Visitor numbers to Newbury have plummeted by 6000 as the recession and Newbury Vision projects continue to hamper local trade, a new survey has revealed.
An independent 'footfall' survey for May 2009 shows visitor numbers to the town are down 1% on the year before, although the figures are skewed by unusual flows of passing trade caused by the construction of the new cinema and Park Way projects.
For example, researchers recorded double the normal traffic outside Millets in Northbrook Street, compared to the year before - due to the opposite pavement being out of bounds while workmen divert a new sewer into Park Way. Similarly, passing trade outside Downer & Co in Cheap Street was up 26% as the pavement by the cinema is out of action. Overall, the total weekly visitor numbers are down by 6000.
Researchers counted traffic at 30 different places across town, and found that 18 had seen extra traffic, while 12 had seen a dip in visitors. While traditional 'hotspots' such as outside Marks & Spencer (down 8%) and Kitchenmonger (up 4%) are holding their own, passing trade in the Blackboys Bridge and Broadway areas remain scarce.
The survey company has also inexplicably stopped counting footfall at the Market Street entrance to the Kennet Centre, which used to regularly see 24,000 people a week pass through where Wimpy used to be, before the entrance was closed for the cinema development.
Newbury fares well with a 1% drop against a 6% drop nationally, however, West Berkshire Council has promised a 15% increase in footfall by the time Park Way is finished in 2011.
West Berkshire Council has promised a 15% increase in footfall by the time Park Way is finished in 2011.
That's alright then.
Can we name names here? Who exactly has promised this? or, to put it another way,...whose resignation can we look forward to if the increase isn't 15%?
The 15% increase should be measured against the current footfall figures, however i would guess that they will be set against the ever diminishing figures and taken from counts just prior to the 2011 opening of the new shopping centre.
Newbury fares well with a 1% drop against a 6% drop nationally, ...
That is pretty impressive - seems that Parkway and the other building projects are not having any negative effect. Or should we be comparing Newbury with local towns rather than a national average?
For example, researchers recorded double the normal traffic outside Millets in Northbrook Street, compared to the year before - due to the opposite pavement being out of bounds while workmen divert a new sewer into Park Way. Similarly, passing trade outside Downer & Co in Cheap Street was up 26% as the pavement by the cinema is out of action. Overall, the total weekly visitor numbers are down by 6000.
So half the figure for the former and by interpretation, down 25% for the latter on previous figures.
1. Those that used to be able to park in M&S now have to walk (that's a big increase in pedestrians)
2. Those that were able to drive into the town centre and park nearby where they wished to shop, now have to walk. (That's another large increase in pedestrians)
3. Those that could park in Park Way and slip through the alleyways to their local shop, yes you guessed it, now have to walk into town (hat's a further large increase in pedestrians)
This is just three examples. If all these, and more are lost, PLUS the 1% reduction in footfall, what is the TRUE figures!
I would bet it is greater than the 6% national average stated!
This is just three examples. If all these, and more are lost, PLUS the 1% reduction in footfall, what is the TRUE figures!
I would bet it is greater than the 6% national average stated!
????
People who drove in and parked in the lost car parks are mainly driving in and parking in the remaining car parks. But where they park, even how they get into town, is irrelevant - footfall measurement counts the number of people walking past particular points (same points each time), and the reported figures show that Newbury is experiencing a far lesser fall in footfall than the national average. A drop in footfall is not good, but such a low decrease indicates that Newbury is doing comparatively well - despite the disruption caused by all the building.
Of course footfall is not the greatest measure of how our local retailers are doing in the recession - turnover and profit margins are what really count.
People who drove in and parked in the lost car parks are mainly driving in and parking in the remaining car parks. But where they park, even how they get into town, is irrelevant - footfall measurement counts the number of people walking past particular points (same points each time), and the reported figures show that Newbury is experiencing a far lesser fall in footfall than the national average. A drop in footfall is not good, but such a low decrease indicates that Newbury is doing comparatively well - despite the disruption caused by all the building.
Of course footfall is not the greatest measure of how our local retailers are doing in the recession - turnover and profit margins are what really count.
I think LocalRes is trying to suggest that there are less people but with Car Park closures they are now being counted at more Footfall Checkpoints!
Apart from that it doesn't show people buying it only shows people wandering around town - possibly on their way to the job centre!
Down only 1%, in the middle of a "Credit Crunch" and against 6% nationally? That's great news.
What most people (Including WBC) don't realise is that the shoppers who parked in Park Way were never counted in previous years. They are now parking in other parts of the town and are now being counted.
A dedicated M & S shopper for instance would park at the rear of M & S complete their shopping and then go home again. They would probably not even venture into Northbrook Street and would therefore never have been counted in previous surveys.
The canal bridge which saw the highest footfall is now taking the increased pedestrian traffic from the Wharf and Kennet Centre, which are the alternative car parks being used by the shoppers who used to park in Park Way.
Ask any of the retailers (Including M & S) and they will tell you that footfall in Newbury is considerably lower than this time last year.
What most people (Including WBC) don't realise is that the shoppers who parked in Park Way were never counted in previous years. They are now parking in other parts of the town and are now being counted.
A dedicated M & S shopper for instance would park at the rear of M & S complete their shopping and then go home again. They would probably not even venture into Northbrook Street and would therefore never have been counted in previous surveys.
The canal bridge which saw the highest footfall is now taking the increased pedestrian traffic from the Wharf and Kennet Centre, which are the alternative car parks being used by the shoppers who used to park in Park Way.
Ask any of the retailers (Including M & S) and they will tell you that footfall in Newbury is considerably lower than this time last year.
Precisely my point!
We are now counting people who would otherwise not have been counted, therefore the 1% footfall is totally unrealistic in relation to the reduced number of shoppers!
A dedicated M & S shopper for instance would park at the rear of M & S complete their shopping and then go home again. They would probably not even venture into Northbrook Street and would therefore never have been counted in previous surveys.
in that case they may have well stayed at home & shopped online.
What most people (Including WBC) don't realise is that the shoppers who parked in Park Way were never counted in previous years. They are now parking in other parts of the town and are now being counted.
How do you know this, seems a bit of an assumption there, grasping at straws.
Truth is a 1% drop, in the middle of a "Credit Crunch" is great news and goes against what the few doom and gloom merchants have been saying.
Please find attached graph (pdf format) of actual numbers of people counted on Thursdaya between the rising bolards in barthlomew street and Northbrook street. This from March 2008 to June 2009.
Julyhttp://www.theretailbulletin.c.....3-08-09/ You will notice that the South East increased, but Wales dropped.....being halfway between the two Newbury should be about level.
"Synovate retail psychologist Dr Tim Denison explained: "We continue to watch these monthly 'will-o'-the-wisp' conditions unfold. There seems almost no rhyme nor reason for the swings in retail statistics; the state of demand is both fluky and fragile. After a dreadfully quiet May, June was considerably better;" He also mentions “subdued state of shopping." That applies to, more or less, everywhere in the country/other countries
“CHESTER’S Forum shopping centre has declared itself a recession-free zone and launched a ‘Smile Thru The Crunch’ campaign, after latest figures showed it was bucking the economic downturn with a massive 3.6% rise in visitors. Footfall figures for the first 12 weeks of 2009 confirmed that the Northgate Street development was attracting more than 350,000 shoppers a month, despite the toughest trading conditions for decades”. That’s a good positive report from Chester. Sniff, sniff … can you smell that breath of fresh air?
Kennet Shopping – June 26.3% increase on previous month 8.6% down on same period in 2008. 363,185 people in the toughest trading conditions as well as major development works. It would seem the only area that didn’t increase in June was where CASE525 was standing. The yo-yoing figures showed July decrease even though Thursdays footfall increased over the free parking period. Oddly some Tuesdays showed an increase too.
Kennet Shopping – June 26.3% increase on previous month 8.6% down on same period in 2008. 363,185 people in the toughest trading conditions as well as major development works. It would seem the only area that didn’t increase in June was where CASE525 was standing. The yo-yoing figures showed July decrease even though Thursdays footfall increased over the free parking period. Oddly some Tuesdays showed an increase too.
His graph is a bit daft, it says it demonstrates Actual Counted Numbers when it doesn't, there are no units on there at all bar the months.
I don't think it's a reliable source, especially if the numbers you post here are correct.
His graph is a bit daft, it says it demonstrates Actual Counted Numbers when it doesn't, there are no units on there at all bar the months.
I don't think it's a reliable source, especially if the numbers you post here are correct.
My numbers are correct. The graph below is accurate and probably reflects what is happening in a lot of shopping centres. As you can see the peaks and troughs for each year are almost identical. Numbers have decreased each year but that's what is happening in most areas. You can see that by the comparison to the National Benchmark. All things considered I think it compares very favourably, especially when you take into consideration one of the main entrances has been shut off for over a year coupled with the general disruption and the economy.
Compare this graph with the CASE525's. It's not the same is it. What I don't understand, with his/hers is how December 08 is a lower peak to May 08, there's something wrong there. November/December have always and will always reach the highest peak and it will be interesting to see how high this year's figures climb.
So, just to clarify here (and to cut to the chase), we know that things are bad all over, but are we now being asked to believe that the current building works, road works, lane closures, removal of parking spaces, etc etc are having NO additional effect on the retailers in Newbury Town?
Any shopkeepers out there like to come on here and tell us that the antics of WBC/Vue/the Vision have actually helped them in this time of crisis?
So, just to clarify here (and to cut to the chase), we know that things are bad all over, but are we now being asked to believe that the current building works, road works, lane closures, removal of parking spaces, etc etc are having NO additional effect on the retailers in Newbury Town?
Your clarification only demonstrates your misunderstanding and adds confusion rather than clearing it. I would have been more long winded and put it in this more balanced way: We know that things are bad all over and the current building works, road works, lane closures, removal of parking spaces, etc etc are effecting a lot of the retailers in Newbury Town. We do have some facts that prove footfall, at least in certain parts of the town centre, is not disproportionate to the rest of the UK in these difficult times. It wouldn't be unreasonable to conclude that, had Newbury not had the addition of major disruption, it could easily be faring much better than the rest of the UK
Compare this graph with the CASE525's. It's not the same is it. What I don't understand, with his/hers is how December 08 is a lower peak to May 08, there's something wrong there. November/December have always and will always reach the highest peak and it will be interesting to see how high this year's figures climb.
Indeed, someone more sceptical that I might suggest that her/his figures (I say figures, there are actually no figures on the graph) are made up.
Indeed, someone more sceptical that I might suggest that her/his figures (I say figures, there are actually no figures on the graph) are made up.You seem to have forgotten the 700+ new spaces when Park Way is finished.
Which might (exclusively) spell good news for the new Parkway shops.
It wouldn't be unreasonable to conclude that, had Newbury not had the addition of major disruption, it could easily be faring much better than the rest of the UK
So Newbury might well have escaped the worse effects of the recession had it not been for WBC and its plans?
So Newbury might well have escaped the worse effects of the recession had it not been for WBC and its plans?
You know when someone has an addiction they find every which way to feed their habit? That's what this reminds me of, you keep bending anything that gives a reasonable view of how things are in Newbury so you can have a stab at the council. Get help Threep, start by standing up and saying "My name is Threep and I'm a bender"
Newbury hasn't totally escaped the worse effects of the recession but my point is, as the thread is about the diminishing footfall, that it isn't totally down to the disruption as some people keep trying to make out. It doesn't help but then neither do some people help themselves in trying to make things better
It wouldn't be unreasonable to conclude that, had Newbury not had the addition of major disruption, it could easily be faring much better than the rest of the UK
Your words. What other interpretation is there?
"Vision projects keep shoppers at bay" is the name of this thread. Good to see you agree with it.
No offence, but you come across as a "glass half empty" kind of person. Have you anything positive to say about Newbury at all?
Ok here's YET another crowdpuller from the Meddler Bank of Free Ideas to Keep Newbury Special.
We'll get the fourth plinth moved down from Trafalgar Sq, you can stand on it, and presto! we have our own pedants corner. I might even ram my half empty glass where the sun don't shine.
Ok here's YET another crowdpuller from the Meddler Bank of Free Ideas to Keep Newbury Special.
We'll get the fourth plinth moved down from Trafalgar Sq, you can stand on it, and presto! we have our own pedants corner. I might even ram my half empty glass where the sun don't shine.
That's a "no" to my question then. Perhaps you should move if you're so unhappy here; the obsession Factfile spoke of seems to be bordering on manic depression.
That's a "no" to my question then. Perhaps you should move if you're so unhappy here; the obsession Factfile spoke of seems to be bordering on manic depression.
One might have plenty to complain about their favourite football team, but that doesn't mean they would go and support someone else.
Ok, FF we'll take your wording a little at a time...
"had Newbury not had the addition of major disruption," by this, correct me if I'm wrong, you were saying that on top of the recession, Newbury also has had 'major disruption' to deal with..
"it could easily be faring much better than the rest of the UK" by this I assume you meant that it (Newbury) could be surviving the recession better than the rest of the country...if only it wasn't for the 'major distruption'
That 'major disruption' (your words) has been caused by the Vision, Vue, and badly timed roadworks by WBC.
Therefore it is not unreasonable to to agree with you, that Newbury could have done better if it were not for this 'major disruption'. Put it another way, it could be taken from your statements that Newbury has done worse that it should have because of the Vision etc etc..
If you care to check, my stance has not waivered....but then I'm not an apologist for Kennet Shopping trying to put a brave face on it..
Your loyalty does you proud, but elsewhere on this forum I posed the question...
"Any shopkeepers out there like to come on here and tell us that the antics of WBC/Vue/the Vision have actually helped them in this time of crisis?"
"had Newbury not had the addition of major disruption," by this, correct me if I'm wrong, you were saying that on top of the recession, Newbury also has had 'major disruption' to deal with.. Yes that's exactly what I said
"it could easily be faring much better than the rest of the UK" by this I assume you meant that it (Newbury) could be surviving the recession better than the rest of the country...if only it wasn't for the 'major distruption' It wouldn't have been impossible given that the current footfall is on a par with other towns. Newbury fared better than many other towns in the last recession. Remember I am only talking about footfall, even if it was way above other towns it wouldn't necessarily mean that all businesses were thriving on it (that part is up to them) That 'major disruption' (your words) has been caused by the Vision, Vue, and badly timed roadworks by WBC. You only needed to use the term Vision as the other two form part of it. Therefore it is not unreasonable to to agree with you, that Newbury could have done better if it were not for this 'major disruption'. Yes Put it another way, it could be taken from your statements that Newbury has done worse that it should have because of the Vision etc etc.. Yes but, at least, we know there's an end to the disruption, or at least some of it by November, (Vue are expecting Newbury to be very successful and will attract an extra 300,000 visitors per annum) whereas we don't know when the end of the recession is If you care to check, my stance has not waivered....but then I'm not an apologist for Kennet Shopping trying to put a brave face on it.. Putting a brave face on it implies that what I have said is a pretence/masking a bad situation, I don't believe I have. I have posted facts that show true figures of footfall that don't compare with that of CASE525's, which was the point of posting. I haven't made out that footfall has not decreased but merely suggested that it shouldn't all be blamed on the disruption which, even you, must surely realise is not the case. Your loyalty does you proud, but elsewhere on this forum I posed the question... "Any shopkeepers out there like to come on here and tell us that the antics of WBC/Vue/the Vision have actually helped them in this time of crisis?" Still no replies... What Vue antics? They've only been on site for a couple of weeks and they're just doing what they are there to do, finish the cinema in time for a November opening. Good luck in your quest for replies
I will when you start taking your medication. So I mentioned the increase that happened in one month compared to the previous month. I'm talking year on year and you know it. I honestly thought you would have grasped all this
It was also featured on South Today last Monday when the BBC did a report on Newbury's continuous roadworks.
Yes we know all that. Nobody seems to be getting my point. I have not said that trade isn't down, I have not said footfall isn't down. What I have tried to do is give a more accurate report on the footfall and try and balance out that the disruption is not the only issue causing a problem with trading in Newbury. Doesn't anyone understand this?
"The council said it took over control of traffic wardens from the police in April and says it is duty bound to enforce parking laws". When the Police were in charge, they never felt it that important.
Yes we know all that. Nobody seems to be getting my point. I have not said that trade isn't down, I have not said footfall isn't down. What I have tried to do is give a more accurate report on the footfall and try and balance out that the disruption is not the only issue causing a problem with trading in Newbury. Doesn't anyone understand this?
They don't want to admit they understand as it could prove what they say to be incorrect.
"Full many a flower is born to blush unseen, And waste its sweetness on the desert air". Threep.
Yes, lovely excerpt from a miserable poem, here's another from the same one for you "Hard by yon wood, now smiling as in scorn, Muttering his wayward fancies he would rove; Now drooping, woeful wan, like one forlorn, Or crazed with care, or cross'd in hopeless love.
I'll leave User to respond directly to that one but maybe someone could let me know if what I have said is incorrect?
That's just it, I don't think anyone that is currently posting here can say, except maybe yourself.
From my point of view, Newbury seems to be coping with the disruption and perhaps the economic slump might have been 'handy' for the Council while they do what they are doing.
What is clear is all projects seem to over run by some margin and there seems to be a culture of being economic with information, like how long things will take. The council cannot be blamed for some of the things that have gone wrong, but to Mr Punter, they seem to lack good planning. And of course, it seems the decision to place the Cinema where it is seems to have been one of the sponsors of the new parking restrictions and charges.
That's just it, I don't think anyone that is currently posting here can say, except maybe yourself.
From my point of view, Newbury seems to be coping with the disruption and perhaps the economic slump might have been 'handy' for the Council while they do what they are doing.
What is clear is all projects seem to over run by some margin and there seems to be a culture of being economic with information, like how long things will take. The council cannot be blamed for some of the things that have gone wrong, but to Mr Punter, they seem to lack good planning. And of course, it seems the decision to place the Cinema where it is seems to have been one of the sponsors of the new parking restrictions and charges.
I can only go on the information I have and try to give a more balanced view, rather than blaming all problems on one issue. It doesn't mean that the 'one issue' isn't having an effect, in some cases more than others. Having looked back at the records 2006, 2007 show decent increases in footfall then it starts to decrease slowly. I would say we are on a par with 2005 figures at the moment. Areas of the shopping centre have consistently been top or near the top of the highest footfall counts that are carried out annually throughout the town but, going by the fact that the trends are consistent (monthly peaks and troughs) every year, I suspect the high street are experiencing the same level of decrease but other areas are possibly suffering more. I must repeat that this doesn't always reflect the level of trade but a higher footfall offers more opportunities.
I really don't think that anyone has intentionally tried to be economic with the truth (which is really what you meant when you said 'information'). I reckon there aren't many projects that don't over run and however well you plan you can't plan for every hitch or change of circumstance.
I can only go on the information I have and try to give a more balanced view, rather than blaming all problems on one issue. It doesn't mean that the 'one issue' isn't having an effect, in some cases more than others. Having looked back at the records 2006, 2007 show decent increases in footfall then it starts to decrease slowly. I would say we are on a par with 2005 figures at the moment. Areas of the shopping centre have consistently been top or near the top of the highest footfall counts that are carried out annually throughout the town but, going by the fact that the trends are consistent (monthly peaks and troughs) every year, I suspect the high street are experiencing the same level of decrease but other areas are possibly suffering more. I must repeat that this doesn't always reflect the level of trade but a higher footfall offers more opportunities.
I really don't think that anyone has intentionally tried to be economic with the truth (which is really what you meant when you said 'information'). I reckon there aren't many projects that don't over run and however well you plan you can't plan for every hitch or change of circumstance.
Your information is based on footfall which, as you rightly say, doesn't always translate into trade. My experience is that the trends shown on the graphs at the start of this thread correlate very well with the level of trade I am experiencing. So it may be that everyone's view is valid and correct but not necessarily comparable.
I am an independent retailer and the level of trade I experience is going down month by month with some very strange exceptions (one week in June was higher than the Christmas peak!).
With regard to business rates, I notice that I can now defer a portion of the rates until 2010. I haven't approached WBC for a reduction simply because I know from past experience how long and difficult a task this can be. I am not big and have very little hope of making any impact.
Your information is based on footfall which, as you rightly say, doesn't always translate into trade. My experience is that the trends shown on the graphs at the start of this thread correlate very well with the level of trade I am experiencing. So it may be that everyone's view is valid and correct but not necessarily comparable.
I am an independent retailer and the level of trade I experience is going down month by month with some very strange exceptions (one week in June was higher than the Christmas peak!).
With regard to business rates, I notice that I can now defer a portion of the rates until 2010. I haven't approached WBC for a reduction simply because I know from past experience how long and difficult a task this can be. I am not big and have very little hope of making any impact.
I haven't checked but I don't think the graphs you refer to say where exactly the counter is standing. This makes a difference of course. Your name suggests that you trade in Bartholomew Street, if I'm correct, is that the North or South end? Does that graph correlate with your business correctly over the Christmas period because it's very unusual for that period to be worse than any other time of year, even though you say one week in June was better.
There is no real pattern to trading. I have spoken to people who have been trading fairly well for weeks and it will suddenly change dramatically without rhyme or reason. When this happens it's hard to know how to deal with it. Footfall figures are good to know, for me, it would be more useful to know where the visitors are actually going.
I think most people think the way you do about trying to get a reduction on rates, maybe that's what the valuation office banks on. Perhaps a group of traders should get together and get an expert to sort it out on your behalf.
I haven't checked but I don't think the graphs you refer to say where exactly the counter is standing. This makes a difference of course. Your name suggests that you trade in Bartholomew Street, if I'm correct, is that the North or South end? Does that graph correlate with your business correctly over the Christmas period because it's very unusual for that period to be worse than any other time of year, even though you say one week in June was better.
There is no real pattern to trading. I have spoken to people who have been trading fairly well for weeks and it will suddenly change dramatically without rhyme or reason. When this happens it's hard to know how to deal with it. Footfall figures are good to know, for me, it would be more useful to know where the visitors are actually going.
I think most people think the way you do about trying to get a reduction on rates, maybe that's what the valuation office banks on. Perhaps a group of traders should get together and get an expert to sort it out on your behalf.
Yes, the graph matches Christmas trade which was significantly down on 2007. We actually took more in November, although the daily peaks for the first 10 days in December were higher. July this year was the worst we've had. This also shows in the graphs.
I can't afford an expert to sort out rates, even if it were shared amongst other retailers. The cost, I believe, would be more than any reduction I could expect. So, as you say, it is probably assumed that this is the case from the valuation office.
I don't know enough about business rates to comment on what you have said. I do recall a few years back when the new entrances were built for the centre, it was inconvenient for a few but nothing like the issues you have now, I'm fairly sure, at least, one retailer was successful with claiming. You probably know more than I do but I can't believe there is nothing anyone can do.
You must have seen this on WBC website Hardship relief This discretionary relief may be granted by the Council if you are experiencing temporary hardship and your business is considered to be important to the local community. Applications should be made in writing, supplying copies of the last two years audited accounts. Please contact us if you need any further advice about making an application.
How they fathom which businesses are important I don't know but wouldn't you have enough proof to back your claim up?
I don't know enough about business rates to comment on what you have said. I do recall a few years back when the new entrances were built for the centre, it was inconvenient for a few but nothing like the issues you have now, I'm fairly sure, at least, one retailer was successful with claiming. You probably know more than I do but I can't believe there is nothing anyone can do.
You must have seen this on WBC website Hardship relief This discretionary relief may be granted by the Council if you are experiencing temporary hardship and your business is considered to be important to the local community. Applications should be made in writing, supplying copies of the last two years audited accounts. Please contact us if you need any further advice about making an application.
How they fathom which businesses are important I don't know but wouldn't you have enough proof to back your claim up?
Its worth a try. I'll see what happens when I talk to them.
It is extremely difficult to get any sort of reduction on your business rates. You normally have to employ a professional to undertake this for you. Apart from the satisfaction of proving to the council that are/have been serious problems you are unlikely to gain financially once your professional person has taken his fee.
Unfortunately West Berkshire Council are in denial that there have been any problems in Newbury during the upheaval. They are still quoting their flawed footfall figures. The same week that WBC produced their figures indicating a slight increase year on year, properly prepared figures from Kennet Shopping indicated a ten per cent decrease year on year. Figures produced by a large store in Northbrook Street indicated a fifteen per cent decrease in footfall for the same week year on year.
It is extremely difficult to get any sort of reduction on your business rates. You normally have to employ a professional to undertake this for you. Apart from the satisfaction of proving to the council that are/have been serious problems you are unlikely to gain financially once your professional person has taken his fee.
I don't doubt that but it must be worth trying rather than doing nothing. If the disruption has made a difference then some retailers trading figures should reflect this.
I don't doubt that but it must be worth trying rather than doing nothing. If the disruption has made a difference then some retailers trading figures should reflect this.
Surely WBC would just say that it is the recession causing any trading slump - they are in constant denial that their actions could ever be detrimental (probably to avoid any financial claim against them). Remember - their planners won't enforce planning laws in case they get sued.
Surely WBC would just say that it is the recession causing any trading slump - they are in constant denial that their actions could ever be detrimental (probably to avoid any financial claim against them). Remember - their planners won't enforce planning laws in case they get sued.
They maybe in constant denial that's why it is up to the businesses who truly feel the disruption has caused further hardship on top of the recession. For instance: Waterstones figures would probably show a dip from the date the works started outside their store. I don't deny it won't be difficult, there are some retailers who continue to trade very well all things considered. It all comes down to factual accounts and that it isn't only a 'one off' business nsuffering.
They maybe in constant denial that's why it is up to the businesses who truly feel the disruption has caused further hardship on top of the recession. For instance: Waterstones figures would probably show a dip from the date the works started outside their store. I don't deny it won't be difficult, there are some retailers who continue to trade very well all things considered. It all comes down to factual accounts and that it isn't only a 'one off' business nsuffering.
I agree that action is better than words. The actions of pedestrianising and restricting parking is what has caused a large portion of the issues. Constant building has also not helped. Is this sufficient cause to get relief? I will find out.
Perhaps traders should get together and sue WBC for damages - it seems that legal action is the only thing that WBC are actually worried about.
The drawback to that being that traders would in reality be suing the tax payers of West Berkshire as we would have to pay for any damages awarded. This in turn would lead to higher Council Tax and less cash for West Berkshire residents to spend in the emporiums of Newbury.
As an aside, does the Council have the power to put up Business Rates for those businesses that profit from the improvements?
Probably but I would have thought that the rates were were already high enough to cover it.
Excuse my ignorance, but to cover what?
I'm just thinking that if traders gain compensation if their profits are down due to work carried out by the Council, then perhaps there is scope for the pendulum to swing the other way and the Council gain from traders benefiting from work carried out.
I'm just thinking that if traders gain compensation if their profits are down due to work carried out by the Council, then perhaps there is scope for the pendulum to swing the other way and the Council gain from traders benefiting from work carried out.
I understand what you are thinking, I recall a landlord, many years ago, saying "Why should we compensate for poor trade when we never ask for extra rent when trading exceeds expectations"
It depends on the situation I suppose. I imagine there are retailers who are struggling through no fault of their own and if the disruption in the town is putting them into hardship then one way of helping them through it is to give some relief on rates. Presumably through their rates they contribute to the roads, which, currently, are making access more difficult for some. Businesses will feel this is something imposed on them and have little control in changing in time to keep them afloat until the improvements are complete.
In other words they may not survive to reap the benefits of the improvements
The drawback to that being that traders would in reality be suing the tax payers of West Berkshire as we would have to pay for any damages awarded. This in turn would lead to higher Council Tax and less cash for West Berkshire residents to spend in the emporiums of Newbury.
Whilst this is true it could still be worth it. Any decrease in local spending caused by a hike in council tax would probably be less than the amount received in damages (I am assuming they win the case - otherwise there would be no need to increase the tax).
The big bonus would be a council that did less to mess up the town by imposing non-stop development.
Its worth a try. I'll see what happens when I talk to them.
Here's a couple of tips to try and get your rates re-valued (proposal to alter list)
You must make your proposal whilst the disruption is in progress. You cannot do it retrospectively. If, say, you did it now and were successful it would be back dated to the beginning and cover to the end of the period of disruption.
You must demonstrate with facts such as photos, accounts and any other relative records.
You then have to agree a reduction. I guess if your trade was down by 10% due to the recession and your records show that the start of disruption caused a further 10% drop, a reasonable reduction in rates would be 10%.
Here's a couple of tips to try and get your rates re-valued (proposal to alter list)
You must make your proposal whilst the disruption is in progress. You cannot do it retrospectively. If, say, you did it now and were successful it would be back dated to the beginning and cover to the end of the period of disruption.
You must demonstrate with facts such as photos, accounts and any other relative records.
You then have to agree a reduction. I guess if your trade was down by 10% due to the recession and your records show that the start of disruption caused a further 10% drop, a reasonable reduction in rates would be 10%.
Thanks. This is very helpful. Fortunately I have a number of photos and a record of numbers and value of sales. The only issue I can see is how subjective the credit crunch numbers are.
Whilst this is true it could still be worth it. Any decrease in local spending caused by a hike in council tax would probably be less than the amount received in damages (I am assuming they win the case - otherwise there would be no need to increase the tax).
Worth it for the individual, not for us residents though. I personally would boycott any shop that tried to sue us taxpayers unless they promised to pay any windfall they got back when times were better,
I'm just thinking that if traders gain compensation if their profits are down due to work carried out by the Council, then perhaps there is scope for the pendulum to swing the other way and the Council gain from traders benefiting from work carried out.
Indeed but perhaps the council staff who come up with these wonderful schemes should have their pay and conditions linked to traders income.
Namely reduced/deferred income say 50% (if that was how much trade is down) when trade picks up you start to get your 50% back plus an increase if it booms. If it doesn't you lose your job and no compensation.
How do you feel your WBC colleagues would feel about that???
Indeed but perhaps the council staff who come up with these wonderful schemes should have their pay and conditions linked to traders income.
Given that they are carrying out the wishes of the people of West Berkshire who voted for a party who clearly stated that these improvements would go ahead I don't think that would be appropriate.
It would seem a strange move to penalise your WBC colleagues for doing what the people wished.
Worth it for the individual, not for us residents though. I personally would boycott any shop that tried to sue us taxpayers unless they promised to pay any windfall they got back when times were better,
Do you boycott Starbucks? They flouted the planning regs and got away with it because WBC were afraid to stop them in case they sued.
Given that they are carrying out the wishes of the people of West Berkshire who voted for a party who clearly stated that these improvements would go ahead I don't think that would be appropriate.
It would seem a strange move to penalise your WBC colleagues for doing what the people wished.
I would agree with this if there had been a party (and not just a couple of individuals) standing in the last election that were against the 'Vision'. As it was the two contending parties were both signed up to it meaning that it was not an election issue.
I would agree with this if there had been a party (and not just a couple of individuals) standing in the last election that were against the 'Vision'. As it was the two contending parties were both signed up to it meaning that it was not an election issue.
The anti-Vision candidates finished 5th and 6th place out of 6 and they were standing in one of the Wards most affected in the short term by the improvements. Not that this should deter them or anyone else from standing again, we need more people standing up for what they believe in.
The anti-Vision candidates finished 5th and 6th place out of 6 and they were standing in one of the Wards most affected in the short term by the improvements. Not that this should deter them or anyone else from standing again, we need more people standing up for what they believe in.
Sadly people vote primarily for the party they want to see in power - who the local candidate is bears little influence on their voting. This means that independents don't have a chance - however good they are. Single issue candidates are also doomed to failure on all but a very few special occasions. If the Lib Dems started now by apolgising for the mess they got us into and set out some policies to prevent further Basingstokeisation of Newbury it would improve their chances of getting back into power.
Yes, but not for those reasons. I'm not a big fan of how operate.The anti-Vision candidates finished 5th and 6th place out of 6 and they were standing in one of the Wards most affected in the short term by the improvements. Not that this should deter them or anyone else from standing again, we need more people standing up for what they believe in.
Under the current political system, it would be a waste of time. Incidentally, the Tories came into power in Newbury, pretending to be slightly cynical about the Vision (only to carry on as the Lib Dems did). I certainly voted Tory on this basis.
Under the current political system, it would be a waste of time. Incidentally, the Tories came into power in Newbury, pretending to be slightly cynical about the Vision (only to carry on as the Lib Dems did). I certainly voted Tory on this basis.
Which is just one more reason for candidates to stand on their personal beliefs and what they can do for Newbury rather than having a bias to a Westminster political party.
Which is just one more reason for candidates to stand on their personal beliefs and what they can do for Newbury rather than having a bias to a Westminster political party.
We could all agree that this makes sense - but it won't stop votes being cast for parties rather than candidates. The system sucks - but it ain't about to change.
We could all agree that this makes sense - but it won't stop votes being cast for parties rather than candidates. The system sucks - but it ain't about to change.
People have a choice to vote for whichever candidate they wish, you can't blame the system for people voting for parties.
what nobody seems to understand about Newbury is that the high street, the market, the kennet centre and all the other shops ARE RUBBISH!!!!!!! (that Gizmo shop in the kennet, the awful record shop and pc shop duo near the wharf, and the are prime examples)
No wonder people go elsewhere. Why on earth would you want to come here, regardless of this supposed plot to drive shoppers away (which, lets face it, is rubbish)
what nobody seems to understand about Newbury is that the high street, the market, the kennet centre and all the other shops ARE RUBBISH!!!!!!! (that Gizmo shop in the kennet, the awful record shop and pc shop duo near the wharf, and the are prime examples)
No wonder people go elsewhere. Why on earth would you want to come here, regardless of this supposed plot to drive shoppers away (which, lets face it, is rubbish)
Which is just one more reason for candidates to stand on their personal beliefs and what they can do for Newbury rather than having a bias to a Westminster political party.
I couldn't agree more. We need mroe of the moaners to put their money where their mouth is and stand for election.
You'll have to explain this one then. How can we blame the system for people voting for a party and not a person, baring in mind we can't ban political parties?
.You'll have to explain this one then. How can we blame the system for people voting for a party and not a person, baring in mind we can't ban political parties?
Here's the conundrum.
1) I like the individual views of some of the party candidates which happen to match the party line. I vote for one of them . The party decides to change the policy and influences its members to toe the line. I don't get what I voted for.
2) I like the views of the independent candidate. I vote for him/her. He/she gets elected. The main parties don't agree with these views and can use their influence to get their views implemented. I don't get what I voted for.
So the most pragmatic approach is to either vote for the party that has policies that are vaguely what I am looking for or not vote at all.
(Worse than this is proportional representation that means that even if I vote for the person I like, the vote is used to bolster the party and someone I don't like/agree with gets my vote to do what I don't want)
How can we blame the system for people voting for a party and not a person
Our political system has 'evolved' to a state where democratically elected representatives are told what to do, how to vote etc by their party policy makers (many of whom are not elected). The result is that the only voting option that makes sense is to vote for the party that you think will do the least damage. Who the local candidate is makes no difference whatsoever.
Our political system has 'evolved' to a state where democratically elected representatives are told what to do, how to vote etc by their party policy makers (many of whom are not elected). The result is that the only voting option that makes sense is to vote for the party that you think will do the least damage. Who the local candidate is makes no difference whatsoever.
Our political system has 'evolved' to a state where democratically elected representatives are told what to do, how to vote etc by their party policy makers (many of whom are not elected). The result is that the only voting option that makes sense is to vote for the party that you think will do the least damage. Who the local candidate is makes no difference whatsoever.
The system hasn't evolved that way, it's always been like that since it was Whigs against Tories, I thought you might know this as you used to work in the Museum and probably have an interest in history.
The only way to get round this is for more independent people to put their money where their mouth is and stand for election.
If they can't raise the money for the deposit then they don't deserve to be elected. I think it's about 500 quid which they get back anyway if they poll over a certain percentage of the vote. That's for Westminster, I'm not sure about Newbury.
The only way to get round this is for more independent people to put their money where their mouth is and stand for election.
Individuals do not stand much chance of winning a council seat as the main parties have a budget for election which provides the bandstand for "what we will do as a party and how the other side cocked it up". We then get, at election time, a flag pinned to the mast of a Westminster party. The electorate are now voting for their chosen Westminster political party and not an individual. Once the elections have finished, the various boys and girls count their score to see who will have the power and who, the losers, will become the opposition. The people in Westminster seem to need this wasteful division as it helps them to work out if they will win or lose the next general election. We do not need this type of politics at local level, it is wasteful of manpower, (in a non sexist way), instead, we need a body of people who will work for the local good and make informed decisions on the future of West Berks without reference to the party leader to see which way the wind blows.
Individuals do not stand much chance of winning a council seat as the main parties have a budget for election which provides the bandstand for "what we will do as a party and how the other side cocked it up".
True but individuals have no chance of winning if they don't stand for election.
True but individuals have no chance of winning if they don't stand for election.
If you are not part of the collective; i.e. belong to a party then you've got no chance. And even if you did get in you could never make a difference. The parties have it tied up.
If you are not part of the collective; i.e. belong to a party then you've got no chance. And even if you did get in you could never make a difference. The parties have it tied up.
They've only got it "tied up" if that's how everyone thinks.
You really can't blame the parties or the system, you have to blame people not standing in an election.
Richard Taylor and George Galloway are current MPs. Why can't more people not affiliated with the major parties do so?
First of all they are established people. Galloway was in the Labour party so had a base to work from.
True - he was first elected as the Labour candidate, then got famous (mainly for his trips to have tea with Saddam) and ejected from the party. His local electorate stood by him - odd but it happened.
Isn't Richard Taylor the doctor who stood as an independent? Again he had a base and support. an ordinary person wouldn't have been able to do that.
Don't recognise the name, but I suspect he was the chap who stood in Gloucestershire somewhere on a single issue platform - to close or not to close the local hospital. From what I recall most parties withdrew their candidates to leave him as the only candidate opposing the sitting MP. This made the hospital issue the only issue (for all I know Dr Taylor spends his time in the House voting exactly as the chap he defeated would have on all other issues).
Neither situation is particularly relevant to WBC unless, for instance, the Lib Dems would agree to not field candidates in a Newbury ward so that an anti-vision candidate could stand. Which won't happen.
The real shame is that Mike Rodger legged it to Carlisle - if he had stood for re-election we might have seen an independent elected. Not that he was anti-vision but he did seem to start thinking more for himself on such issues after he fell out with the local Lib-Dem politburo.
The first reform that is needed, and easy to implement, is to ban the printing of the party affiliation on ballot papers. At least it would force people to know their party's candidate's name.
I fear Cartergrad is too far advanced to be stopped.
One last chance would be
1. An elected mayor. We would need 3000 West Berks signatures on a petition to force a referendum. 2. If successful (only 1 in 3 supported in England so far), we get behind a single independent to defeat the party machines on voting day. 3. New independent mayor fulfils manifesto pledge on Day 1 by sacking Carter and scrapping the Vision for Cartergrad. 4. Day 2 - Mayor fulfills another manifesto pledge by changing User 23's job title so he has to clean the Victoria Park pond.
Anything else for the manifesto (sensible only please!)
Richard Taylor and George Galloway are current MPs. Why can't more people not affiliated with the major parties do so?
Apart from the fact that they are Westminster independents and therefore have no relevance to local elected persons, what difference do two independents make when it comes to a vote.
True - he was first elected as the Labour candidate, then got famous (mainly for his trips to have tea with Saddam) and ejected from the party. His local electorate stood by him - odd but it happened.
Don't recognise the name, but I suspect he was the chap who stood in Gloucestershire somewhere on a single issue platform - to close or not to close the local hospital. From what I recall most parties withdrew their candidates to leave him as the only candidate opposing the sitting MP. This made the hospital issue the only issue (for all I know Dr Taylor spends his time in the House voting exactly as the chap he defeated would have on all other issues).
Neither situation is particularly relevant to WBC unless, for instance, the Lib Dems would agree to not field candidates in a Newbury ward so that an anti-vision candidate could stand. Which won't happen.
The real shame is that Mike Rodger legged it to Carlisle - if he had stood for re-election we might have seen an independent elected. Not that he was anti-vision but he did seem to start thinking more for himself on such issues after he fell out with the local Lib-Dem politburo.
The first reform that is needed, and easy to implement, is to ban the printing of the party affiliation on ballot papers. At least it would force people to know their party's candidate's name.
Apart from the fact that they are Westminster independents and therefore have no relevance to local elected persons, what difference do two independents make when it comes to a vote.
I don't understand, how do they have no relevance to local elected persons?
I don't understand, how do they have no relevance to local elected persons?
Perhaps you could explain your understanding of two persons elected to Westminster influencing WBC elected council. I'm sure I would find this most helpful.
Perhaps you could explain your understanding of two persons elected to Westminster influencing WBC elected council. I'm sure I would find this most helpful.
Perhaps you could explain your understanding of two persons elected to Westminster influencing WBC elected council. I'm sure I would find this most helpful.
I was using these two as an example that it is possible for an independent to be elected to Westminster. I hope you understand now but please do ask more questions if you wish.
I was using these two as an example that it is possible for an independent to be elected to Westminster. I hope you understand now but please do ask more questions if you wish..
I had grasped that but as we are talking about local government and the pointless party divisions at local level, I ask again, what has the election of two independents to Westminster got to do with a possible non partisan local election.
I had grasped that but as we are talking about local government and the pointless party divisions at local level, I ask again, what has the election of two independents to Westminster got to do with a possible non partisan local election.
We were talking about affiliation to political parties both at local level and in Westminster, the election of two independents has everything to do with this.
We then get, at election time, a flag pinned to the mast of a Westminster party. The electorate are now voting for their chosen Westminster political party and not an individual. Once the elections have finished, the various boys and girls count their score to see who will have the power and who, the losers, will become the opposition. The people in Westminster seem to need this wasteful division as it helps them to work out if they will win or lose the next general election.
Of course I do so how do the independents fit into this scenario, they do not have a mast to pin a flag to. Now if all MPs were independent, that would be a different matter but there are three major parties and the local candidates call themselve by the name of their chosen party and the electorate vote based on their liking for that party. That is why we do not get Labour councillors in Newbury because not enough people in Newbury like the Labour party no matter how good a local candidate they may be.
Logged
Male
Female
