We have to establish whether the "visions" are affordable, and whether there is a better way. You will see in our manifesto that we believe a Leisure based facility inluding a hotel would generate a lot more capital for the Bus station site and the Market Street / FGW car park will basically provide additional parking capacity and a bus / rail / taxi interchange. Something different to what the Tories want, and something that will provide us with a combined figure of around £10m.
As for Faraday Road, the offices and Football ground are the main bits that the council could sell, and although I'm not suggesting selling the allotments, we do need more allotments it would seem so we could look at relocating that area to a much bigger site if it came to it. If we included the area of the allotments, I reckon there is even more capital to generate, but what you didn't point out when saying it would be difficult to move them is that a lot of people probably want to keep the allotments there. For that reason, we would be silly to include that land as it would risk upsetting many people.
With regards to the parkway land, Sandleford, the Racecourse, Theale and other planning decisions, there are many questions that the officers and the Tories must answer. For that reason, we need a planning review, and Labour will provide one. That (however) is another thread, and there is one already from what I remember!!!
I don't really see that the bus station will produce £10m as a site for whatever development, other than perhaps Disneyland and as you seem to be replacing the Market St and FGW car park with a car park the nett gain there is nil.
Why should the football ground be sold, it is a local facility which as I believe you said, is viable with a good business plan and finding a supermaket, as you suggested, to pay for a move and the costs involved in the reconstruction so that WBC can raise a bit of capital seems a little doubtful to me. As far as moving allotments is concerned, there was a vey rapid backtrack when WBC initially suggested that they be converted to green space to recompense for the land taken by the pavilion. When somone has spent years doing whatever allotment holders do to their soil, I can't see them pulling up their bean sticks without some discussion. Glad you're also back tracking.
Isn't there some judicial review going on at the moment about the WBC planning policy so jump on, but perhaps you might want to rethink the Labour policy on planning for WBC as by the time you come to power it will all be settled.
But it is allocated in the budget, what I would be suggesting is that subsidy is removed from the budget. You can't "save" it from the budget unless you remove it from the provision. To do that, you would require permission from vue.
I don't really see that the bus station will produce £10m as a site for whatever development, other than perhaps Disneyland and as you seem to be replacing the Market St and FGW car park with a car park the nett gain there is nil.
Why should the football ground be sold, it is a local facility which as I believe you said, is viable with a good business plan and finding a supermaket, as you suggested, to pay for a move and the costs involved in the reconstruction so that WBC can raise a bit of capital seems a little doubtful to me. As far as moving allotments is concerned, there was a vey rapid backtrack when WBC initially suggested that they be converted to green space to recompense for the land taken by the pavilion. When somone has spent years doing whatever allotment holders do to their soil, I can't see them pulling up their bean sticks without some discussion. Glad you're also back tracking.
Isn't there some judicial review going on at the moment about the WBC planning policy so jump on, but perhaps you might want to rethink the Labour policy on planning for WBC as by the time you come to power it will all be settled.
The allotments wouldn't just be pulled up by anyone. As I have clearly wrote, the biggest problem with moving the allotments would be public interest in keeping them where they are. Have I ever suggested I would move them or sell them off?
I haven't said anything about supermarkets either. Sell off the council offices and the football ground, there would be £2m excess cash from the deal to go towards providing a new facility for Newbury FC. The football club need a facility that will generate a decent living for them to progress, and a deal with the blues would help another club that is desperate for cash. With facilities that generate a greater incom, this will make up for those lost sponsorship dollars and allow the club to get back on its feet and live within its means.
We have made representations to the LDF inspector, and we expect him to send it back to the drawing board. Maybe next time the council will listen to what residents want, not try to railroad their own idea through.
The allotments wouldn't just be pulled up by anyone. As I have clearly wrote, the biggest problem with moving the allotments would be public interest in keeping them where they are. Have I ever suggested I would move them or sell them off?
I haven't said anything about supermarkets either. Sell off the council offices and the football ground, there would be £2m excess cash from the deal to go towards providing a new facility for Newbury FC. The football club need a facility that will generate a decent living for them to progress, and a deal with the blues would help another club that is desperate for cash. With facilities that generate a greater incom, this will make up for those lost sponsorship dollars and allow the club to get back on its feet and live within its means.
Whoops! You said in the skatepark thread dated Oct 1st Reply 77
"A community facility to replace Faraday Road stadium, allowing Newbury FC to grow and build a lond term facility, whilst also providing additioanl community football pitches. All of which would be paid by a retailer and no cost being met my the District, with a charity trust set up to run the facilities long term."
And just a few posts back, you broached the subject and then like WBC bottled out.
"As for Faraday Road, the offices and Football ground are the main bits that the council could sell, and although I'm not suggesting selling the allotments, we do need more allotments it would seem so we could look at relocating that area to a much bigger site if it came to it. If we included the area of the allotments, I reckon there is even more capital to generate, but what you didn't point out when saying it would be difficult to move them is that a lot of people probably want to keep the allotments there. For that reason, we would be silly to include that land as it would risk upsetting many people."
Whoops! You said in the skatepark thread dated Oct 1st Reply 77
"A community facility to replace Faraday Road stadium, allowing Newbury FC to grow and build a lond term facility, whilst also providing additioanl community football pitches. All of which would be paid by a retailer and no cost being met my the District, with a charity trust set up to run the facilities long term." ."
Brian, if you read the full context, I had previously tried to set up a deal to prevent the land at Shaw from becoming housing. That deal is long dead. What I have said about Faradat=y Road now is that £2m of left over monies from the sale of the current ground and council offices could go towards a replacement facility.
[/color] And just a few posts back, you broached the subject and then like WBC bottled out.
"As for Faraday Road, the offices and Football ground are the main bits that the council could sell, and although I'm not suggesting selling the allotments, we do need more allotments it would seem so we could look at relocating that area to a much bigger site if it came to it. If we included the area of the allotments, I reckon there is even more capital to generate, but what you didn't point out when saying it would be difficult to move them is that a lot of people probably want to keep the allotments there. For that reason, we would be silly to include that land as it would risk upsetting many people."
Yes, I did say "and although I'm not suggesting selling the allotments, we do need more allotments it would seem so we could look at relocating that area to a much bigger site if it came to it" before saying "If we included the area of the allotments, I reckon there is even more capital to generate, but what you didn't point out when saying it would be difficult to move them is that a lot of people probably want to keep the allotments there. For that reason, we would be silly to include that land as it would risk upsetting many people." Just to clarify what I meant by this, the biggest hurdle around moving the allotments would be public opinion. When somebody gave a list of reasons why the allotments shouldn't be moved, they failed to point out public opinion as one of the reasons. For me, that would be the far greatest hurdle.
As I touched on, the only way they COULD move is if there was a much bigger site provided elsewhere, which I'm sure would smooth over the terms of a deal with allotment holders. It's not a fight that I particularly want to have should we be elected, but I am told it's only a temporary facility anyway? By that I mean it's not allocated for allotments, and is provided to Newbury Town Council on a short term basis?
WBC seem to have earmarked the football ground to provide replacement green open space to compensate for the park space taken up by the dreaded pavilion. Which, if nothing else, shows that the land for the pavilion does not come at zero cost.
As for the football club (I admit I am biassed in having zero interest in football) why do they deserve a public subsidy? They are little more than the pub team they were a few years back. What makes them any more deserving that all the other local football teams? Why do they deserve to be given a special ground?
I personally think that a football club can become the focal point of a community, and they do pay a rent (it's not a subsidy from the council). The "Pavillion of Doom" will not be built, they will have to build it over the top of me as I will fight it with everything I have got.
Somebody else may be able to explain as to how the council came to provide a football ground, as far as I am aware it is due to the fact that the club ground back in the old days of the Newbury FC was given to the council below market value in order for help paying off certain debts. This is why the more I think about it, a joint ground with the blues may be a much more exciting and financially viable option?
.......with a charity trust set up to run the facilities long term."
I'm a bit lost on this charitable trust thing that you keep on offering as an alternative. I would really like to know how this works. Who or what is the trust, who organises or runs it. Where does the money come from and does it have to be paid back.
You are bringing up something that I had put in place to stop houses at Shaw a number of months ago. Just to clarify, a sporting trust would have run the community pitches and stadium facilities to generate revenue to pay for the upkeep of those facilities.
By running certain facilities as trusts, you can apply to charity funds and pots of money on a national stage to help fund your project. By giving the Corn Exchange a 30 year lease, they would then find that they could apply for lots of different funding and allow the council to reduce its contribution. By having Shaw House run as a trust, you could have it as a historic attraction, wedding or conference facility or something else, with the council renting space for what it requires. This would allow the facility to generate revenue of its own and depending on use, could apply from funding from other sources. Final example, the Nature Discovery Centre. Either set up a trust to run it locally or give it to the RSPB with covenants and everything else placed on it to prevent any development of the land. The RSPB or a nature trust would be able to secure funding from elsewhere, and they would also be able to monetise the facilities a lot better than the council can and provide a much better facility too.
We need to think outside of the box and look at what the council will look like in future years. If we are only going to have a budget of £80m a year, unfortunately savings are going to have to be made. The thing is, lets protect frontline spending, cut waste and also see what services / facilities / non essentials that we can divolve into community ownership / management to reduce the burden on the council.
Apply for funding? From where? Have you not been paying attention over the last few months?!?
There are still plenty of funding bodies out there, from the Lottery down to smaller specialist or regional bodies. However, there may well be more organisations clamouring for part of the pot, especially if local councils take this route towards reducing costs.
West Berkshire Museum has a problem in that it has lost its status as an accredited museum - which closes the door on many funds that support museums. Before it could survive as a trust some cash would need to be invested to make the buildings viable (not necessarily the grand plans currently being pursued, but at least the resolution of fire safety issues) and get it back on track for full accreditation (probably only needs to satisfy whoever takes on the role of the MLA Council that plans are in place to bring everything up to standard). Of course the abolition of the MLA Council (recently condemned quango) could change everything.
We are working on the manifesto day and night, and our priority is to identify ways to protect frontline services. The museum is probably the trickiest of all mentioned above, and we have yet to set our own plan for the future of that service. What we have requested from West Berks is a detailed analysis of the current situation and why the museum must be "Bale-d out" by the taxpayers (sorry, bit of humour there). If there is a more cost effective way of doing it, then that is the route we must take. With the scale of savings and cuts so severe, can we afford almost £1m on this building? If that money can be found elsewhere, then great. But £1m of taxpayer funds for me is a little excessive. When people are losing jobs and cuts of almost a third are being made, we need to prioritise what provide the greatest benefit in the district,
Blackdog, what are the key issues around the current building?
As I see it the key issues (my personal opinion - I am not privy to WBCs deliberations on this or any other issue) are:
1) The state of repair - years of neglect have left two of Newbury's most important 'heritage' buildings in need of a lot of expense to put right. WBC are required by law to look after these buildings and budgetted around £4-500k for repairs 5-10 years ago but held off doing the work as the lottery funded refurb/enhancement was already being thought of as the 'final' solution. The idea was that the money put aside for repairs would provide the local seed funding that would support the lottery bid. The big plan was delayed as Shaw House took priority - they are now close to putting forward the final lottery bid. The repairs money has sat in the budget for years awaiting this moment.
2) Safety. A fire risk assessment caused the museum to close. I'm sure a relatively low spend would solve this problem - but you would still be left with a crumbling museum. Once again the decision was made not to spend this money and to save it to support the lottery bid accepting that the museum would close in the interim.
3) Lottery. They have decided to go for a regional lottery grant - limiting them to £999.999 as £1,000,000+ bids have to go to a national level, which is felt to have less chance of success.
Nett result - a shortfall of £500k to meet the anticipated cost of £2 million. Added to the previously budgetted repairs money this makes up the £1million spend recently agreed by WBC.
The plan - to repair the listed buildings and to demolish the 1930s building that connects the Cloth Hall and The Granary and replace it, on the same footprint, with a building with improved facilities (eg toilets, lift, etc). I suspect there are also funds in the plan to refurbish displays as well as the buildings. However, I have not seen the plans and am only guessing - I could easily be wrong. I have no idea how they come up with the cost of £2million.
It is easy to see how they got into this situation, and I suspect many of us would have made similar decisions under the prevailing circumstances.
At this stage, with the lottery bid at an advanced stage, it might cost as much to pursue a seemingly cheaper solution than the current plan. As far as I can tell all their eggs are in the lottery funding basket - I'm not sure if they have any fall-back plans.
Until the £2million plan is available for examination it is difficult to see how to save WBC money. They are required by law to maintain the Cloth Hall and Granary - which would probably cost well over £500k today. They would have to do this before handing the museum to a trust - making that option less viable. The only way to save cash short term is more delay - which leads to increased costs down the line (at least they are unlikely to be served an enforcement notice to carry out the repairs - WBC are responsible for issuing such notices). I guess there will be elements of the plan that could be deemed luxuries - but the lottery would take a dim view of cost cutting savings made after they have committed funding.
They could move the museum to an alternative location (many would like to see it in Shaw House) but that wouldn't solve the problem of the Cloth Hall and Granary.
If I were starting from scratch I would look at moving much of it to Shaw House as a West Berkshire Museum with the Cloth Hall kept as a small museum of Newbury. The Granary could be used as small kiosk/shops and the 1930s bit would provide a lift to the upper floor of the Cloth Hall and an access from the Wharf to an arts centre built on the car park behind (and not in the park!). I have no idea what this would cost - it just seems a logical solution, not necessarily a cheap one.
I think there is a lot of merit in that post, and especially within the last paragraph. If certain funds are willing to pay for an arts centre in Town, having it on the car park there may well be the best suggestion I have heard to date. You are obviously looking at a reduction of parking revenue, but I think the pro's outweigh the con's. Has this ever been suggested before?
I have certainly suggested it on this forum and/or the newburytoday forum before - but not as any sort of official manner - though I may have suggested it to my local councillors and one or two other councillors in informal chats. To be honest I can't remember.
As I see it there are two obvious sites - behind the library or behind the museum. Linking it with the museum would seem to offer a way to combine two projects in one - and arts and museum seem to have some things in common. Arts centre space could be used for museum talks, museum objects could be used in arts projects and they could share some educational, office and front of house staff if co-located.
Car parking space is obviously not a problem in Newbury - witness the recent Parkway proposal to lose 105 parking spaces because there is plenty of parking elsewhere! I wonder if that takes into account the planned removal of all parking in front of the Granary and library?
At least there would be some parking left around the arts centre - making it a lot easier for disabled access than in the corner of the park.
Given the continual growth of Newbury the surface parking cannot hope to cope for much longer - how long before the multi-storey car park behind the library comes back into contention?
Male
Logged
