Parking revenue from council owned car parks is to be paid to Parkway owners SLI as part of an agreement between the council and SLI. All parking revenue from Newbury Town Centre car parks that are owned by the council will be split 50-50 between the Council and SLI. It's worth noting that parking revenue brings in around £2m a year for the council, and I'm sure the majority of that comes from Newbury Town Centre.
Who agreed this? Shouldn't that parking revenue belong to the taxpayers? At what meeting did our elected members agree this decision? I've asked the council for an explanation, they have told me I will get a reply within 20 working days. Is anyone who posts here able to shed any more light on this?
Many decisions by WBC have been short sighted or just plain dumb - but, if true, this one takes the biscuit. I thought the deal with SLI to give them a large tract of very valuable development land in the middle of town in return for £1 was a poor one, but was just about justified by a deal to earn £350k £300k a year from the Parkway car park.
I thought the decision to pay SLI £1,000,000 to include some affordable homes, rather than hold them to the original deal in which SLI would fund them, was a mark of desperation by WBC.
The subsequent way they allowed SLI to remove the main public space from the development and cover it with a 60s style concrete monstrosity was just feeble.
Now you are telling me that the West Berks taxpayers will be subsidising SLI to the tune of £700k+ instead of receiving the anticipated £300k!!!!
You couldn't make it up - no - hang on - you are making it up - aren't you? You do realise it's not April 1st?
My email to Nick Carter (which has been passed to an information officer to deal with under FOI):
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.
I have tried to make my own enquiries on this today through various methods and contacts. Lots of promises of "I/we'll get back to you" but so far a deafening silence. Even user23 appears to have been withdrawn for a firmware upgrade.
I have tried to make my own enquiries on this today through various methods and contacts. Lots of promises of "I/we'll get back to you" but so far a deafening silence. Even user23 appears to have been withdrawn for a firmware upgrade.
Perhaps he is out trick or treating?
I've been working, a strange concept to those who spend their days posting on the Internet it seems.
Can you explain how silence can be deafening please? It seems a nonsensical phrase to me.
I've been working, a strange concept to those who spend their days posting on the Internet it seems.
Can you explain how silence can be deafening please? It seems a nonsensical phrase to me.
It would be less costly to the taxpayers if we let you post on the internet all day! Including the rest of the brains at Market Street, we would not be in hock to SLI now then would we?
You were just lurking in the shadows. Can you enlighten us with any snippets that have fallen on the cutting room floor?
Lurkio has been instructed, along with every other member of staff, not to even try and discuss the fiasco with anyone even with other members of staff? Councillors are not available phones not being answered. National press are starting to take an interest as well!
How about commenting on the topic? Why do you think the council are reticent about this issue, as many here seem to be saying?
I rarely use the car parks in Newbury so don't really have an opinion on it, I only posted as Brian mentioned me, however the title of the thread could also be reversed, "SLI owned car park revenue to go to WBC" and it would be true.
Depends if you're a glass half full or empty kind of person I suppose.
I rarely use the car parks in Newbury so don't really have an opinion on it, I only posted as Brian mentioned me, however the title of the thread could also be reversed, "SLI owned car park revenue to go to WBC" and it would be true.
Depends if you're a glass half full or empty kind of person I suppose.
OK, then I'd say millions of pounds worth of council land given to SLI for a £1.00
I rarely use the car parks in Newbury so don't really have an opinion on it, I only posted as Brian mentioned me, however the title of the thread could also be reversed, "SLI owned car park revenue to go to WBC" and it would be true.
Depends if you're a glass half full or empty kind of person I suppose.
Enough comment on the topic for you?
Well your lack of use of car parks didn't stop you having an opinion when WBC increased the charges and extending the chargeable hours. Then you were of the opinion that it could be used by good causes by WBC. Are you now happy for WBC to give away or risk that money to the benefit of SLI?
I suppose that we should be used to this sort of thing from WBC. We discovered recently that West Berkshire Council are already giving £100,000.00 per annum of car parking revenue to the owners of the Kennet Centre.
The original arrangement as I remember was that WBC would support the cinema operator to a maximum of £100k pa if the cinema was running at a loss. There is now every indication that the cinema is running at a very nice profit. However, we are stuck with the current arrangement for five years.
Um, just to get this clear, W.B.C. are giving £100.000.00 of car parking income p.a. NOT to the cinema operators but to the owners of the Kennet Centre. And that this is continuing even though the cinema is in profit?
Plus, they're now giving a sizeable amount to Standard Life from car parks that are nowt to do with Parkway, or indeed, SLI.
I hesitate to use the modern vernacular but WTF?
One wonders how much more is being hidden away.
If any Councillors out there are ashamed, or are annoyed that they've been made to look stupid, or can't sleep at night, if you do feel like turning Queen's evidence, feel free. Now's the time to 'fess up. And this is the place to do it. Seriously, you'll feel much better.
If there is a wall of silence from a Council and it is suspected that there have been deals done which ae not in the public interest, what is the next line of complaint. Is there a council ombudsman or similar.
You have to try and settle any differences you have with WBC first. If you don not agree with their explanations then you escalate you complaint to the LGO. You will need to read up on what the Ombudsman is permitted to deal with though?
Exactly. I can't go to them until I've had a response from the council, and only then would it be escalated if there were grounds to take it further. Hopefully it will all come out in the wash in the morning in the paper?
It appears User23 is unwilling to reply to my question!
Has he been told to shut-up by his boss - or is it that I have hit the nail on the head that he cares not a jot for the residents of Newbury and West Berks - but just for the employees of WBC! ?
Cllr Bale got the facts wrong, there is an agreement based on the number of tickets sold but nobody knows how much it will cost as the figures have not been calculated as it's a complicated formula. I don't know what's worse, the Cllr Bale format or the one we are led to believe that is in place which nobody apparently knows what it will cost. And yet this is presented by the council as being acceptable.
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING HELD ON 15 MAY 2008
Councillors: Barbara Alexander (P), Pamela Bale (P), Geoff Findlay (P), Graham Jones (P), Alan Law (P), Joe Mooney (P), Graham Pask (P), Anthony Stansfeld (P), Emma Webster (P), Laszlo Zverko (P)
Also present: Councillors Jeff Beck, Paul Bryant, Roger Hunneman, Carol Jackson-Doerge, Royce Longton, Gwen Mason, David Rendel, Julian Swift-Hook, Quentin Webb, Keith Woodhams.
"Cllr Bale got the facts wrong" - ffs, she was the meeting, she voted, what did she think she was voting on if she didn't understand it? She was obviously of the opinion that SLI were getting a huge chunk of money, and was happy for them to do so.
I dunno which is worse the council saying she got her facts wrong, or her thinking that it was reasonable to start with.
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING HELD ON 15 MAY 2008
Councillors: Barbara Alexander (P), Pamela Bale (P), Geoff Findlay (P), Graham Jones (P), Alan Law (P), Joe Mooney (P), Graham Pask (P), Anthony Stansfeld (P), Emma Webster (P), Laszlo Zverko (P)
Also present: Councillors Jeff Beck, Paul Bryant, Roger Hunneman, Carol Jackson-Doerge, Royce Longton, Gwen Mason, David Rendel, Julian Swift-Hook, Quentin Webb, Keith Woodhams.
"Cllr Bale got the facts wrong" - ffs, she was the meeting, she voted, what did she think she was voting on if she didn't understand it? She was obviously of the opinion that SLI were getting a huge chunk of money, and was happy for them to do so.
I dunno which is worse the council saying she got her facts wrong, or her thinking that it was reasonable to start with.
Threep.
When questioned if the couucillors actually new what they were voting for the decision was unanimous.....Yes Yes Yes No!
... however the title of the thread could also be reversed, "SLI owned car park revenue to go to WBC" and it would be true.
Are you saying that the Parkway car park is included in the sharing deal? Other sources suggest it and the Kennet Centre park are excluded from the deal.
Be careful how you answer, we don't want any facts emerging from Market Street do we?
WBC is currently fobbing off its electorate by telling us that the deal is too complicated for us to understand - could they be any more patronising?
Has anyone heard of any proposals from our esteemed district councillors to a. reduce the £600,000 they cost us a year in allowances and expenses or b. reduce management overheads by merging West Berks with other councils, as requested by Eric 'Mr Creosote' Pickles?
Surely, at the very least, they should 'delete' (apparently this is the Orwellian term favoured by our council's 'human resources' drones!) the chief executive's post and re-advertise it at no more than two thirds of the current post holder's salary? Who could possibly disagree with that?
Perhaps User could give us the low down, assuming he hasn't already been deleted himself.
Surely, at the very least, they should 'delete' (apparently this is the Orwellian term favoured by our council's 'human resources' drones!) the chief executive's post and re-advertise it at no more than two thirds of the current post holder's salary? Who could possibly disagree with that?
Has anyone heard of any proposals from our esteemed district councillors to a. reduce the £600,000 they cost us a year in allowances and expenses or b. reduce management overheads by merging West Berks with other councils, as requested by Eric 'Mr Creosote' Pickles?
Surely, at the very least, they should 'delete' (apparently this is the Orwellian term favoured by our council's 'human resources' drones!) the chief executive's post and re-advertise it at no more than two thirds of the current post holder's salary? Who could possibly disagree with that?
Perhaps User could give us the low down, assuming he hasn't already been deleted himself.
Somebody was telling me Wokingham have a Chief Executive vacancy, and the same person suggested we could possibly share a Chief Exec with them. I could see Mr Carter going for it, he would get a little pay rise!!!
Somebody was telling me Wokingham have a Chief Executive vacancy, and the same person suggested we could possibly share a Chief Exec with them. I could see Mr Carter going for it, he would get a little pay rise!!!
Why would you want to see the Wokingham taxpayers "Shafted"
Somebody was telling me Wokingham have a Chief Executive vacancy
Makes the case for analysing the possible benefits and savings from a merger even stronger. It would be really interesting to know whether anyone has crunched the numbers on this. As I say Pickles is, for obvious reasons, firmly in favour of mergers but we have no idea whether the idea has even been looked at seriously locally. Perhaps our local council leader is jealous of his position and power base? Perhaps it's been vetoed by the senior staff at WBC? It's easy to think of the pros and cons, but at a time when front line services are being scrapped surely these people have a duty to do everything possible to keep the management overhead to a minimum.
When you're next at Market Street, Richard, perhaps you could ask a few questions?
I can still ask questions in the council meeting during public questions. Whether they give me a straight answer or not...
Why should you expect to be treated any differently than the rest of us? WBC are, to say the least, reluctant to inform the taxpayers of what goes on in it's daily activities. Apart from of course, proving it is very untransparent!
I have been trying to get an understanding of the WBC and SLI parking finance carve up based on the details in Thursday’s NWN. To say that it is complex is an understatement. Usually, when two companies set up a trading deal then the parameters of the deal would be clearly identified. In fact, one would assume that the shareholders would insist on it as open ended agreements with no firm financial basis are open to adjustments which could spell disaster for one of the participants. Based on previous negotiating history, that will not be SLI. Deal variable 1. Keith Ulyatt stated that no clear figure exists and had not been calculated. There is then some strange figure entered into the deal which is ticket sales for a base year. That appears to be 442,749 tickets. Deal variable 2. Tickets were broken down into bands but the vague response to the number of tickets in each band is an unknown factor, certainly to us the taxpayers and by the sound of it, to WBC. Deal variable 3. No financial or monetary value exists from which WBC can calculate the SLI “overage” share. Strange word, but the indication is that either WBC are being very coy about the actual amount of the council income which could be passed on to SLI or worst of all, they have set up a deal which may turn and bite them when SLI ask for their share.
Graham Jones said that it was reasonable that for ten years SLI should gain some return for bringing Parkway to us. I would suggest that it is not reasonable as SLI have already had major incentives from WBC in terms of cheap land, allowing listed buildings to be demolished, kicking out any business that was in situ and in the way, accepting reduced S106 payments, being given substantial finance to retain housing that was agreed to in the original application and allowing a major change to the development to be approved at a late stage. SLI is a commercial concern, they will take the income from the development into the foreseeable future and we have bent over backward to allow them to do what they wanted without hindrance. We have tolerated Northbrook Street being turned at times into a huge building site. We have allowed them to close a through route so that it didn’t impact on them. They have extracted water and although the results are not in and I wonder why, have caused major problems and costs for Victoria Park. They have had their pound of flesh and are going for more with what appears to be a total and secretive deal. From the recent observations, the town is buzzing again and we thank SLI and WBC for that but if we make a profit alongside the Parkway development then it should be ours to keep.
Anyway, thanks Councillor Bale for bringing it to our attention.
What worries me, is the actual point at which car parking occupation is assessed. We all know that less people came into Newbury during the three years of construction work. If the lowest point is taken during this period then SLI will benefit substantially from this profit sharing agreement. Even though they were directly responsible for a substantial reduction in revenue.
What worries me, is the actual point at which car parking occupation is assessed. We all know that less people came into Newbury during the three years of construction work. If the lowest point is taken during this period then SLI will benefit substantially from this profit sharing agreement. Even though they were directly responsible for a substantial reduction in revenue.
Are you trying to imply that our beloved WBC do not know what they have signed up for - shock horror! - It is as obvious as the nose on your face that SLI would not have signed any contract unless they were going to make on it and I don't mean peanuts either?
What worries me, is the actual point at which car parking occupation is assessed. We all know that less people came into Newbury during the three years of construction work. If the lowest point is taken during this period then SLI will benefit substantially from this profit sharing agreement. Even though they were directly responsible for a substantial reduction in revenue.
I put an FOI in about sic working days ago, surely they would have to provide an answer under FOI or can they claim confidentiality?
I would expect that they can claim that but as the deal is done and finished I would have thought that it is no longer confidential but if it is, you may have to wait sixty years before you can search the minutes.
I'm thinking about a new web page search engine to rival Jeeves. I'm calling it "Ask Pam"
I would expect that they can claim that but as the deal is done and finished I would have thought that it is no longer confidential but if it is, you may have to wait sixty years before you can search the minutes.
I'm thinking about a new web page search engine to rival Jeeves. I'm calling it "Ask Pam But I don't expect an answer"
Standard Life Investments (SLI) and West Berks Council (WBC)
SUMMARY
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
50% of Car Parking monies to be paid to SLI once an unknown threshold is reached. (SLI to do all calculations as and when)
Local SLI staff will continue to get a wheelie-bin collection every week.
SLI to be paid 50% of all overdue book fines raised by the Library.
SLI employees to be given transducers to operate all bollards in Newbury and shall be exempt from all car parking charges.
West Berkshire electorate to be entered into a draw and the winners will each get a member of SLI staff for three days over Christmas. They must also provide presents.
SLI to automatically receive 50% of all future S106 monies paid to WBC, and 50% of the existing monies. (once they can be accounted for).
Employees of WBC will each take a member of SLI staff on holiday with them next year.
Members of SLI’s negotiating team shall be allowed to take any or all watches, ties, shirts etc, from any members of WBC’s negotiating team.
West Berks Chief Exec. to attend SLI Christmas party dressed as Santa and to distribute presents bought by himself,
West Berkshire Councillors to put on pantomime at SLI Xmas Party. (if they can find three wise men)
SLI staff to receive 50% of all back-handers presently paid to WBC by property developers.
West Berks poll tax payers will be rota'd to wash the cars of SLI staff each weekend and their house windows every Wednesday.
SLI staff to be given free WBC travel tokens, and, where appropriate, their families given free bus passes.
At all future meetings WBC will supply cake, biscuits, a running finger buffet and a huge bucket of M and M's with the brown ones taken out.
SLI will be responsible for doing all monetary calculations and will tell WBC what is due as and when. So they shouldn’t worry their little heads about it.
WBC will not be allowed to speak to the press about this deal except to say “we didn't / don’t understand it” - “we have no idea yet of the costs involved” or “it's complicated”
West Berks Council to update it’s Facebook status to “We are very happy with our recent SLI deal”
END OF SUMMARY.
This document not be be taken outside the building.
Somebody was telling me Wokingham have a Chief Executive vacancy, and the same person suggested we could possibly share a Chief Exec with them. I could see Mr Carter going for it, he would get a little pay rise!!!
Don't you worry about him. He collects enough of my money already.
Anyway, I don't want to share our Supreme Leader with anyone else (imagine the mileage claims!).
If Carter was Chief Exec of both, at least he would cost US less. Maybe we can send him there to make it brilliant like Newbury? Not that we don't want him, of course...
In parts - some of which they are planning to demolish and build over in their own version of Parkway. From the Wokingham Borough Council website:
The council own several areas of land in the Town Centre and we are using several of these, along with some privately owned sites, to help regenerate the town. Where sites are not in council ownership the council and their partner will seek to negotiate purchase or acquire them through compulsory purchase.
We are currently working with three carefully selected developers to create a scheme that meets the local vision for the Town Centre.
In parts - some of which they are planning to demolish and build over in their own version of Parkway. From the Wokingham Borough Council website:
The council own several areas of land in the Town Centre and we are using several of these, along with some privately owned sites, to help regenerate the town. Where sites are not in council ownership the council and their partner will seek to negotiate purchase or acquire them through compulsory purchase.
We are currently working with three carefully selected developers to create a scheme that meets the local vision for the Town Centre.
Sound familiar?
Have SLI got another pound to invest I wonder? Surely no other council could be the same as WBC could they?
Have SLI got another pound to invest I wonder? Surely no other council could be the same as WBC could they?
Discussing this with concerned Wokinghamites I explained the Parkway development - their response that they hoped they would get off so lightly, but feared they wouldn't.
Just looking at the spaces available boards around the town entrances, the number of spaces always available in Parkway compared with the WBC and KS parking availability, lead me to believe that the average Newbury parker is using any car park but Parkway. I believe that local drivers/shoppers are staggered at the cost to park if they dawdle around doing their shopping and include a latte coffee and cake.
Does this mean that the WBC car park revenue will increase as a result of this boycott bringing the income above the trip level at which SLI need to be re-imbursed. I don't think anyone knows what the trip level is however. Now WBC might say that SLI are entitled to their cut as they are attracting the extra footfall, (or tyre tread fall) but, they, SLI, inherited the car parks in the old Park Way for a pound so I don't see that correlation.
Logged
Male
