do you think that maybe that is what our esteemed leaders believe that if you can keep the lid on it long enough, it will all go away.

Quoted from 78

Ah yes - the CCTV 'scandal'.   Who even remembers that, apart from the handful of people who post on here?

Well it compelled the council to change their procedures and learn from 'their mistakes'.

A 3rd Top Shop?  Whoopee.

Quoted from brian

...and do you think that maybe that is what our esteemed leaders believe that if you can keep the lid on it long enough, it will all go away.

That was the strategy they used on CCTV, and if it wasn't for the report admitting the mistakes, they would have got away with it.

Quoted from richard.garvie

That was the strategy they used on CCTV, and if it wasn't for the report admitting the mistakes, they would have got away with it.

Got away with it - 'they' did.  No one remembers, no one cares. everyone got paid & no one got sacked. SOB.

Quoted from Greenham Common

Well it compelled the council to change their procedures and learn from 'their mistakes'.

A 3rd Top Shop?  Whoopee.

New Look, it is a third New Look.

Quoted from 78

Got away with it - 'they' did.  No one remembers, no one cares. everyone got paid & no one got sacked. SOB.

They were put under scrutiny and they were found wanting.  Only this week the NWN has an article on it.  The council have learned from their mistakes and have change the way they do things, they said.

The plebs might not care, but the admin certainly know about it.

Quoted from 78

New Look, it is a third New Look.

Exactly my point.

Quoted from 78

Got away with it - 'they' did.  No one remembers, no one cares. everyone got paid & no one got sacked. SOB.

Exactly and perhaps that is what is wrong with local politics. It isn't so much that people don't care it's the fact that there is a stone wall of potential deceit or incompetence which one comes up against that in the end, one has to give up. I speak from experience.

The plebs do the voting.....

Quoted from 78

The some plebs do the voting.....

Edited for accuracy.

and the council exec 'fool' the elected members.  Perfect.

Quoted from brian

Exactly and perhaps that is what is wrong with local politics. It isn't so much that people don't care it's the fact that there is a stone wall of potential deceit or incompetence which one comes up against that in the end, one has to give up. I speak from experience.

Local people don't care. And if they did it would make no difference.

Will anyone actually remember the names or even the faces of the suits who were photographed yesterday in a weeks time?

Quoted from Greenham Common

Edited for accuracy.

and the council exec 'fool' the elected members.  Perfect.

Why worry?  

Quoted from 78

The plebs do the voting.....

That is very condescending of you. The plebs as you call them are the people who pay the wages and the retainers for the council employees from top man down, the councillors, the town and parish councils etc. Because they are given the opportunity to choose who should represent them, by so doing, they hope to get a group of people who will be honest and who will ensure that the full time salaried decision makers will work honestly  for the good of the district, in this case West Berks.
If that doesn't happen, then it is only right that we know why. If you don't care and believe that the council should be allowed to do what it likes with our funding then you are either a fool or you are attempting to deflect or defocus for some personal reason, any potential investigations which may come along. No governing body or person in public office should be allowed to get away with wrongdoing. Ask Mr Nixon, you can't get much higher than that.

GC was the one to start using the epithet, not me. I was merely pointing out to him that although 'The plebs might not care' they do the voting & their apathy is to a council's advantage.

btw - why is it that if you are not being critical of WBC, it must be because you have something to hide, a vested interest or employed by them?

Quoted from 78

GC was the one to start using the epithet, not me. I was merely pointing out to him that although 'The plebs might not care' they do the voting & their apathy is to a council's advantage.

Which is why I think it is important that self appointed 'busy bodies' like us kick up some sand.

Quoted from 78

btw - why is it that if you are not being critical of WBC, it must be because you have something to hide, a vested interest or employed by them?

And what is wrong with being critical of the council that requires you to respond so?

Nothing - I was merely asking why it is that the response of many posters on this forum to posts that are uncritical of WBC is that the person posting must must either work for them or be posting on order.

WBC wanted to increase the retail space in town. SLI stumped up the cash on certain conditions. Conditions that WBC thought were worth agreeing to.

No mystery & job done.  

Quoted from 78

WBC wanted to increase the retail space in town. SLI stumped up the cash on certain conditions. Conditions that WBC thought were worth agreeing to. No mystery & job done.  

That is what WBC would like everyone to believe, but I as a voter feel deceived.  WBC have played a arrogant attitude to the welfare of the town in my view.

Trebles all round.

Quoted from Greenham Common

That is what WBC would like everyone to believe, but I as a voter feel deceived.  WBC have played a arrogant attitude to the welfare of the town in my view.

Trebles all round.

Trebles all round indeed. And for the citizens of Newbury as they have a nice new street of shops to spend in.

I feel the welfare of the town has been improved. Far more than it would have been to say agreeing to a second retail park or another large supermarket.

SLI could have chosen a better architect, but that is a different story.

Quoted from 78

SLI could have chosen a better architect, but that is a different story.

To be honest that is one of my biggest gripes, it is hugely overbearing and out of scale development, let alone the feeble way WBC negotiated away a prime bit of public land.

without that negotiation, it would never have been built.

re the design - there are too many 'dead' areas.

such as the area be M&S' new rear exit, the corridor bwtween H&M & Debenhams, etc etc

Quoted from 78

without that negotiation, it would never have been built.

re the design - there are too many 'dead' areas.

such as the area be M&S' new rear exit, the corridor bwtween H&M & Debenhams, etc etc

Well, your first line might have been abetter solution, there were other developers who would have produced less overbearing designs.

I had a quick walk through today while in town and I don't see too much of a problem with the layout. The dead areas that you mention might come to life when the empty units are let. There are several boarded up areas which create a tunnel, especially the entrance alongside M&S.

The rear access for disabled bus passengers and shoppers with pushchairs is not good with steep flights of marble stairs to negotiate and a ramp that goes away from the bus stops. Strange that. I believe that is one area where the design is really really bad. Little bit of water, a covering of ice and that is a recipe for disaster. That's what comes of jamming in units and ignoring design.

I'm not quite sure why they needed a security man on each of the car park doors, holding them open but they are, by the look of them, quite heavy and narrow which would be a nightmare for a mum with pushchair, shopping bags and a walking child trying to get through on her own. Some of the persons I saw walking around might need both doors open.

Has anybody on here driven into the car park to park yet. I avoided it today as my business was elsewhere but I would be interested to hear how it went.

But however all the car parks in town were pretty much full at lunchtime although the wharf car park was blocked by rows of buses waiting to go North over the bridge. I didn't wait to see how long that lasted.

Northbrook Street was a pleasure with no buses creeping up on you when the sun was in your eyes and very busy. Funnily enough, the KC car park was also almost full and the shopping area was pretty busy as well but losing Debenhams must have made a dent.

Quoted from 78

SLI stumped up the cash on certain conditions. Conditions that WBC thought were worth agreeing to.  

At least Dick Turpin had the decency to wear a mask.



Threep.

Lovejoy just doesn't seem to understand that all of the concessions that SLI have bullied WBC into has cost the taxpayers of West Berkshire millions of pounds over the last 4 or 5 years. If this car park thing is to be believed then it will cost us millions of pounds into the future and also a substantial rise in car parking fees to compensate.

Of course Mr Lovejoy might not be a WBC Council Tax payer.

I understand perfectly.

SLI got what it wanted & WBC got what it wanted.

Quoted from 78

I understand perfectly.

SLI got what it wanted & WBC got what it wanted.

But with unfavourable results.  I could have done it if I was asked to sell a prime piece of land for a £1.

Quoted from 78

I understand perfectly.

SLI got what it wanted & WBC got what it wanted.

Perhaps but at what cost to the ratepayers.

Quoted from 78

I understand perfectly.

SLI got what it wanted & WBC got what it wanted.

Are you related to user23 by any chance?

Quoted from 78

I understand perfectly.

SLI got what it wanted & WBC got what it wanted.

You mean the councillors and some of the staff got what they wanted. The tax payer was completely shafted as usual!!

The taxpayers/ratepayers got a nice new shopping area.

Quoted from 78

I understand perfectly.

SLI got what it wanted & WBC got what it wanted.

I disagree - SLI got what it wanted, WBC had to take what SLI were prepared to provide.

WBC wanted affordable homes within the SLI development, at SLI's expense - SLI didn't.  Result - WBC pays £1,000,000 for the affordable homes.

WBC wanted £350,000 per annum from the car parking (to recompense them for the loss of income from all the car parks sold to SLI for £1).  Result WBC get £300,000 from SLI and, if the current rumours are true, pay SLI £850,000 or so a year.

WBC wanted a characterful open space by the entrance to Victoria Park.  Result - WBC gets a bus stop in front of the park, with a big concrete block looming over it.

WBC wanted to preserve the older, listed buildings in Northbrook St. Result - Two listed buildings are demolished and more gutted to provide the main entrance into Parkway.

The bottom line is that Newbury got its extra, town centre, retail space.

It came at a price, and a price some will consider too high. A pyrrhic victory for WBC? Time will tell.

The open plan nature of the development - I wonder who insisted on that?  

Quoted from 78

WBC wanted to increase the retail space in town. SLI stumped up the cash on certain conditions. Conditions that WBC thought were worth agreeing to.

No mystery & job done.  

Why should the taxpayer be responsible for the cost of new retail space? The existing retail space has never been fully utilised. Now Park Way is open then there is the very high probability the rest of the retail space in the town will empty and remain empty.

I am convinced that if the cost to the taxpayer is calculated and the cost is added on to each pound spent in the new shops then there would be outrage at such high costs.

Shopping in Park Way will feel like you are shopping in a pickpockets paradise. Every time you go there to shop SLI will have a hand in your wallet.

New retail space but at what cost? If the rumours are true then this will be the costliest shopping spree that any WBC taxpayer will ever take. It has cost us the price of an Harrods but we have ended up with a penny bazzar!

Taxpayers are responsible for the cost of the retail space. Estimates are that SLI have spent £150million in Newbury.

Taxpayers haven't spent a penny. So it has not cost us the price of a Harrods ( which was £1.5bn anyway ) There is no cost to the taxpayer.

It could be argueed that much of the cash a council does spend on the tax payers behalf is a waste of money. Sports facilities, Libraries, Allotments etc etc. I don't use any of them....

Quoted from 78

Taxpayers are responsible for the cost of the retail space. Estimates are that SLI have spent £150million in Newbury.

Taxpayers haven't spent a penny. So it has not cost us the price of a Harrods ( which was £1.5bn anyway ) There is no cost to the taxpayer.

It could be argueed that much of the cash a council does spend on the tax payers behalf is a waste of money. Sports facilities, Libraries, Allotments etc etc. I don't use any of them....

When you give away land that is worth millions in a highly desirable area for £1.00 it is like selling the family silver for a pittance.
Compare it to a burglar entering you house and he starts taking away your valueables he then asks you to pay for his service.

Think of all the good things that could have been done with the wedge of money that SLI will be taking out of the council coffers in the future. As the saying goes "done, you certainly have been says the SLI negotiators"  

Quoted from 78

Taxpayers haven't spent a penny. So it has not cost us the price of a Harrods ( which was £1.5bn anyway ) There is no cost to the taxpayer.

It has cost us an asset that we will not get back.  Think of Gordon Brown selling that gold when the price was low.

Quoted from 78

The open plan nature of the development - I wonder who insisted on that?  

I believe it was in the design brief prepared by WBC.  However, the narrow nature of Middle Steet seems designed with a roof in mind.

Quoted from 78

Taxpayers haven't spent a penny.

So where did the £1,000,000 WBC paid SLI to reinstate some 'affordable' housing come from?

Quoted from blackdog

So where did the £1,000,000 WBC paid SLI to reinstate some 'affordable' housing come from?

'tis an interesting question.

according to the BBC 25% of PW is affordable, or 37 of 147 appartments. You could say WBC have invested £27k/flat of taxpayers cash in providing affordable housing in a desirable location....

Quoted from blackdog

I believe it was in the design brief prepared by WBC.  However, the narrow nature of Middle Steet seems designed with a roof in mind.

Nah, just trying to get the most floorspace in the narrow plot available.

So, WBC won that one then?

Quoted from blackdog

So where did the £1,000,000 WBC paid SLI to reinstate some 'affordable' housing come from?

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=6857

Quoted from 78

'tis an interesting question.

according to the BBC 25% of PW is affordable, or 37 of 147 appartments. You could say WBC have invested £27k/flat of taxpayers cash in providing affordable housing in a desirable location....

How affordable are these affordable homes?  I think 20 will go to HAs.

Quoted from 78

So, WBC won that one then?

Fine, whatever. Just so long they've lost resoundingly on Carter/Griffin's godawful pavilion in the park plan. Any news on that Lovejoy?

Quoted from 78

Taxpayers are responsible for the cost of the retail space. Estimates are that SLI have spent £150million in Newbury.

Taxpayers haven't spent a penny. So it has not cost us the price of a Harrods ( which was £1.5bn anyway ) There is no cost to the taxpayer.

It could be argueed that much of the cash a council does spend on the tax payers behalf is a waste of money. Sports facilities, Libraries, Allotments etc etc. I don't use any of them....

£130m in the end, of which £80m was contract costs...I saw an earlier valuation at £146m, but that was before most of the developer contributions were waived.

@blackdog: WBC's design brief was identical to Sutton Griffin's. In the end, the scheme was 10% bigger than the WBC design brief and two floors higher. (Sshhh! - don't tell the Tories though).

Quoted from Muddler

£130m in the end, of which £80m was contract costs...I saw an earlier valuation at £146m, but that was before most of the developer contributions were waived.

@blackdog: WBC's design brief was identical to Sutton Griffin's. In the end, the scheme was 10% bigger than the WBC design brief and two floors higher. (Sshhh! - don't tell the Tories though).

So that's a WBC fail then.  A canny game plaid by SLI, while the councils behaved like the Gumbys.

I notice that User23 hasn't rushed on here to deny the allegations, and has tried to move the BID issues to the top of the pile to deflect the conversation.

So looks like he is embarrassed by the truth of the potential financial balls up WBC have created,

They can't deny the parking profit distribution, it was approved in a council meeting in 2008 when the press and public had been excluded as it's commercially sensitive. I've not found the documents online yet, but the deal is very complex and my understanding is that SLI will be making recieving a payment from WC each year rather than making the £300k payment that they are supposed to provide.

As for affordable housing, is 37 the final number or what we are supposed to have?

Quoted from richard.garvie

They can't deny the parking profit distribution, it was approved in a council meeting in 2008 when the press and public had been excluded as it's commercially sensitive. I've not found the documents online yet, but the deal is very complex and my understanding is that SLI will be making recieving a payment from WC each year rather than making the £300k payment that they are supposed to provide.

As for affordable housing, is 37 the final number or what we are supposed to have?

No good asking the council I doubt if SLI have informed them yet? If things go to par the taxpayer will probably pay SLI a wedge of money every time an affordable is built anywhere in Newbury for the next 100 years?  

Quoted from richard.garvie

They can't deny the parking profit distribution, it was approved in a council meeting in 2008 when the press and public had been excluded as it's commercially sensitive. I've not found the documents online yet, but the deal is very complex and my understanding is that SLI will be making recieving a payment from WC each year rather than making the £300k payment that they are supposed to provide.

As for affordable housing, is 37 the final number or what we are supposed to have?

Just calm down a little bit Richard, then you won't make so many mistakes with your typing. Presumably you meant WBC. (WC stands for water closet or toilet). On second thoughts, perhaps it was a deliberate mistake?

Quoted from richard.garvie

They can't deny the parking profit distribution, it was approved in a council meeting in 2008 when the press and public had been excluded as it's commercially sensitive. I've not found the documents online yet, but the deal is very complex and my understanding is that SLI will be making recieving a payment from WC each year rather than making the £300k payment that they are supposed to provide.

As for affordable housing, is 37 the final number or what we are supposed to have?

I don't like to criticise grammar on internet forums, partly because I make as many mistakes as most, however much of this is just gibberish.

Quoted from BrianB

Just calm down a little bit Richard, then you won't make so many mistakes with your typing. Presumably you meant WBC. (WC stands for water closet or toilet). On second thoughts, perhaps it was a deliberate mistake?

No Brian you are clearly wrong as a WC is usefull WBC are............

Quoted from user23.3

I don't like to criticise grammar on internet forums, partly because I make as many mistakes as most, however much of this is just gibberish.

What you really mean to say is that, because it is Richard Garvie, you'll make an exception.  I'm not brain of Britain and I can understand what he means.

Quoted from Greenham Common

What you really mean to say is that, because it is Richard Garvie, you'll make an exception.  I'm not brain of Britain and I can understand what he means.

Of course User understands perfectly. Richard has hit the target again and the deflection shield has popped up again!  

Sorry, posting on your mobile is not to be advised, often misses out letters / words etc. I'll try to read my post before publishing in future.

Quoted from richard.garvie

     ....... is that SLI will be making recieving a payment from WBC each year

That's the bit of the sentence I'm not sure about. Which is it.

Quoted from richard.garvie

Sorry, posting on your mobile is not to be advised, often misses out letters / words etc. I'll try to read my post before publishing in future.

Yes Richard you should know better! You will go in the councils naughty book and User will put you on ignore! But where's the fun in that?
It would be like a cat giving up chasing birds so you are probably safe from the ignore button.  

Quoted from brian

That's the bit of the sentence I'm not sure about. Which is it.

Sorry Brian, it should read:

They can't deny the parking profit distribution, it was approved in a council meeting in 2008 when the press and public had been excluded as it's commercially sensitive. I've not found the documents online yet, but the deal is very complex and my understanding is that SLI will be recieving a payment from WBC each year rather than making the £300k payment that they are supposed to provide.

As for affordable housing, is 37 the final number or what we are supposed to have?

Quoted from richard.garvie

Sorry Brian, it should read:

They can't deny the parking profit distribution, it was approved in a council meeting in 2008 when the press and public had been excluded as it's commercially sensitive. I've not found the documents online yet, but the deal is very complex and my understanding is that SLI will be recieving a payment from WBC each year rather than making the £300k payment that they are supposed to provide.

As for affordable housing, is 37 the final number or what we are supposed to have?

That works for me, the wording that is, not the content.
If this was a deal cobbled up in secret using the commercial sensitivity "cloak of invisibility" then there needs to be a concerted public outcry based around potential rate inceases next year because we are having to fund SLI. Won't go down with Newbury folks but even less with the close to Reading districts that are not likely to want to shop in Newbury even though they come under the WBC umbrella.

The council will argue that it was agreed in private due to commercial sensitivity. Everyone I have spoken to appear to confirm it, included elected members.

I look forward to hearing the reply, although I fear it could be somewhat distorted or evasive.

I've spoken to a few people today in town, and it's now widely accepted that this agreement is in place. All that is left to do is for the council to reveal the exact terms.

Then we can move on to the rate rebate.

Quoted from 78

Then we can move on to the rate rebate.

Oh no not down that road? What is this going to cost us now?  

So none of this would have been made public if Bale.P. had kept her gob shut?

I expect there was a huge sigh of relief in Market Street when they realised they could finally get this off their chest, or, B, Ms Bale is now as popular as a fart in a spacesuit because of all the man-hours of extra work she's causing them.


Threep.

Should the proposed changes to Business Rates go through, I wonder how much extra revenue WBC would gain from Parkway?

Quoted from user23.3

Should the proposed changes to Business Rates go through, I wonder how much extra revenue WBC would gain from Parkway?

So not only the normal taxpayers take a hit but now the new businesses are to take a hit as well? This is going to run and run as they say?  

Quoted from Threepwood

So none of this would have been made public if Bale.P. had kept her gob shut?

I expect there was a huge sigh of relief in Market Street when they realised they could finally get this off their chest, or, B, Ms Bale is now as popular as a fart in a spacesuit because of all the man-hours of extra work she's causing them.


Threep.

They will now be putting her on the naughty list along with Garvie! Or perhaps they will exclude her from future meetings as well?  

Quoted from user23.3

Should the proposed changes to Business Rates go through, I wonder how much extra revenue WBC would gain from Parkway?

And that justifies giving away OUR parking revenue???

Quoted from richard.garvie

And that justifies giving away OUR parking revenue???

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

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.

Might.

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.

Correct. But too many if's and but's right now to bank on it happening.

Quoted from Greenham Common

Might.

What is wrong with having both? Also keeping the valuable town centre site instead of giving it away for a £1. Whatever rates we get from Park Way we will lose from the other parts of town when it closes down.  

The short term problem that ser is ignoring is that we are losing revenue from car parking which would typically go into the general council budget. With cuts of £40m over four years, and with West Berkshire getting rid of the most council staff in West Berkshire, how can you justify giving our money away when you are cutting key services and putting people out of work???

Quoted from richard.garvie

The short term problem that ser is ignoring is that we are losing revenue from car parking which would typically go into the general council budget. With cuts of £40m over four years, and with West Berkshire getting rid of the most council staff in West Berkshire, how can you justify giving our money away when you are cutting key services and putting people out of work???

Hey! Think of poor SLI they are only going to be makeing a small fortune for the coming years after spending that massive £1.

WBC taxpayers are used to being screwed so no change there then?  

Quoted from Cognosco

Hey! Think of poor SLI they are only going to be makeing a small fortune for the coming years after spending that massive £1.

WBC taxpayers are used to being screwed so no change there then?  

I never thought anything the council could do would shock me, but this is another level. How come this has never even been discussed before? Why was it hidden?

Not one person has come on the forum and denied it. Elected members have told me it was agreed in 2008. YET NOBODY FROM THE ADMINISTRATION OR OFFICER WILL SAY ANYTHING.

Quoted from richard.garvie

I never thought anything the council could do would shock me, but this is another level. How come this has never even been discussed before? Why was it hidden?

Not one person has come on the forum and denied it. Elected members have told me it was agreed in 2008. YET NOBODY FROM THE ADMINISTRATION OR OFFICER WILL SAY ANYTHING.

Are you implying it was a secret Handshake?  

No, what's worse is that the council discussed it behind closed doors with the public and press excluded.

Quoted from richard.garvie

No, what's worse is that the council discussed it behind closed doors with the public and press excluded.

Well a bit obvious that, if the public and press knew about it then it could very well have not gone ahead.

I definitley think it will put shoppers off now that they know SLI will have their hands in their wallets every time they go shopping in Newbury.

I do believe WBC have excluded openess and transparency from their vocabulary.

Quoted from Cognosco

So not only the normal taxpayers take a hit but now the new businesses are to take a hit as well? This is going to run and run as they say?  

No, the businesses already pay a business rate - which could even be lowered if the suggested change ever happens.

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.

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.

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.

We would have been better off not building at all!!!  

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.