Help
Business Reviews
Loading...
SNC Could Be Sued For £ Millions
| Author: Councillor Andrew Wilby | Published: 29th February 2012 08:55 |
Moat Lane Development in Towcester
“If SNC were to listen to the LibDems and abandon the move to Moat Lane it could cost the local tax payer up to £10 million pounds and damage the town’s prosperity for generations.” say Towcester Mill Ward Councillors Andrew Grant and Andrew Wilby.
The office move is a crucial part of the legally driven procurement process to find a development partner. This is now about to be finalised after two years of intense negotiations.
Any change of plan would cost the town all the promised new public facilities such as a community theatre, restaurants and public toilets that are promised in the new Civic building as part of the compensation to the community for the massive southern housing development through which the town will double in size over the next 20 years.
The Councillors for Towcester Mill Ward, which includes the town centre, are accusing the LibDems of making irresponsible misleading claims to the voters. “When negotiations are completed we will be able to reveal all the detail and Towcester residents will see the benefits they are getting as part of the deal. Then they will ask why they were being mislead!” say the Councillors.
Moat Lane Fact file:
- The development brings new shops, bars, restaurants, houses, flats, office accommodation and a new civic amenity to the town centre which will generate renewed cultural and commercial activity in the centre of our community ahead of the town expansion.
- SNC now has a joint administration with Cherwell District Council and a requirement for only about 50% of its current office space.
- The present council offices sit on 6 acres of valuable Brownfield development land which will be used to reduces the take of Greenfield land that the town faces.
- The present building requires major refurbishment to bring it to current government Eco standards... the cost will be in £millions that the rate payer would have to fund.
- The location of SNC’s office is a matter for all the residents of the District. They all have to bear the cost, not just the citizens of Towcester, although they are the ones who stand to gain.
- The decision to move was taken after thorough evaluation of the options over two years ago. It has been part of the development scheme tendered to the development industry. It is impossible to change the terms without suffering major and even catastrophic penalties.
- Without a major tenant the Moat Lane scheme would have been abandoned and the town centre would have missed out the massive regeneration investment that it has had. It probably would lay derelict for many years ahead.
- The award winning Bury Mount and the Watermeadows scheme would not have happened without Moat Lane.
- If the scheme were to collapse, the multi-million pounds of inwards investment into Towcester may have to be paid back at the rate payers’ expense.
- The Springfields office contributes nothing to the local community: the new Civic Centre will provide many of the civic amenities that a town the size of Towcester should have... greatly to the local benefit.
- The new office will reduce SNC running costs and has considerable potential to generate the Council income steams which have not been factored into the financial plans as yet.
- Development work is expected to start very soon and take 5 years to complete.
Report this article as inappropriate
Comments
Brian TaylorAt 13:17 on 29th February 2012, Brian Taylor commented:
We constantly are being told that announcement regarding Moat Lane will be made shortly. Perhaps SNC Councillors could define shortly. Originally an announcement was being made in April 2011.
There has been so much information and mis-information regarding this project and its about time there was some clarity.
Clearly a major factor in the Consevatives losing two recent election its about time they did themself a favour and and the actually came out with the facts.
There has been so much information and mis-information regarding this project and its about time there was some clarity.
Clearly a major factor in the Consevatives losing two recent election its about time they did themself a favour and and the actually came out with the facts.
Phyllis BAt 16:17 on 29th February 2012, Phyllis B commented:
let's get down to basics shall we! like the refusal of SNC to provide essential toilets in Towcester town centre; waiting another few years isn't an option.
Phyllis Brockhurst
Phyllis Brockhurst
JohnBAt 09:13 on 1st March 2012, JohnB commented:
I'm sure Cllrs Grant and Wilby will correct me if I'm wrong on this but the message seems to be "we've taken the developers shilling and now we're committed to this move". All the other reasons are just "spin".
A couple of details:
Surely a simple way out of the excess capacity is to split the building in two and let the unused section as office space or in the extreme to demolish it. There is no need to relocate.
Who will occupy the proposed shops? Surely all the charities already have shop space. As for restaurants don't we already have three or four cafes, two or three Indian plus one Chinese restaurants. Do we need more?
John Bennett
A couple of details:
Surely a simple way out of the excess capacity is to split the building in two and let the unused section as office space or in the extreme to demolish it. There is no need to relocate.
Who will occupy the proposed shops? Surely all the charities already have shop space. As for restaurants don't we already have three or four cafes, two or three Indian plus one Chinese restaurants. Do we need more?
John Bennett
AWRWAt 09:27 on 1st March 2012, AWRW commented:
Brian Taylor is completely wrong!
It is far worse... February 2010 was the original target date.
The process to contract a development partner is governed by EU law and takes time. Having gone through the process and selected a development partner for this complex development, the final step is to negotiate the Contract Document. This is enormous and the developers lawyers have been trawling through it word by word trying to cover every eventuality it seems.
The problem is that cutting corners at this stage could cost the local tax payer a huge amount of money if things go wrong and it is plainly in all our interests to get it right however long it takes.
Everyone at SNC is as frustrated at the delays as anyone else. It's what happens when you find yourselves in the hands of Lawyers and Accountants - Brian!
On the subject of Phyllis's basics, which Council should accept the cost of Towcester's Public toilet requirements? I would be interested in residents views.
Should it be the County Council's responsibility... everyone in the County pays for our toilets and we pay for everyone elses? In which case every village will expect a toilet paid for out of the public pocket.
Should it be the District Councils, spreading the cost over the 90,000 population of the District from Aynho to Cogenhoe? Then which towns and villages should have District funded toilets?
Or should it be the Town Council? Brackley pays for theirs so why shouldn't Towcester?
The other thing to remember is that the District Council is financially capped by the Government and has frozen the SNC Community Charge for the next few years by taking several £million out of the budget.
The Town Council is not capped and can increase its precept how it likes.
So... should our Town Council fund and run our toilets? It would seem logical to me.
It is far worse... February 2010 was the original target date.
The process to contract a development partner is governed by EU law and takes time. Having gone through the process and selected a development partner for this complex development, the final step is to negotiate the Contract Document. This is enormous and the developers lawyers have been trawling through it word by word trying to cover every eventuality it seems.
The problem is that cutting corners at this stage could cost the local tax payer a huge amount of money if things go wrong and it is plainly in all our interests to get it right however long it takes.
Everyone at SNC is as frustrated at the delays as anyone else. It's what happens when you find yourselves in the hands of Lawyers and Accountants - Brian!
On the subject of Phyllis's basics, which Council should accept the cost of Towcester's Public toilet requirements? I would be interested in residents views.
Should it be the County Council's responsibility... everyone in the County pays for our toilets and we pay for everyone elses? In which case every village will expect a toilet paid for out of the public pocket.
Should it be the District Councils, spreading the cost over the 90,000 population of the District from Aynho to Cogenhoe? Then which towns and villages should have District funded toilets?
Or should it be the Town Council? Brackley pays for theirs so why shouldn't Towcester?
The other thing to remember is that the District Council is financially capped by the Government and has frozen the SNC Community Charge for the next few years by taking several £million out of the budget.
The Town Council is not capped and can increase its precept how it likes.
So... should our Town Council fund and run our toilets? It would seem logical to me.
AWRWAt 10:40 on 1st March 2012, AWRW commented:
JohnB is nearly right except there is no taking the developers shilling.
Two years ago it was agreed to include the SNC relocation in the Development Prospectus that was issued under European Procurement Rules and since then it it has been impossible to change the Prospectus without certain risk of penalty. The LibDems are well aware of this but have pretended to the electorate of Towcester that they could change the decision. We are accused of not listening... but theirs is a cynical approach that gets local politics a bad name and we have found that there are none so deaf as those who don't want to hear!
As part of the detailed evaluation of the option we did look at dividing up the Springfield premises and other solutions but that was costly, the other work necessary to the building itself extensive, and the market for such an office was uncertain at the time. The relocation is the best financial option and also meets the future needs of local government as currently rapidly evolving. SNC is becoming recognised nationally for its trail blazing Joint working with Cherwell Council, for delivering the complex Moat Lane Regeneration and its financial competence. We are starting to receive Ministerial other visits to see how it has been done.
As to the the economics of the future Moat Lane, John should read the Towcester Master Plan, should understand impact of the southern extension on the town centre as it doubles the size of the town over the next 20 years and appreciate that the regeneration is to deliver a vibrant commercial heart to our town to match the future population. He can be sure that the developer will have ensured that 50% of the new build is sold in advance and we know that many businesses are queuing up.
This is being achieved without dipping the local ratepayers pocket are will be a terrific boost to Towcester future economy and prosperity providing we get it right.
The negative amongst us should take a fresh look.
Andrew
Two years ago it was agreed to include the SNC relocation in the Development Prospectus that was issued under European Procurement Rules and since then it it has been impossible to change the Prospectus without certain risk of penalty. The LibDems are well aware of this but have pretended to the electorate of Towcester that they could change the decision. We are accused of not listening... but theirs is a cynical approach that gets local politics a bad name and we have found that there are none so deaf as those who don't want to hear!
As part of the detailed evaluation of the option we did look at dividing up the Springfield premises and other solutions but that was costly, the other work necessary to the building itself extensive, and the market for such an office was uncertain at the time. The relocation is the best financial option and also meets the future needs of local government as currently rapidly evolving. SNC is becoming recognised nationally for its trail blazing Joint working with Cherwell Council, for delivering the complex Moat Lane Regeneration and its financial competence. We are starting to receive Ministerial other visits to see how it has been done.
As to the the economics of the future Moat Lane, John should read the Towcester Master Plan, should understand impact of the southern extension on the town centre as it doubles the size of the town over the next 20 years and appreciate that the regeneration is to deliver a vibrant commercial heart to our town to match the future population. He can be sure that the developer will have ensured that 50% of the new build is sold in advance and we know that many businesses are queuing up.
This is being achieved without dipping the local ratepayers pocket are will be a terrific boost to Towcester future economy and prosperity providing we get it right.
The negative amongst us should take a fresh look.
Andrew
peter kAt 13:35 on 1st March 2012, peter k commented:
To briefly return to Phyllis Brockhurst's comment regarding a public toilet and AWRW's reply, I thought that under the Government's cry to stem increases to local council taxes they would advance some millions of pounds to off-set the arrangement. Surely SNC have taken this "shilling" and could extend funds to Towcester for a public toilet?
Nick HAt 15:20 on 3rd March 2012, Nick H commented:
Not wishing to miss out on a good discussion, I agree with Peter K, Brian Taylor, Phyllis B, and John B. That just leaves Andrew to try to convince that his policies are unpopular, and that the public toilets are an issue that Towcester residents are unhappy about as well as the proposed office move.
It is interesting, Andrew, that you are still pushing the idea that Towcester Town Council pay for the public toilets. Does that mean the toilets in your proposed new community centrte will not be public? And did I not suggest on a similar post that you could fight to make these new toilets open 24/7 to support what the local people want.
Regarding the Town Council precept, additional money has to come from somewhere for them to provide the toilet facilities. If the SNC budget is capped, is that why there are no proposed increases to the coucil tax, rather than it being a decision taken by the SNC councillors, which is how Ian McCord was selling it in an earlier article.
Ian has still failed to answer the latest questions on that article too, and I am waiting with bated breath for your response to me previous article posts.
As a toilet issue alternative, why does the county council not provide public toilets in every town, or at least some of the larger ones. Surely toilet requirements don't vary that much across the county. Or why does SNC not take the lead on this issue too?
With regards to the redevelopment, your last post suggested that the developer of Moat Lane would unsure that they have 50% of the new build sold in advance. Would they also not ensure they had an anchor tenant too, if SNC had chosen not to relocate.
You mention the 'two years ago it was agreed' regarding the SNC proposed move. Was this not decided by the Conservative cabinet members only, with no public consultation, and when presented at the town hall it was widely opposed by the public?
Who do you believe you are representing as a councillor?
Nick Holder
It is interesting, Andrew, that you are still pushing the idea that Towcester Town Council pay for the public toilets. Does that mean the toilets in your proposed new community centrte will not be public? And did I not suggest on a similar post that you could fight to make these new toilets open 24/7 to support what the local people want.
Regarding the Town Council precept, additional money has to come from somewhere for them to provide the toilet facilities. If the SNC budget is capped, is that why there are no proposed increases to the coucil tax, rather than it being a decision taken by the SNC councillors, which is how Ian McCord was selling it in an earlier article.
Ian has still failed to answer the latest questions on that article too, and I am waiting with bated breath for your response to me previous article posts.
As a toilet issue alternative, why does the county council not provide public toilets in every town, or at least some of the larger ones. Surely toilet requirements don't vary that much across the county. Or why does SNC not take the lead on this issue too?
With regards to the redevelopment, your last post suggested that the developer of Moat Lane would unsure that they have 50% of the new build sold in advance. Would they also not ensure they had an anchor tenant too, if SNC had chosen not to relocate.
You mention the 'two years ago it was agreed' regarding the SNC proposed move. Was this not decided by the Conservative cabinet members only, with no public consultation, and when presented at the town hall it was widely opposed by the public?
Who do you believe you are representing as a councillor?
Nick Holder
DamenAt 20:51 on 4th March 2012, Damen commented:
I agree with John B's comments and observations. Just downsize the current building.
With regard to spending on such things as public toilets. Won't the money due from teh Belle Baulk development pay for things just like this? I know it will take a little time before the payments come in but it is important that this money is spent in Towcester and not distributed within SNC.
With regard to spending on such things as public toilets. Won't the money due from teh Belle Baulk development pay for things just like this? I know it will take a little time before the payments come in but it is important that this money is spent in Towcester and not distributed within SNC.
Nick HAt 21:01 on 4th March 2012, Nick H commented:
Damen is absolutely right. The money from the Belle Baulk development is allocated to provide facilities and services in the area where the development takes place.
Unfortunately, I suspect that very little of this money will find its way into Towcester, and even less likely that it will be used to provide toilet facilities locally.
Perhaps Andrew Wilby will comment on where he feels the Belle Baulk s106 money should be spent, and whether he would fight for this money to be used to improve the local Towcester facilities.
Mr McCord might also like to comment on where he will focus his efforts when deciding where this money should be spent.
Alas I fear that neither Andrerw or Ian will make further comments, as their position would be unpopular, given the facts. But feel free to prove me wrong. My breath is still bated!!
Nick Holder
Unfortunately, I suspect that very little of this money will find its way into Towcester, and even less likely that it will be used to provide toilet facilities locally.
Perhaps Andrew Wilby will comment on where he feels the Belle Baulk s106 money should be spent, and whether he would fight for this money to be used to improve the local Towcester facilities.
Mr McCord might also like to comment on where he will focus his efforts when deciding where this money should be spent.
Alas I fear that neither Andrerw or Ian will make further comments, as their position would be unpopular, given the facts. But feel free to prove me wrong. My breath is still bated!!
Nick Holder
You need to log in before you can do that! It's only a quick registration process to join the AMA network and completely free.
Help