An artcle in this weeks NWN puzzled me a little. It seems that Garry Poulson who has worked very hard for Newbury as Chairman of the Newbury Society for the last two and-a-half years feels that he needs to resign his position because he has spoken out against the Pavilion. Why is that I hear you ask, surely it is within the remit of the Newbury Society to support or oppose proposals which affect Newbury. As far as I know, they have no axe to grind other that they want to look after the best interests of our town.

Well, the answer to that question is that Garry is a director of The Volunteer Centre West Berkshire and that he gets financial support for his organisation from two of the groups that are hell bent on having a Pavilion in the park. WBC and Greenham Common Trust and he is afraid that if he doesn't toe the line he may put his financial support for the Volunteer Centre at risk. The only option open to him is that he feels he must resign and this decision is based on his experience with presumably those two financial supporters.

This is a disgrace and I have no doubt that Garry has had a gypsy's warning. That a man with over and above  commitment to the town and other important charitable organisations should be forced to take this action leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. For those of you that know Garry you must know that this is not a course he would have taken lightly. I hope there will be enough public support for him to perhaps reverse this decision and that a commitment be made by WBC and GCT not to penalise his other charities.

Quoted from brian

... That a man with over and above  commitment to the town and other important charitable organisations should be forced to take this action leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.

Yes quite sickening and a very unpleasant corner for Gary to have been pushed into.

Yes, I read that today as well.  To be fair, the story deserves a bigger profile than it does.

I presume West Berkshire Council and The New Greenham Trust will soon be issuing statements to the effect that his charities will not be compromised by his feelings on the pavilion development.  If not, they bloody well should in my view.

Although Gary was not born in Newbury (Stoke-on-Trent I think), he has devoted his time to the well being and good fortune of Newbury.  For him to feel he must stand down is very regrettable, especially under the circumstances.  I regard him as Mr Newbury and has more soul for Newbury than many of the out-of-towners who are currently desperate to indelibly stamp there vanity all over the town.

A carefully timed political move by the "Save Victoria Park Newbury from development" group, perhaps.

Quoted from user23.3

A carefully timed political move by the "Save Victoria Park Newbury from development" group, perhaps.

I've been rumbled.

To give up two and a half years work for a minor facebook entry. Yea right.

Quoted from user23.3

A carefully timed political move by the "Save Victoria Park Newbury from development" group, perhaps.

Unlikely - more likely the "tunnel vision" for Newbury ploughing its way through any opposition!

Quoted from user23.3

A carefully timed political move by the "Save Victoria Park Newbury from development" group, perhaps.

Garry has been worried about his situation for a while - reason enough for any condemnation of those pushing him into this corner.  That he has announced this so publically is at least some payback.

He has been a great chairman of the Newbury Society, and I hope he will be able to return to the role in the future - if only when retirement releases him from financial dependence on the 'powers that be' that the Newbury Society have to be free to criticise.

This sort of thing is so disappointing (I'm restraining myself there) and I feel like I've witnessed similar on several occasions.  People not being able to say or do what they believe in for fear of repercussions.

I think any respect left for the council would be lost if they pulled funding on such an important community cause just because someone went against the grain.

Quoted from 133

This sort of thing is so disappointing (I'm restraining myself there) and I feel like I've witnessed similar on several occasions.  People not being able to say or do what they believe in for fear of repercussions.

I think any respect left for the council would be lost if they pulled funding on such an important community cause just because someone went against the grain.

When have they done this before?

Quoted from user23.3

When have they done this before?

You're getting paranoid now. If, by 'they' you mean the council, your interpretation is a bit askew. There's no meat on this bone for you to gnaw on, sorry.

Quoted from user23.3

When have they done this before?

FF only said she had seen similar before - not that it happened in Newbury.

Quoted from 133

I think any respect left for the council would be lost if they pulled funding on such an important community cause just because someone went against the grain.

Gary must have believed and I am sure with good cause, that this might have been exactly what they would have done but it would have been hidden as a cost saving required by the current financial situation. Something like blaming the Communitiy Services for their, (WBC) potential million pound overspend. I would hope that perhaps this might be a catalyst to cause our elected councillors to take time out from their interminable party political  bickering and have a good hard look at the way the unelected council is running its business.
While they are at it, they might ask some questions of the Greenham Common Trust who are becoming just a bit too big for their boots. They have been put there to run an asset which belongs to the community and as they are non profit making, hand over the money without strings. They are not doing us the big favour they like to think they are.

Quoted from blackdog

FF only said she had seen similar before - not that it happened in Newbury.

I was just asking if there's any history of this happening.

I don't think that funding would be pulled - more that Garry's involvement would be a influencing factor when grant applications were processed.  If two competing cases for funding were being considered and they were of similar merit his involvement might influence one or two of the decision makers to vote for the competition.

I suspect he also felt that he was being blamed for the Newbury Society's opposition to the pavilion as if he was the only member who was against it (so they could dismiss the Society's opposition as that of one man). Mike James' letter in this week's NWN should help dispel that idea.

I note on Monday that the Pavilion Taliban are taking a youth officer of some description to the meeting; no doubt to lay it on thick that this is an essential utility for the good of the youth (who have nothing to do), who otherwise get up to mischief.  Like anyone who otherwise would get up to mischief, are likely to use the cybercafe, art studio or sound studio,etc...

It could be said that Garry Poulson is grandstanding, but I applaud him for standing by his principles.

In my view, this isn't just about the pavilion in the park.  I'm sure it is also about how these 'quango' like organisations go about their business.

Quoted from user23.3

I was just asking if there's any history of this happening.

But you asked if 'they had done this before'.  Clearly you were referring to the council and attempting to mute FF; knowing she wouldn't divulge if she did know - thus trying to throw into doubt the legitimacy of her claim.

Quoted from Greenham Common

I note on Monday that the Pavilion Taliban are taking a youth officer of some description to the meeting; no doubt to lay it on thick that this is an essential utility for the good of the youth (who have nothing to do), who otherwise get up to mischief.  Like anyone who otherwise would get up to mischief, are likely to use the cybercafe, art studio or sound studio,etc...

Sorry, desperately trying to keep up with all the name-calling on this site! Who are the Pavilion Taliban, what youth officer and what meeting? Help me out people, it's all very confusing.

Quoted from John Ruskin

Sorry, desperately trying to keep up with all the name-calling on this site! Who are the Pavilion Taliban, what youth officer and what meeting? Help me out people, it's all very confusing.

Link here: Pavilion showdown looms in Newbury Town Hall

Quoted from Greenham Common

But you asked if 'they had done this before'.  Clearly you were referring to the council and attempting to mute FF; knowing she wouldn't divulge if she did know - thus trying to throw into doubt the legitimacy of her claim.

I wasn't attempting to mute anyone, I just asked a question that as of yet hasn't been answered.

"Pavilion Taliban" is a bit sick by the way not that it offends me, it does come across as a bit desperate though.

Quoted from user23.3

I wasn't attempting to mute anyone, I just asked a question that as of yet hasn't been answered.  "Pavilion Taliban" is a bit sick by the way not that it offends me, it does come across as a bit desperate though.

"Pavilion Taliban" is a figure of speech, nothing more, but to call it sick is rather over doing it.  Frankly though, that is a measure of how I feel they have behaved over this issue.  Regrettably, I note you are more concerned with a few trivial details compared to the gist of the OP.

Quoted from Greenham Common

"Pavilion Taliban" is a figure of speech, nothing more, but to call it sick is rather over doing it.  Frankly though, that is a measure of how I feel they have behaved over this issue.  Regrettably, I note you are more concerned with a few trivial details compared to the gist of the OP.

You're comparing them to a group of murderers, of course it's over the top and hardly trivial.

Quoted from user23.3

...I just asked a question that as of yet hasn't been answered.

It wouldn't add anything to this discussion to give you specific details, nor appease you, the point was made to confirm that this sort of thing does go on. If you're not gagged, you can be alienated for speaking you're mind if it doesn't concur. That's a general comment by the way, in case you wanted to try and make a meal of that too.

Quoted from 133

It wouldn't add anything to this discussion to give you specific details, nor appease you, the point was made to confirm that this sort of thing does go on. If you're not gagged, you can be alienated for speaking you're mind if it doesn't concur. That's a general comment by the way, in case you wanted to try and make a meal of that too.

Are you trying to say you have been gagged too, and this is why you cannot reveal details of this sort of thing going on round here that you know of?

That's what we can all read into what you've said, I think.

Quoted from user23.3

Are you trying to say you have been gagged too, and this is why you cannot reveal details of this sort of thing going on round here that you know of?

That's what we can all read into what you've said, I think.

Do you need a knife and fork?

Quoted from user23.3

You're comparing them to a group of murderers, of course it's over the top and hardly trivial.

Well they are, in my opinion, murdering Newbury, so I suppose it is not too much of an exaggeration.  Like I said though, it is and was meant, as a figure of speech.

Quoted from Greenham Common

Well they are, in my opinion, murdering Newbury, so I suppose it is not too much of an exaggeration.  Like I said though, it is and was meant, as a figure of speech.

I've heard the Taleban are none too happy at the comparison

Quoted from Greenham Common

Well they are, in my opinion, murdering Newbury, so I suppose it is not too much of an exaggeration.  Like I said though, it is and was meant, as a figure of speech.

Perhaps you should have a think about the British troops that have actually been killed by the Taliban before you start posting that sort of sick nonsense?

You might have no respect for our boys in Afghanistan (however politically right or wrong this may be) but many of us still do.

Quoted from user23.3

Perhaps you should have a think about the British troops that have actually been killed by the Taliban before you start posting that sort of sick nonsense?  You might have no respect for our boys in Afghanistan (however politically right or wrong this may be) but many of us still do.

Mocking the people behind the pavilion with my figure of speech, which is what I am doing, has NOTHING to do with any another conflict.

As for one of the most prominent supporters of the Newbury feeling he has to stand down for fear of compromising local charities IS sick.  I note also, you display no apparent sense of regret for this issue either, perhaps you also are compromised by your paymasters?

Quoted from user23.3

When have they done this before?

Muting the TCP over the pavilion springs to mind.

Quoted from user23.3

Perhaps you should have a think about the British troops that have actually been killed by the Taliban before you start posting that sort of sick nonsense?

You might have no respect for our boys in Afghanistan (however politically right or wrong this may be) but many of us still do.

I think you are being and not for the first time, over sensitive. Just because a collective name is used, that doesn't refer to 'our boys' as you call them. Are you a Sun reader by any chance.

Quoted from brian

I think you are being and not for the first time, over sensitive. Just because a collective name is used, that doesn't refer to 'our boys' as you call them. Are you a Sun reader by any chance.

It is simply user23.3's attempt to distract from a story that might show the relevant councils and groups in bad light.

I see that West Berkshire Council and the New Greenham Trust remain quiet on the subject.  In my view, this only serves to show them in even poorer light.

Quoted from Greenham Common

It is simply user23.3's attempt to distract from a story that might show the relevant councils and groups in bad light.

I think the majority of people know what tactics User uses so I really don't know why everyone continues to take his bait. We all know what you meant GC and there's no need for you to explain or justify it

Under this logic, it would be inappropriate to refer to them as the Newbury Mafia, or a bunch of Philistines, or having a 'Cavalier' attitude.

All of which, funnily enough, describe them to a 'T'.


Threep.

Quoted from 133

I think the majority of people know what tactics User uses so I really don't know why everyone continues to take his bait. We all know what you meant GC and there's no need for you to explain or justify it

You are probably right, but I feel I have to take into account new viewers and they should be made aware of our local Minister of Distractions.

With regards the pavilion, I fear it is almost a done deal.  Can anyone see the New Greenham Trust letting £50,000.00 go to waste on a failed whim.  I can only think that Garry Poulson is playing the only card available to him.  It would be really handy to bump into him and ask, but I know he is quite discrete and am unsure how candid he would be.

Quoted from Greenham Common

Mocking the people behind the pavilion with my figure of speech, which is what I am doing, has NOTHING to do with any another conflict.

You're mocking our Army in Afghanistan when you compare the plans for the park to a murderous organisation hell-bent on killing our troops.

Is this sick salvo how low the "Save Victoria Park From Development" campaign will stoop or is there more to come?

One thing we've all learned from this is how out of touch with public opinion they are.

Quoted from brian

Muting the TCP over the pavilion springs to mind.

I thought the TCP was independent of the two?

In fact I thought some people's gripe was that they were not accountable to any elected authority?

Quoted from user23.3

You're mocking our Army in Afghanistan when you compare the plans for the park to a murderous organisation hell-bent on killing our troops.

Is this sick salvo how low the "Save Victoria Park From Development" campaign will stoop or is there more to come?

One thing we've all learned from this is how out of touch with public opinion they are.I thought the TCP was independent of the two?

In fact I thought some people's gripe was that they were not accountable to any elected authority?

GC did not mock our army at all. You are the only one to stoop as low to use them to deflect away from the failings of your employer WBC.

Indeed you should feel ashamed User23 of using their courage to mask WBC's cowardly attempts to silence volunteers and the public.

Quoted from Nobby

GC did not mock our army at all. You are the only one to stoop as low to use them to deflect away from the failings of your employer WBC.

Indeed you should feel ashamed User23 of using their courage to mask WBC's cowardly attempts to silence volunteers and the public.

Great stuff, always an excellent parody.

It's interesting that on here apparently I work for the council whereas on the NWN forum apparently I work for the police.

Quoted from user23.3

Is this sick salvo how low the "Save Victoria Park From Development" campaign will stoop or is there more to come?

Unlike you, I have no paymaster to determine my opinion.  I have no affiliation with the Save Victoria Park, so you are wrong there.

Quoted from user23.3

One thing we've all learned from this is how out of touch with public opinion they are.

I have read the papers and went to the exhibition and in both cases there was little in the way of support for your employers folly.  Garry Poulson, an upstanding person, who has worked very hard for Newbury, has felt it necessary to step down from the Chair of the Newbury Society so that he can hope that his opinions don't dissuade West Berkshire Council and the New Greenham Trust from sponsoring his local Charity.  This must show how churlish West Berkshire Council and the New Greenham Trust could be.

Quoted from Nobby

GC did not mock our army at all. You are the only one to stoop as low to use them to deflect away from the failings of your employer WBC.

Indeed you should feel ashamed User23 of using their courage to mask WBC's cowardly attempts to silence volunteers and the public.

I just logged in to say something similar, you beat me to it! I agree it is a shameful way of trying to win an argument or belittle other's views

Quoted from Greenham Common

Unlike you, I have no paymaster to determine my opinion.  I have no affiliation with the Save Victoria Park, so you are wrong there.

I think I covered this one in the post previous to yours. Pull the other one, on the second point, you're obviously just toeing the line of the Save Victoria Park group.

Quoted from user23.3

I think I covered this one in the post previous to yours. Pull the other one, on the second point, you're obviously just toeing the line of the Save Victoria Park group.

You obviously can't read, too much blow maybe?  Anyway, just to repeat, unlike you, I have no paymaster to determine my opinion.  I have no affiliation and have had no contact with the Save Victoria Park movement, so you are WRONG.

But you or I is not my concern, mine is that a prominent citizen of Newbury feels he must resign, because his views conflict with those in the council - who's reticence re-enforces the reasons Garry had to stand down.

Quoted from 133

I just logged in to say something similar, you beat me to it! I agree it is a shameful way of trying to win an argument or belittle other's views

Exactly FF.

Unfortunately User doesn't seem to accept that any opinion that differs from his own has any validity. His employers seem to be trying to take a similar stance.

Quoted from Greenham Common

You obviously can't read, too much blow maybe?  Anyway, just to repeat, unlike you, I have no paymaster to determine my opinion.  I have no affiliation and have had no contact with the Save Victoria Park movement, so you are WRONG.

But you or I is not my concern, mine is that a prominent citizen of Newbury feels he must resign, because his views conflict with those in the council.

I presume you're trying to say that I've taken too much cannabis by that first statement?

It seems there are no depths to which the "Save Victoria Park From Development" campaign will sink to discredit any view they don't agree with.

As I said, I've already covered this "employer" business before you started on about it. Nobby might be some joker on the wind up but at least he's funny, you're just getting nasty.

Quoted from user23.3

Great stuff, always an excellent parody.

It's interesting that on here apparently I work for the council whereas on the NWN forum apparently I work for the police.

The fact that you haven't denied working for WBC seems proof enough. Even the lowest life form would not accept that kind of insult unless it was true!

Quoted from user23.3

Is this sick salvo how low the "Save Victoria Park From Development" campaign will stoop or is there more to come?

You have taken the title from a public facebook publication which is not a campaign neither does it stoop to any level other than to offer factual information for people who perhaps do not use this and the NWN forums and to give them an opportunity to say what their views are.
If you are for the pavilion or believe that Gary Poulson is being over the top so be it, but your knack of blowing a smokescreen to take peoples eyes away from the subject can only be construed as mischievous and is not a counter argument.
I don't believe that you work for WBC or the police and that all you want to do is generate, for your own amusement I suspect, a series of diversions from the subject matter by superfluous comments. The sad thing is that you seem to be capable of doing that to the detriment of most of the threads on here.

Quoted from Nobby

The fact that you haven't denied working for WBC seems proof enough. Even the lowest life form would not accept that kind of insult unless it was true!

Great stuff!

Quoted from user23.3

I presume you're trying to say that I've taken too much cannabis by that first statement?  It seems there are no depths to which the "Save Victoria Park From Development" campaign will sink to discredit any view they don't agree with. As I said, I've already covered this "employer" business before you started on about it. Nobby might be some joker on the wind up but at least he's funny, you're just getting nasty.

Just to repeat, you or I is not my concern, mine is that a prominent citizen of Newbury feels he must resign, because his views conflict with those in the council - who's reticence re-enforces the reasons I believe Garry felt he had to stand down.

Quoted from Greenham Common

Just to repeat, you or I is not my concern, mine is that a prominent citizen of Newbury feels he must resign, because his views conflict with those in the council - who's reticence re-enforces the reasons I believe Garry felt he had to stand down.

And just to repeat, I think it's poor that the Save Victoria Park Campaign have to resort to such negative tactics.

In my view, leaving the debate is usually the mark of someone who feels they have lost the argument.

Quoted from user23.3

And just to repeat, I think it's poor that the Save Victoria Park Campaign have to resort to such negative tactics.  In my view, leaving the debate is usually the mark of someone who feels they have lost the argument.

I've gone no-where, so you have written TWO errors.  Why do you think Garry Poulson felt he had top stand down to save his charity?

Quoted from user23.3

Great stuff!

Your welcome. I always like to highlight the truth!


Lets hope you will learn to do the same - judging by past experience this unfortunatly seems unlikely!!

Quoted from Greenham Common

I've gone no-where, so you have written TWO errors.

I wasn't talking about you leaving the debate, as ever you're trying to misinterpret what I say.

Quoted from user23.3

In my view, leaving the debate is usually the mark of someone who feels they have lost the argument.

That's why you continue with drivel even when wrong then

Quoted from Nobby

That's why you continue with drivel even when wrong then

This is great, it's like having one of these http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/the-twat-o-tron/ but just on events in Newbury.

Do keep it up.

Quoted from user23.3

And just to repeat, I think it's poor that the Save Victoria Park Campaign have to resort to such negative tactics.  In my view, leaving the debate is usually the mark of someone who feels they have lost the argument.

He's gone no-where, so you have written TWO errors.  Why do you think Garry Poulson felt he had top stand down to save his charity from lost receipts?

Quoted from user23.3

And just to repeat, I think it's poor that the Save Victoria Park Campaign have to resort to such negative tactics.

In my view, leaving the debate is usually the mark of someone who feels they have lost the argument.

At least you have perhaps acknowledged your misinformation.

I cannot see how you can believe, if that is what your veiled reference is meant to be, that Gary Poulson has "left the debate" because he has lost the argument. It is clear to me that he still holds, along with Mike James of the Newbury society, the strong view that the pavilion is not right for Victoria Park. If he felt that he had lost the argument, he could have retained his position, said nothing and his funding for his other project would not have been put in jeapordy. Do you think that WBC and NGT could have been so devious that they would hve compromised his financial support.?

So to get back on track you are obviously happy for opinion to be stifled by WBC then User23 but keen to divert attention away from the fact.

Why is it you are trying to slur the Save Victoria Park campaign??

At least 2 of the contributors to this thread (myself and Factfile) have not even said we are in agreement with their aims.

We are concerned when people who make a valuable contribution to the community feel thet have to resign to make their views known.

Quoted from Nobby

So to get back on track you are obviously happy for opinion to be stifled by WBC then User23 but keen to divert attention away from the fact.

Why is it you are trying to slur the Save Victoria Park campaign??

At least 2 of the contributors to this thread (myself and Factfile) have not even said we are in agreement with their aims.

We are concerned when people who make a valuable contribution to the community feel thet have to resign to make their views known.

That's a bit too complicated, you've got the spelling mistakes and poor grammar right but you're trying too hard.

A simple post like "The Taliban who run WBC is trying to take over are park. What about MY human rights???" will always get more laughs.

Perhaps this deserves a new thread rather than adding to this one any more.

Quoted from user23.3

That's a bit too complicated, you've got the spelling mistakes and poor grammar right but you're trying too hard.

You are one of the last people on this forum who deserves to mock other people's command of English.

Quoted from user23.3

A simple post like "The Taliban who run WBC is trying to take over are park. What about MY human rights???" will always get more laughs.  Perhaps this deserves a new thread rather than adding to this one any more.

Or perhaps you could just answer the straightforward question posed?

Quoted from user23.3

That's a bit too complicated,

Well then........
Do you think that WBC and NGT could have been so devious that they would have compromised Gary's financial support.?

User's posts do raise an interesting issue - perhaps we should start a Save Victoria Park group. If we could raise a few quid (don't suppose Greenham Trust would give us a grant?) we could put on an exhibition in the library or set up a website with some nice graphics.  Perhaps a couple of local architects could come up with some artist's impressions of alternative arts centre designs (in alternative locations).

Quoted from blackdog

User's posts do raise an interesting issue - perhaps we should start a Save Victoria Park group. If we could raise a few quid (don't suppose Greenham Trust would give us a grant?) we could put on an exhibition in the library or set up a website with some nice graphics.  Perhaps a couple of local architects could come up with some artist's impressions of alternative arts centre designs (in alternative locations).

This group already exists, it was started by brian.

Quoted from brian

Well then........
Do you think that WBC and NGT could have been so devious that they would have compromised Gary's financial support.?

What is your opinion then User.

Quoted from brian

What is your opinion then User.

Could they, yes of course they could.

Did they, no I would have thought this would be very unlikely.

Quoted from user23.3

Could they, yes of course they could.  Did they, no I would have thought this would be very unlikely.

It is a shame then, that so far, they have not said as much.

Quoted from Greenham Common

It is a shame then, that so far, they have not said as much.

Why should they?

Not everyone subscribes to the view that if you don't deny something it must be true.

Quoted from user23.3

Why should they?  Not everyone subscribes to the view that if you don't deny something it must be true.

In my experience, staying silent is often an indication that there is something to hide.

Quoted from Greenham Common

In my experience, staying silent is often an indication that there is something to hide.

Most people are guilty until proved innocent, in your experience?

Quoted from user23.3

Could they, yes of course they could.

Did they, no I would have thought this would be very unlikely.

Thanks for that opinion.

Quoted from user23.3

Most people are guilty until proved innocent, in your experience?

I never said, or even suggested such a thing, but when someone exercises their right to remain silent, it would often be because they fear compromising themselves, or have something to hide.  Ask the Old Bill what they think.

Anyway, something like the resignation of the chairman of the Newbury Society and the reasons given would have been a good opportunity for West Berkshire Council or the New Greenham Trust to have made a statement.  Then again, good PR has never been their strongest feature, in my view.

Indeed, it is the kack-handed (apologies to all you left handed people out there that user23.3. might accuse me of offending, but it is a figure of speech and is no-way intended to be a reference to the 13% of the population who are left handed   ) way this proposal has been produced that has help fuel the fire of resentment.

Quoted from user23.3

This group already exists, it was started by brian.

A Facebook group called Save Victoria Park exists - as started by Brian.  But not a formally established group, with committee, fund raising, campagning etc.  - even though you like to think that there is some secret group conspiring to prevent the sainted West Berkshire Council doing whatever they want.

When is the "consultation" going to be published. What are the next steps for those of us against a pavilion (or 2 storey out of keeping building) on the park

The planign application will be too late. Although building on public open space does have resonance in planning terms.

How about a petition in the market place

Quoted from Thirtover

When is the "consultation" going to be published. What are the next steps for those of us against a pavilion (or 2 storey out of keeping building) on the park

The planign application will be too late. Although building on public open space does have resonance in planning terms.

How about a petition in the market place

By consultation, do you mean the results from the survey taken at the time of the public exhibition as that is probably the only information yet to be released. I assume this will be soon as the Newbury Town Council are wanting to see that before deciding if they are giving the project their support or otherwise.
I am fairly sure that there will not be any changes to the concept prior to the planning application so all that can be done at the moment is write to various people to identify your reasons for believing that the Pavilion should either not go ahead or should be scaled down.

Mr. Nick Carter
The Chief Executive
West Berkshire Council
Council Offices
Market Street
Newbury

Sir Peter Micheal  (Marked addressee only )
Chairman of The Trustees
Greenham Common Trust
Liberty House
New Greenham Park
Thatcham
Berkshire

Mr. Graham Mather ( Marked Addressee only)
Trustee
Greenham Common Trust
Liberty House
New Greenham Park
Thatcham
Berkshire

Your town councillors.
http://www.newbury.gov.uk/councillors.htm


Once the planning application has been accepted by the WBC planning department then you can object to the development. Any objection however needs to be objective. This link may make that a little clearer.
http://www.planning-applications.co.uk/objection.htm

I doubt Thirtover has a Newbury Town councillor.

Quoted from user23.3

I doubt Thirtover has a Newbury Town councillor.

You have some insider knowledge then?

Quoted from user23.3

I doubt Thirtover has a Newbury Town councillor.

I doubt he has one that expresses his views - but the same could be said for the majority of us!!

Quoted from brian

You have some insider knowledge then?

Thirtover is part of Cold Ash

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?.....0CAgQ8gEwAA&z=16

Quoted from user23.3

Thirtover is part of Cold Ash

Never heard of it, but residents of Cold Ash are as likely to use Victoria Park as somebody from Clay Hill so writing to his parish councillor with a copy to one of the Clay hill guys would be a reasonable compromise I would have thought. This is a WBC initiative so perhaps writing to his WBC councillor would also be worthwhile.

Quoted from brian

Never heard of it, but residents of Cold Ash are as likely to use Victoria Park as somebody from Clay Hill so writing to his parish councillor with a copy to one of the Clay hill guys would be a reasonable compromise I would have thought. This is a WBC initiative so perhaps writing to his WBC councillor would also be worthwhile.

Perhaps User23 is inferring that writing to a WBC councillor is a waste of time as their minds are made up and they don't listen to the public!

Quoted from brian

Never heard of it, but residents of Cold Ash are as likely to use Victoria Park as somebody from Clay Hill so writing to his parish councillor with a copy to one of the Clay hill guys would be a reasonable compromise I would have thought. This is a WBC initiative so perhaps writing to his WBC councillor would also be worthwhile.

It is the WBC councillors that will make the decisions - so they are the best people to contact.  The more that non-Newbury councillors hear that their constituents are unhappy with WBC building over parks the less chance there is of the non-Newbury councillors (who vastely outnumber their Newbury counterparts) voting this through. The current Tory council has few Newbury councillors, even the one driving the Vision through is from Pangbourne. It is important to realise that this is a decision that will be made by West Berkshire, not by Newbury.

I have written to my councillors -  and I suspect that they are inclined to vote against the Pavilion plan. The more that can be persuaded to examine the plans and actually think about them (as opposed to toeing the party line) the better.

"The current Tory council has few Newbury councillors"

The Tories have 60% of the WBC councillors - 6 out of 10 - covering solely Newbury town wards:

2 for St Johns
2 for Falkland
2 for Clay Hill

Then there are 2 LibDems for Victoria and 2 for Northcroft.

In addition, Greenham district council ward has two LibDems and covers a slither of Newbury Town (the Pyle Hill Town council ward).

Welcome back Wolfie. Good to know you still have some useful stats to hand!

Quoted from brian

Never heard of it, but residents of Cold Ash are as likely to use Victoria Park as somebody from Clay Hill

What?

You can easily walk to the park from Clay Hill, it's not so easy from the top of Cold Ash hill, it must be 3 or 4 miles.

Clay Hill also covers part of Shaw by the way, not solely Newbury as a previous posted has incorrectly claimed.

Add to this Newbury Town (in effect, the Parish though it isn't one) is covered by a small bit of Speen Ward.

Quoted from user23.3

You can easily walk to the park from Clay Hill, it's not so easy from the top of Cold Ash hill, it must be 3 or 4 miles.

Ah but there have been developments in travel while you haven't been looking. Made of metal, a sort of box sits on 4 wheels (yes they've invented that too!) and goes 'Brum, brum'!

Quoted from user23.3

Clay Hill also covers part of Shaw by the way, not solely Newbury as a previous posted has incorrectly claimed.

Depends how you define Shaw - the traditional boundaries and the ward boundaries are pretty much the same around there. However, Shaw cum Donnington ecclesiastical parish seems to have spread into Newbury at some stage (presumably around the time they demolished St Mary's Speenhamland).

The result is that a chunk of Newbury is considered to be in Shaw - even though it has never been in Shaw in terms of the civil parish boundaries.

Quoted from Wolfie

"The current Tory council has few Newbury councillors"

The Tories have 60% of the WBC councillors - 6 out of 10 - covering solely Newbury town wards:

Sorry - should have checked - I thought it was the other way round (4 out of 10).

Quoted from user23.3

What?

You can easily walk to the park from Clay Hill, it's not so easy from the top of Cold Ash hill, it must be 3 or 4 miles.

Clay Hill also covers part of Shaw by the way, not solely Newbury as a previous posted has incorrectly claimed.

Add to this Newbury Town (in effect, the Parish though it isn't one) is covered by a small bit of Speen Ward.

Yes, thank you for that information, in fact if you hadn't made that post, I could have done it for you as a typical User response. However, to take issue on the geographical location of Clay Hill, it is at the top of Turnpike Road on the Northern side. Shaw is not part of Clay Hill neither is the Turnpike Estate. Shaw and Turnpike are however covered in part by the councillor(s) who call their patch Clay Hill.

Quoted from brian

Yes, thank you for that information, in fact if you hadn't made that post, I could have done it for you as a typical User response. However, to take issue on the geographical location of Clay Hill, it is at the top of Turnpike Road on the Northern side. Shaw is not part of Clay Hill neither is the Turnpike Estate. Shaw and Turnpike are however covered in part by the councillor(s) who call their patch Clay Hill.

Sorry, you're mistaken, Clay Hill Ward covers part of the parish of Shaw as well as Newbury.

Quoted from Meddler

Welcome back Wolfie. Good to know you still have some useful stats to hand!

Thank you

Quoted from user23.3

Sorry, you're mistaken, Clay Hill Ward covers part of the parish of Shaw as well as Newbury.

The ecclesiastical parish perhaps but not the civil parish. In terms of civil parishes Clay Hill is entirely in Newbury - which is how come it is a ward that elects Newbury parish councillors (or town councillors as they are known around here).

Civil parishes are the lowest tier of government and pretty much define places - so most of what we know of as Shaw is actually not in Shaw but in Newbury. Shaw civil parish has its own parish council and is part of the Speen Ward of West Berkshire Council.

No doubt it will all be sorted out by the Boundary Commission when they eventually move more of Shaw and Speen into Newbury; but that is some way off I hope (though it has been tried in the past).

Quoted from user23.3

Sorry, you're mistaken, Clay Hill Ward covers part of the parish of Shaw as well as Newbury.

You misread my post. Only the Ward is known as Clay Hill but Clay Hill (Geographic) does not include Shaw or the Turnpike Estate.

Quoted from brian

You misread my post. Only the Ward is known as Clay Hill but Clay Hill (Geographic) does not include Shaw or the Turnpike Estate.

Perhaps I did, though councillors represent wards and that's what we were talking about, wards and which of them cover Newbury,

Quoted from user23.3

Sorry, you're mistaken, Clay Hill Ward covers part of the parish of Shaw as well as Newbury.

I agree with Blackdog here. The Clay Hill ward map is here:

http://www.westberks.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=10184&p=0

Shaw-cum-Donnington parish council website has a description of their parish boundaries here:

http://www.shawcumdonnington.org.uk/theparish.php

They are completely separate. They share a boundary along Shaw Hill.

Quoted from user23.3

Perhaps I did, though councillors represent wards and that's what we were talking about, wards and which of them cover Newbury,

You were talking about walking to Victoria Park from Clay Hill, my point is that that is not the area at the bottom of the hill called Shaw.

Quoted from Wolfie

I agree with Blackdog here. The Clay Hill ward map is here:

Here's the Clay Hill Ward map with part of the parish of Shaw shown included in it at the top right, indicated by the black line.

http://ww2.westberks.gov.uk/In.....d=ONS&qin=10MBNR

Frankly it would be much more democratic and much fairer in community charge terms if these lottle parishes were absorbed into the Town.  Newbury Town Clay Hill Ward is a great example.  People living there can walk through the 'cheaper rated' Shaw to get to the Town's facilities.  This fringe area freeloading ought to stop.

Quoted from user23.3

Perhaps I did, though councillors represent wards and that's what we were talking about, wards and which of them cover Newbury,

Exactly - if you can vote for a Newbury town councillor you live in Newbury - all of Clay Hill Ward is in Newbury.

Quoted from blackdog

Exactly - if you can vote for a Newbury town councillor you live in Newbury - all of Clay Hill Ward is in Newbury.

But it doesn't solely cover Newbury Town as suggested.

Quoted from user23.3

But it doesn't solely cover Newbury Town as suggested.

What is Newbury Town then? In my book it is the place represented by Newbury Town Council - and hence Clay Hill Ward is part of Newbury Town - 100%.

Quoted from user23.3

Here's the Clay Hill Ward map with part of the parish of Shaw shown included in it at the top right, indicated by the black line.

http://ww2.westberks.gov.uk/In.....d=ONS&qin=10MBNR

The trouble with this map is that the word SHAW is not actually in Shaw, or Shaw cum Donnington to give the parish its full name. Part of Shaw is shown at the top left (the bit with Shaw House and Trinity in it). The boundaries have always been the River Lambourn (apart from the little park south of Shaw House) and the Hermitage Road. As I said before - most of what people consider to be Shaw is actually not in Shaw but in Newbury.

Historically the area of Clay Hill Ward was in Thatcham parish, in the part that was split off to create Cold Ash parish in the C19th. It must have been a fairly recent change that brought it into Newbury (1974 perhaps?).

Quoted from blackdog

What is Newbury Town then? In my book it is the place represented by Newbury Town Council - and hence Clay Hill Ward is part of Newbury Town - 100%.

No, you are mistaken. Newbury Town Council only covers the bit to the South of the black line at the top of Clay Hill (which is highlighted in yellow), which is the majority but not all of the West Berkshire Clay Hill Ward. The map shows the official boundaries.

You are all missing the point which was my original statement. Clay Hill is a very small area at the top of the Turnpike Road to the North of that road and east of Stoney Lane. It is a very small area. When the Newbury Wards were divied out, they called the whole lot, as shown in Yellow, the Clay Hill ward covering Turnpike Estate and the area South and West which is known nowadays as Shaw. If you look closely at that map linked earlier, Clay Hill is not even in the Clay Hill Ward. I suspect Clay Hill sounded a bit more upmarket than the Turnpike Ward given the social problems associated with that name.

Quoted from brian

You are all missing the point which was my original statement. Clay Hill is a very small area at the top of the Turnpike Road to the North of that road and east of Stoney Lane. It is a very small area. When the Newbury Wards were divied out, they called the whole lot, as shown in Yellow, the Clay Hill ward covering Turnpike Estate and the area South and West which is known nowadays as Shaw. If you look closely at that map linked earlier, Clay Hill is not even in the Clay Hill Ward. I suspect Clay Hill sounded a bit more upmarket than the Turnpike Ward given the social problems associated with that name.

Okay - I see where you are coming from - the Clay Hill Ward for WBC is different from the Clay Hill Ward for NTC.  But the extra bit in the WBC ward is not in Shaw - its in Cold Ash.

Phew, this was all about users It's easier to walk from Clay Hill to Victoria park than it is from Cold Ash. I agree but only on the assumption that Clay hill (geographic) is not at the bottom of Turnpike Rd/Kiln Road/Shaw Road but at the top.

Quoted from brian

Phew, this was all about users It's easier to walk from Clay Hill to Victoria park than it is from Cold Ash. I agree but only on the assumption that Clay hill (geographic) is not at the bottom of Turnpike Rd/Kiln Road/Shaw Road but at the top.

This was all about users attempt to divert us away from someone else who doesn't want the pavilion by saying they live outside Newbury.

One would assume that he would equally dissuade someone outside Newbury from speaking for or using said pavilion.

But of course he wouldn't be consistent like that, he likes WBC's attempts to not fulfil public opinion by manipulating the figures!!

Quoted from Nobby

This was all about users attempt to divert us away from someone else who doesn't want the pavilion by saying they live outside Newbury.

One would assume that he would equally dissuade someone outside Newbury from speaking for or using said pavilion.

But of course he wouldn't be consistent like that, he likes WBC's attempts to not fulfil public opinion by manipulating the figures!!

The argument that only Newbury residents should have an opinion is contrary to WBC's view.  For a start the decision to go ahead or not will be taken by WBC councillors - most of whom are not Newbury residents.

The aim of the Wharf development, of which the pavilion is a part, is to persuade people to come into Newbury and spend longer than just the time needed to do a bit of shopping. They hope that the area will be attrractive enough to draw people into Newbury. As such the opinions of those who live outside Newbury are vital in order to judge the potential of the scheme. If they prefer user's 'muddy corner' of the park to the pavilion it says a lot about the pavilion. At the very least they need to go back to the drawing board on this one - the consultation has not shown enough support for this design to justify the sacrifice of part of the park.  

Quoted from blackdog

The argument that only Newbury residents should have an opinion is contrary to WBC's view.  For a start the decision to go ahead or not will be taken by WBC councillors - most of whom are not Newbury residents.

The aim of the Wharf development, of which the pavilion is a part, is to persuade people to come into Newbury and spend longer than just the time needed to do a bit of shopping. They hope that the area will be attrractive enough to draw people into Newbury. As such the opinions of those who live outside Newbury are vital in order to judge the potential of the scheme. If they prefer user's 'muddy corner' of the park to the pavilion it says a lot about the pavilion. At the very least they need to go back to the drawing board on this one - the consultation has not shown enough support for this design to justify the sacrifice of part of the park.  

Brian's post referred to Newbury Town councillors, who don't cover Thirtover in Cold Ash.

Quoted from user23.3

Brian's post referred to Newbury Town councillors, who don't cover Thirtover in Cold Ash.

I give up.

Quoted from user23.3

Brian's post referred to Newbury Town councillors, who don't cover Thirtover in Cold Ash.

Is there anything wrong with contacting a councillor who doesn't happen to be in ones parish?  I understand that this is a West Berkshire project, part funded by a Greenham parish trust.  In my view, I see little wrong with contacting any councillor from NTC, provided one is a stakeholder (a West Berkshire Council tax payer).  In fact, I see nothing wrong with anyone contacting the councillors, provided their comments are genuine.