In message <
[email protected]>
"Greg" <
[email protected]> wrote:
> "beamendsltd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:e1ee72814e%[email protected]...
>
> > I notice you have snipped the bit about the work place parking tax,
> > which is the reason why your traders have to park on the road if they
> > have any sense at all.
>
> I only snipped it because I have no clue about it or how it may apply to
> this rather disconnected example. My MD was on about it over two years ago
> and how it MIGHT affect the fact we have a big car park on our works site,
> and how he MIGHT get around it if he didn't mark individual spaces, since
> then absolutely nothing.
>
Well, I had to (theoretically, anyway) fill a form in for this. It
might have gone quiet, but.....
> But here we're talking about effectively setting up a Council car park, on
> rented land, with a pass system for the traders and possibly others who
> would pay to cover the costs and fill the spaces. How that can be related to
> work place parking I really can't see, but I wouldn't put anything past this
> government 
..... if you are daft enough to tell the council where you park, then
when it does come in the council is going to say "Ah ha! You told
us once upon a long-ago that you, and/or your staff, park in
such-and-such a place" and it will doubltless be incumbent on
whoever filled the form in to prove otherwise (and, of course,
pick up the bill - win or lose), or the (estimated) £500 tax bill
comes your way, for each employee. Until that threat
is removed, there is no way on God's earth I, or anyone else, is
going to risk establishing a precendent for where I, or my staff,
park - other than on the road. It doesn't matter if the car park
is council or not, any pass system will be jumped on to justify
the tax - by the same council that is moaning about parking on the
road. Sadly, no one in their right mind in business is going to
trust the council to behave sensibly (because they never do), and
I have to say that if you (the council, that is, not you personaly)
cannot see why traders are so worried about future, or even
possible future, actions of the council, on any matter, then that
explains a great deal about the mistrust that businesses (and
individuals) have of local government.
Businesses, particularly small ones, are convinced (and will
need an awful lot of un-convincing) that councils see companies
as an easy revenue stream - pay up, or we'll take you to court
and ruin your business by getting a judgement against you and
destroy 20 years hard work by damaging your credit rating.
Try being 2 weeks late with your rates if you don't belive me -
you don't get a reminder - you get a summons, straight off.
>
> > And how are busniess any different - just read price rise for
> > rates rise.
>
> But as I said this £5 a year aught to raise a lot more revenue for the
> traders by allowing customers to park outside, if you were a parishener
> would you think you should pay for them to make more money?.
But not if the threatened parking scheme comes in! And anyway,
punlic money get spent on awful lot of things that I personaly
don't benefit from - but every penny spent allows someone else
to get more money, by definition.
>
> > You miss the point - it's the failure to consult with the people
> > that is the issue - something that Parish Councils should be at the
> > forefront of. And *all* the people, not just the noisey, often
> > affluent, people who make a fuss and know how to play the system
> > (often by being mates with the councilors) shuld be consulted.
>
> We are at the forefront:
> We have an office manned three days a week for the public to call in and
> discuss any issues.
> We post notice of every single item we will discuss and can decide on using
> the notice board in the hart of the village.
> We circulate a newspaper (shared with others) to every door to tell people
> what's going on and list the phone numbers of every Councillor, also listed
> on the notice board.
> Every meeting is open to the public, with the exception personal staff
> matters that require confidentiality by law.
> We have a public question time before each monthly meeting.
> Our accounts are scrutinised by not one but two external auditors with the
> results published.
> We have representatives on many local organisations to liaise with them.
> We scrutinise every single planning aplication in the area, now that
> Government has decreed that >90% of aplications must be decided by Borough
> Officers and NOT Borough Councillors that leaves us the only elected
> scrutiny of most applications. The public is welcome to attend these
> planning meetings, without any warning, and can speak at them, it's very
> much harder to be heard at the Borough where the officers decide behind
> closed doors.
>
> So please tell me how we could more, and bear in mind that we're all unpaid
> volunteers, and don't even get expenses unless we have to go out of the
> Borough to a training session.
Go to the pub. Seriously. That's where people get things off their
chest. No one, except those who know how to use the system, will
go to a meeting because they know that unless they use the right
words, and fill in the right forms, anything they have to say will
be ignored. I know a number of parish councillors in one area -
I've yet to hear them actually canvas views publicly - they make
very sure that things are only discussed at meetings (citing
confidentiallity) - except amongst themselves beforehand.
And I have to say those free "news papers" are a total waste of
money and rescources. When I see one saying that the council
screwed up and admit it, then I might change my mind. In the
mean time, all I see is statistics being abused (nicely back on
topic there!) to tell me everything is rosey in the garden.
>
> >The loss of
> > income from those closed shops (even those that are re-let after
> > a few weeks/months) I'll bet was *not* budgeted for
>
> As I pointed out the Borough didn't get any income from them in the first
> place as they only collect business rates on behalf of county, so didn't
> have to budget for any loss, it's crazy but go tell the Government!.
That's the councils job!
>
> > and I'll
> > bet Aldi got all sorts of incentives to open that were/are still
> > not budgeted for as they are sneaked into a different budget to
> > hide them.
>
> I doubt they get a penny from the Borough, possibly from some development
> agency if it's a low employement area.
>
I'll bet they got/get a hefty rates relief - I could have got all
sorts of help if I were selling inported cuddly bears, but as a boring
old non-tourist business I got offered bugger all - in fact I was
effectively told that no suitable premises, never mind finacial
help, would be made available - I should go to Stoke!
> > I'll also bet that slow dying of the town center due
> > to the loss of those shops and the lack of parking has also not
> > been budgeted for in the long term.
>
> Again, the totally distorted system in place means that the Borough pays for
> all the maintainance of a shopping centre but gets no money back from it!,
> at least that's how it was explained to me.
>
> > When it all goes tits-up,
> > the Government will doubtlessly be blamed
>
> Well they makle the straight jacket that local government operates in so
> they deserve it in my book
>
> > as it's a lot easier
> > than explaining why common sense was ignored
>
> I expect that, given the constraints imposed, the Council WAS applying
> common sense. They undoubtedly have a terrible shortage of income to provide
> all the services and capital works needed, as do all, can get cash by the
> sell off, stand to lose no income by it, only have to give themselves
> planning permission (again not their system, the government's) so it makes
> perfect sense.
There's no sense at all in killing a town centre!
>
> > doing so would not have
> > produced work for the office whalla's in the council offices,
> > to perpetuate their on-going work creation programme ;-)
>
> Not much work really, a single planning application, a sealed bid process no
> doubt, and a land registry transfer.
> Greg
And all those planning meetings, planning sub-committee meetings,
highways, site visits, site inspections, building control,
etc etc etc ;-)
>
>
Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
www.radioparadise.com - Good Music, No Vine
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive
