Next week sees the staging of a public exhibition that will show details of a proposed pavilion for Newbury’s Victoria Park, along with displays about potential future upgrades to the adjacent Wharf area. The exhibition will demonstrate how the project has developed following the public consultation carried out in 2007.

Everyone is invited to attend.

The exhibition is being held at Newbury Library from 5th to 7th November, opening times being Thurs 10am-7pm, Fri 10am-5pm, and Sat 10-4pm.

On show will be a model (by local Greenham company 3T RPD Ltd) of the park and the new pavilion plus displays illustrating details of the project, the history of the location, and how the scheme fits in with wider aspirations for the area, including Newbury Town Council’s plans for enhancement of Victoria Park.

Feedback forms will be available asking visitors for their views on the scheme and the ways the pavilion will be used.

Plans are being finalised by local architects Sutton Griffin, and will be ready in time for the exhibition.

Quoted from Administrator

Plans are being finalised by local architects Sutton Griffin, and will be ready in time for the exhibition.

Who generously give their time for free...

Quoted from Greenham Common

Who generously give their time for free...

Careful -someone might believe you!

Quoted from Administrator

The exhibition will demonstrate how the project has developed following the public consultation carried out in 2007.

...er....in secret?

All the fuss about the TCP and the proposal for tower blocks on the old gas works is diverting attention from the building in the park.  I wonder if this is entirely coincidental?

If you don't want this building then try to go along to this exhibition and make your thoughts known - but even better write to your WBC councillor and the Victoria Ward councillors to let them know what you think of it.

And when the planning application goes in use the planning portal at WBC's website to let the planners know what you think.

Letting of steam in forums or writing stinking letters to the NWN may be fun - but it will have little impact on the planning process.

... and turning up will see objections coveniently binned or ignored!!

Quoted from blackdog

All the fuss about the TCP and the proposal for tower blocks on the old gas works is diverting attention from the building in the park.  I wonder if this is entirely coincidental?

If you don't want this building then try to go along to this exhibition and make your thoughts known - but even better write to your WBC councillor and the Victoria Ward councillors to let them know what you think of it.

And when the planning application goes in use the planning portal at WBC's website to let the planners know what you think.

Letting of steam in forums or writing stinking letters to the NWN may be fun - but it will have little impact on the planning process.

Good idea. If I like the plans I'll be writing in to my local councillor to express my support for them.

Quoted from user23.3

Good idea. If I like the plans I'll be writing in to my local councillor to express my support for them.

...and if you don't? Or, is that a foregone conclusion?

Quoted from 133

...and if you don't? Or, is that a foregone conclusion?

I'll write expressing my displeasure.

It seems that some have made up their minds what should be done with this muddy little corner of the park and concrete pond full of slime before they've seen the plans.

Quoted from user23.3

It seems that some have made up their minds what should be done with this muddy little corner of the park and concrete pond full of slime before they've seen the plans.

Like you're thinking - you could be the next Barry Scott.

Is your park a bit muddy? Does your boat pond fill up with algae? Then look no further....try the new Griffgrab today.

If there's a muddypatch in your local park, Griffgrab can cover it with a 20,000 sq ft building before you can say 'don't build on my park'!

Tests show that Griffgrab is 15 times more powerful than a typical elected councillor, and can clean up stubborn market towns in less than 5 years!

If you order today, we'll even throw in an 11 storey distraction a few streets away to keep the locals baffled.

Simply text 'pavilion' to 83447 and add the name of your town, so you too can enjoy a mud-free park and slime-free pond.

BANG - and your park is gone!

Quoted from Meddler

Like you're thinking - you could be the next Barry Scott.

I know I've posted this link before, but it's worth another look...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--dmLwKs_Ww

Quoted from user23.3

I'll write expressing my displeasure.

It seems that some have made up their minds what should be done with this muddy little corner of the park and concrete pond full of slime before they've seen the plans.

Am I right in thinking that it'll wipe out the playground area too? That's easily one of, if the most used areas of the park.

Quoted from massifheed

Am I right in thinking that it'll wipe out the playground area too? That's easily one of, if the most used areas of the park.

Correct. It will also make the bandstand redundant. Wonder what we could put there?

How will WBC get around its own policy?

POLICY ENV.31 The Council will not permit development within settlements that would result in significant harm to or the loss of important open space areas which have a special historic, wildlife, visual or amenity importance or afford views of, or from, the surrounding countryside.

Quoted from massifheed

Am I right in thinking that it'll wipe out the playground area too? That's easily one of, if the most used areas of the park.

We'll find out on 5th November.

Until then I'm holding judgement on them, bar getting rid of that 15 foot of bank containing shopping trolleys and other assorted junk, muddy corner and the slimy pond which I think are all foregone conclusions.

Quoted from user23.3

Until then I'm holding judgement on them, bar getting rid of that 15 foot of bank containing shopping trolleys and other assorted junk, muddy corner and the slimy pond which I think are all foregone conclusions.

Does that mean nobody has looked after it or maintained it? Who has allowed it get in that state?

Quoted from 133

Does that mean nobody has looked after it or maintained it? Who has allowed it get in that state?

As far as I'm aware Newbury Town Council look after the park, however it seems to be forgotten area not least by many of of the posters in this thread.

Quoted from user23.3

As far as I'm aware Newbury Town Council look after the park, however it seems to be forgotten area not least by many of of the posters in this thread.

Perhaps you should get a band of people together and have a mass clear up for the community.

Quoted from 133

Perhaps you should get a band of people together and have a mass clear up for the community.

I would have thought a band would be more appropriate for that area after the pavilion has been built.

Quoted from user23.3

I would have thought a band would be more appropriate for that area after the pavilion has been built.

Isn't that what the bandstand is for?

Quoted from user23.3

......... that 15 foot of bank containing shopping trolleys and other assorted junk, muddy corner and the slimy pond

The cleanliness of the park is the responsibility of the Town Council who perhaps should clean the pond a little more often but I can't say I have noticed any shopping trolleys along the bank. There is a bit of liitter down by the skate park but one man, one day, would have that sorted.
I agree the pond is not up to standard and the reason for that is that it is filled with water from the canal and not treated. The propellor on my model boat did get quite weed bound when I sailed it on the pond a few weeks ago. The proposed wharf boat pound will be filled from the same water source and as there will be no actual flow, it will stagnate in the same way.

Quoted from 133

Isn't that what the bandstand is for?

Despite it's name the Bandstand with it's circular design isn't really suited to the modern band.

I say modern, but I refer of course to the type of groups know as bands since the 1950s.

User is right in one way - I have made up my mind before I have seen the design. I have made up my mind that I don't want to see a large building anywhere in Victoria Park - its not what a park is for.  If they want a nice new arts and youth centre - great - but don't build it in a park.

I have also made my mind up that I would like to see a WBC consultation that goes beyond the take it or leave it approach they repeatedly adopt. Why are we never shown three designs to choose from? Why do they always go for a single Sutton Griffin design?

Quoted from user23.3

Despite it's name the Bandstand with it's circular design isn't really suited to the modern band.

So, pull it down and get the scrap value to finance the new stage on the front of the pavilion or is that being financed by pulling down the Waterside.

Quoted from blackdog

User is right in one way - I have made up my mind before I have seen the design. I have made up my mind that I don't want to see a large building anywhere in Victoria Park - its not what a park is for.  If they want a nice new arts and youth centre - great - but don't build it in a park.

I have also made my mind up that I would like to see a WBC consultation that goes beyond the take it or leave it approach they repeatedly adopt. Why are we never shown three designs to choose from? Why do they always go for a single Sutton Griffin design?

Exactly right and well put.

Quoted from blackdog

User is right in one way - I have made up my mind before I have seen the design. I have made up my mind that I don't want to see a large building anywhere in Victoria Park - its not what a park is for.  If they want a nice new arts and youth centre - great - but don't build it in a park.

I have also made my mind up that I would like to see a WBC consultation that goes beyond the take it or leave it approach they repeatedly adopt. Why are we never shown three designs to choose from? Why do they always go for a single Sutton Griffin design?

Like I say, no one uses that muddy corner of the park, or the sloping bank up to the road by the underpass, or the slime filled boating pond.

Not when I've walked through the park anyway, and that's on a almost daily basis.

I wonder how often you visit it to form such an idyllic view of it. How often does everyone opposing these plans without seeing them use the park?

Quoted from user23.3

Like I say, no one uses that muddy corner of the park, or the sloping bank up to the road by the underpass, or the slime filled boating pond.

Not when I've walked through the park anyway, and that's on a almost daily basis.

I wonder how often you visit it to form such an idiotic view of it?

Is it necessary to be so rude? Can't you accept that lots of people don't agree with your opinions. Maybe people would use it more if it was tidied and cleaned up. Brian obviously uses the boat pond

Quoted from 133

Is it necessary to be so rude? Can't you accept that lots of people don't agree with your opinions. Maybe people would use it more if it was tidied and cleaned up. Brian obviously uses the boat pond

Apologies, I selected "idiotic" rather than "idyllic" from the spell checker, perhaps it was a Freudian slip? I've now corrected this.

The point still stands. How often does everyone opposing these plans without seeing them use the park?

Brian used it once. Anyone else ever used it?

Quoted from user23.3

Apologies, I selected "idiotic" rather than "idyllic" from the spell checker, perhaps it was a Freudian slip? I've now corrected this.

Give over.

Quoted from user23.3

The point still stands. How often does everyone opposing these plans without seeing them use the park?
Brian used it once. Anyone else ever used it?

Why do you assume Brian has only used it once?  I don't use Hyde Park in London but I'd be against building on it

Quoted from user23.3

How often does everyone opposing these plans without seeing them use the park?

Brian used it once. Anyone else ever used it?

But I use thepark quite frequently but you might note that the flip side of the coin is that more than 50% of the persons consulted about the proposals rarely or never use the park.

535 respondents visit the park freqeuntly.
1,274 visit infrequently or never.

Anyway, here's my boat...

Quoted from 133

Give over.

You've just called me a liar after I apologised for a genuine mistake.

This is after you accused me of hacking into this forum in the past, with no apology when proved wrong.

You no longer deserve any reply from me in this thread. This is your loss.

Quoted from brian

But I use thepark quite frequently but you might note that the flip side of the coin is that more than 50% of the persons consulted about the proposals rarely or never use the park.

535 respondents visit the park freqeuntly.
1,274 visit infrequently or never.

Anyway, here's my boat...

Nice boat and good point. Perhaps they should have asked park goers?

You'll know that no one uses the corner of the park when I imagine the propose building will be though for at least nine months of the year if you're a park regular though. I'm willing to bet that most would have welcomed a nice new facility in the muddy corner near the underpass.

Quoted from user23.3

Nice boat and good point. Perhaps they should have asked park goers?  You'll know that no one uses the corner of the park when I imagine the propose building will be though for at least nine months of the year if you're a park regular though. I'm willing to bet that most would have welcomed a nice new facility in the muddy corner near the underpass.

The trouble is, things have a habit of not stopping there, next it'll be the muddy patch next to the pavilion, etc...

Quoted from user23.3

You've just called me a liar after I apologised for a genuine mistake.

Apologies, I selected "give over" rather than "That happens to me all the time" from the spell checker.

Quoted from 133

Apologies, I selected "give over" rather than "That happens to me all the time" from the spell checker.

I'll apologise now to user23.3 if I am wrong, but I also thought that user23.3 was trying to pull a fast one.  The sentence doesn't sound right with the corrected word.


But like I said, the trouble is, things like a new pavilion have a habit of not stopping there, next it'll be the muddy patch next to the pavilion, etc...

As for the pond, it is like it is, because the authorities neglect it...on purpose perhaps?

Quoted from Greenham Common

I'll apologise now to user23.3 if I am wrong, but I also thought that user23.3 was trying to pull a fast one.  The sentence doesn't sound right with the corrected word.


But like I said, the trouble is, things like a new pavilion have a habit of not stopping there, next it'll be the muddy patch next to the pavilion, etc...

As for the pond, it is like it is, because the authorities neglect it...on purpose perhaps?

I think User used this opportunity to get out of a thread that he was losing ground on.

Anyway, the same thought of purposeful neglect had crossed my mind. I wonder how long it will be before people use the 'muddy patch' reason for building an extension/new house in their gardens.

User does have  point about some people making their minds up before all the info is in. (but, in all fairness the same argument could be applied to the council)

However, this whole exercise would only be democratic and a true test of the peoples views if there was a box you could tick on the form saying 'none of the above' (or somesuch)

Perhaps democracy would be better served if a group of concerned individuals could man the doors to the expo and get visitors to tick one of two boxes on a form, one saying,

" seen it, like it, do it "

and one saying

"  seen it, and no thanks, leave the park alone "


The council could do this themselves, but then they might not get the answer that they want. So they aint going to be that stupid are they?
This whole thing is just a farce. The decisions have already been made and I suspect certain architects have already booked next years holiday on the strength of it.



Threep.

Quoted from Greenham Common

I'll apologise now to user23.3 if I am wrong, but I also thought that user23.3 was trying to pull a fast one.  The sentence doesn't sound right with the corrected word.


But like I said, the trouble is, things like a new pavilion have a habit of not stopping there, next it'll be the muddy patch next to the pavilion, etc...

As for the pond, it is like it is, because the authorities neglect it...on purpose perhaps?

Of course it sounds right, some people have an idyllic view of what is really just a muddy patch of ground, it looks like (from the responses in this thread) because most never actually visit the park themselves on a regular basis, they just like the idea of having one.

Before people campaign against actually doing something useful with that unused area perhaps they should visit it first and then wait until they've seen the plans?

Quoted from user23.3

Of course it sounds right, some people have an idyllic view of what is really just a muddy patch of ground, it looks like (from the responses in this thread) because most never actually visit the park themselves on a regular basis, they just like the idea of having one.

Before people campaign against actually doing something useful with that unused area perhaps they should visit it first and then wait until they've seen the plans?

The point that has been made before is that is seems that decisions have already been made on what will be built and who builds it. This may or may not be true but the TCP/West Berks group that have caused this impression are doing little to make Newbury residents feel that ther views are part of the decision process.
The worry from many seems to be that this, like many others changes in Newbury, are decided prior to showing the public. Again this may or may not be true, but there is little reasurance that is isn't true.

Sadly, public relations isn't a priority to the Council and as a result these decisions are not properly presented.

Quoted from user23.3

Of course it sounds right, some people have an idyllic view of what is really just a muddy patch of ground, it looks like (from the responses in this thread) because most never actually visit the park themselves on a regular basis, they just like the idea of having one.

Before people campaign against actually doing something useful with that unused area perhaps they should visit it first and then wait until they've seen the plans?

It isn't a muddy patch, what it is is an area that hundreds of people tread as they make their way into the park from the Eastern side. Of course the grass gets thinned but it is very localised. The custodians of the park (NTC) should have landscaped this area but not to the extent of allowing it to be covered by a large concrete pad with an equally large building  on it.
The pavilion by virtue of its size will not only cover the small muddy area but will compromise the whole South Eastern corner. Even if the proposal was to put the Taj Mahal there, I would still object so I will go and view the architect's plans with a prejudiced view. I believe that no person, group of persons, partnership or council have the right to build on an area that has been a green area set aside for the population of this town to visit and get away from the bricks and mortar. This need to provide and retain open spaces has become even more critical now that house building, especially affordable homes, hardly have room to hang the washing out in their 'back garden' let alone sit out and listen to the birds and generally enjoy the open freshness of a lawn and flower beds.
I believe that this will be an act of corporate vandalism just to satisfy someones ego trip. Generations to come will not thank them for it. I hope they sleep well.

Quoted from brian

It isn't a muddy patch, what it is is an area that hundreds of people tread as they make their way into the park from the Eastern side.

It's the hundreds of people traipsing over some of it as they make their way into the park (i.e it's not used as part of the park as you infer) that make it muddy.

They're certianly not using the 15 foot of bank behind it either.

Like I say, some have an idyllic view of a space that could be better used, no doubt because they don't use it themselves.

Quoted from user23.3

It's the hundreds of people traipsing over some of it as they make their way into the park (i.e it's not used as part of the park as you infer) that make it muddy.

They're certianly not using the 15 foot of bank behind it either.

Like I say, some have an idyllic view of a space that could be better used, no doubt because they don't use it themselves.

So, put a building there and they will have to walk around the frontage just moving the patch further west.

15 feet of bank, by my book they cannot use 2 metres from the roadway for building so that leaves 2 feet of bank.

What about the mature trees that are there. Are they not also part of the park countryside view or should we just chop em down....

I do not have an idyllic view, I, as most others do, have a realistic view of what is important.

Quoted from user23.3

It's the hundreds of people traipsing over some of it as they make their way into the park (i.e it's not used as part of the park as you infer) that make it muddy.

They're certianly not using the 15 foot of bank behind it either.

Like I say, some have an idyllic view of a space that could be better used, no doubt because they don't use it themselves.

Please can you define what "not used as part of the park means"? How should it be used if it is part of the park?

Quoted from user23.3

Of course it sounds right, some people have an idyllic view of what is really just a muddy patch of ground

Yet the point you were responding to with the 'i' comment, wasn't a point that was describing how charming the piece of land was.  The reply where you used the 'i' word, which by the way made sense, was to the view that the poster was going to object regardless of the merits of the build.

Quoted from user23.3

it looks like (from the responses in this thread) because most never actually visit the park themselves on a regular basis, they just like the idea of having one.

Open spaces should be cherished, they never get given back and indeed, usually grow.  I'd like to repeat, once the pavilion is built, what happens to the muddy patch besides that?

Quoted from user23.3

Before people campaign against actually doing something useful with that unused area perhaps they should visit it first and then wait until they've seen the plans?

Who's campaigning, people are objecting on a forum, expressing an opinion, nothing more.  For me, I object to any build on any green land in an area flanked by development.

The biggest gripe I have is this very suspicious business with a local architect seemingly benefiting directly, apparently without competition.  There is something wrong there.

Seems  unbelievable that the firm in question would have been appointed without a competition, particularly given the library roof fiasco.  I'm sure that can't be right. Can anyone explain the actual situation regarding this contract?  

I'm amazed that anyone is bothering to respond to User's inane witterings about the 'muddy patch of ground'.  

Quoted from noobree

I'm amazed that anyone is bothering to respond to User's inane witterings about the 'muddy patch of ground'.  

It seems that he's trying to divert attention away from the real issues being discused here.

Quoted from noobree

I'm amazed that anyone is bothering to respond to User's inane witterings about the 'muddy patch of ground'.  

This area of the park is covered by trees so the grass is bound to be thin, here is a link to the view of the pond. The right hand side is the muddy bit that User is trying to talk up.

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/10814902

Just reading a User post again where he is complaining about the bank not being used. I wonder how often he uses the area as there is actually a stairway up to the A339 footpath just there.

Quoted from user23.3

Like I say, no one uses that muddy corner of the park, or the sloping bank up to the road by the underpass, or the slime filled boating pond.

Hopefully these photographs will go some way to disprove users comments that nobody uses this muddy little corner. The photographs were taken at the Waterways festival back in July.

This photograph was taken looking out into the park from the muddy little corner. Look for the red van on the right of this picture and then look for it again in the second picture below. It will give you a better idea of orientation.


This photograph was taken looking into the muddy little corner. Again look for the red van. You can see the bridge on the A339 through the trees. You willalso note the trees on the left hand side that would need to be felled to get the pavilion tight back against the embankment.

I'm not sure where this 'use of the bank' is an issue - it isn't used now (apart from holding up the roadway) and it won't be used in the future - unless the architects have been mad enough to double the cost of the building by shoving it up against the bank.

The conceptual plan put forward during the Wharf consultation envisaged the removel of several of the magnificent mature trees in that corner of the park (enough in itself to condemn the plans in my eyes). Hopefuly they have been saved in the new plan that is about to be bulldozed through planning.

The same plan envisaged a multi-purpose building in the corner of the park incorporating the area of the boating pond as an arena area. Now I hear there are to be two buildings, the size of the main one is rumoured to be 20,000 sq ft - bigger I suspect (and I would welcome being proved wrong on this) than that shown during the public consultation.

The only good thing about this proposal is that is not as bad as Griffin's earlier proposal to line the park side of the canal with shops - perhaps he still has ambitions along this line?

I cycled round the park today.  The corner referred to as muddy, isn't muddy.  Well not today anyway.  'Perhaps (user23.3) should visit it first' before passing judgement on things!  

The nonsense about the muddy area under the trees is a smokescreen which has been put up in an attempt to deflect the conversation from the serious issue of a building in the park. It doesn't matter where they want to build, it's not right and should be refused at planning. It will be interesting to listen to the planning debate which should centre around the question 'should it be allowed' rather than 'it would be nicer with a green roof'.

Just one point about the trees, all of them are within a Conservation Area and so a Notification to carry out works to any of the trees is required by law under the Town and Country Planning Act 1980.

Tend to agree with you Brian.  I walk through the park whenever I'm in Newbury and its getting more and more urbanised.  Grass and mud are part of the attraction - what on earth does one expect by the side of a river - miles of golden sand?  Building on it is wholly inappropriate and totally unnecessary.  Suspect its down to the fact that WBC hate the idea that NTC have managed to run the park more economically and efficiently than they've ever done.  This latest proposal smells like sour grapes to me.

Before the West Berkshire Vandals get their way, I took a phone picture of that 'muddy area' in Victoria Park, this afternoon.

Quoted from brian

Just one point about the trees, all of them are within a Conservation Area and so a Notification to carry out works to any of the trees is required by law under the Town and Country Planning Act 1980.

And who do WBC notify - not WBC by any chance?

I think we should apply for tree preseervation orders on all that will be affected

Another view of the pre-vandalised Victoria Park.  Should we call it the (purposely) neglected park?

Quoted from 23

I think we should apply for tree preseervation orders on all that will be affected

They may well be in place already - but WBC are the people empowered with the decision as to the felling of trees so protected.

We are in a situation where the regulating authority (WBC Planning) is subservient to the people seeking the various permissions (WBC) - its the same process that got us the wholly inappropriate cinema design.  They can do whatever they like.  The only way to stop any of this is to protest - write to your councillors, to Victoria Ward councillors, to the leader of the Council and, as soon as the planning application nis made, write a letter of protest to the planners.  The demolition of Luker was stopper (delayed?) by public opinion, there had never before been so many objections to a WBC a planning application.  This was the only thing that stopped the plan to demolish.  It is the only thing that will prevent any aspect of the pavillion going ahead.

Quoted from 23

I think we should apply for tree preseervation orders on all that will be affected

I already thought of that one...Copy of email and reply

Could you advise how to go about getting a tree preservation order.
I am thinking about the trees in the South Eastern area of Victoria Park both those parallel with the road and those near the canal. These trees are mature and shield the park from the A339 traffic. I am concerned that development proposals for this area will result in their destruction.

Reply.....

Dear Brian

I did receive your email, but thanks for the reminder.
The trees are in some cases worthy of a TPO, but they are at present considered to be under good management by the owners, Newbury Town Council. If there is to be a planning application I will be involved at an early stage and will assess the trees accordingly.
I do have to point out that one of the large chestnut adjacent to the canal is in fact suffering quite extensively from Bleeding Canker and suffered branch drop over the footpath and canal two years ago as a direct result of the disease. Subsequently the tree was reduced, but it is now debatable if the tree should be retained or removed due to the possible hazard it may constitute towards of the park, canal and footpath. Management of the tree is in the hands of the owner (NTC),but all the trees are within a Conservation Area and so a Notification to carry out works to any of the tree is required by law under the Town and Country Planning Act 1980.
I would not want to see large scale tree removal as the trees are mature and act as focal pieces for the park and screen the park from the adjacent A339  and any tree removal would be mitigated with tree planting.

Regards
Jason

Jason Trewinnard
Tree Officer
West Berks Council

Tel: 01635 519349

Just out of interest, here's a not too good quality pic of Victoria park looking east taken sometime in the early sixties. The old concrete tank traps which lined the eastern edge can be seen in the background and although it can't be seen there used to be a little stream in front of them, the building behind that is the old Newbury Town football stadium. All that lot went when the link latterly the A339 were built.

I'm surprised there isn't a 'Save Victoria Park' group on Facebook...

Quoted from 171

I'm surprised there isn't a 'Save Victoria Park' group on Facebook...

Wanna start that then.....

I'm not sure how it works but I will see what I can work out. It's a bit high tech for me but one of my grandchildren will know.

Quoted from Greenham Common

Another view of the pre-vandalised Victoria Park.  Should we call it the (purposely) neglected park?

That's a lovely view - quintessentially Newbury.  Well done; even more so as it was just on a photo phone!

You can all campaign, both for and against, any over development or missuse of our community property as much as you like. If you've lived in Newbury for longer than 5 minutes, you will already be fully aware that once the carncil have made their mind up to do something, they'll do it whether anyone really wants it or not.

There was a campaign by the Council for many many years to remove the nursery school from Victoria Park, on the grounds that it was 'innaprpriate' to have buildings in a public ammenity area, and it was only after vociferous opposition from parents, and with the dedicated help of Cllr Rosemary Sanders-Rose, that the old one was demolished and replaced with the new one at the edge of the park.

I would encourage you to consider these aspects.
1. Despite the PR, you really have absolutely no power in this so-called democracy. Councillors, and the Council, will do what they want to, just like the government. Usually this consists of looking after their own, but we get to pay for it.
2. With apologies to Joni, 'they paved paradise'. Worried about mud? Cover it with concrete.
3. This over development is going to happen. Whinge and whine on here all you want, it's good to blow off steam, but you ain't gonna change a foregone conclusion. AND, I don't recall a single councillor asking to be reselected with this item in their manifesto. Were you asked to vote for it? No, of course not.
4. You vote for these people, you pay for (and therefore 'employ') everyone who works for WBC. How come we can't tell them to do what we want?
5. Any change should be voted for by the majority (I would suggest at least three quarters) of the people affected. If people abstain, that should be taken as not being an active vote for something. Think about it. This is rhetorical, but how many people do you think would turn out to vote for concreting over the last green lung in our town? The Council (our employees, remember) won't ask for such a referendum because then they won't be able to have their way despite being the power-holding infinitely small minority that they are. They say, you pay...

Quoted from Green guerilla

You can all campaign, both for and against, any over development or missuse of our community property as much as you like. If you've lived in Newbury for longer than 5 minutes, you will already be fully aware that once the carncil have made their mind up to do something, they'll do it whether anyone really wants it or not.

I disagree - the council can be swayed by public opinion.  We have a totally inappropriate cinema, bull-dozed through the planning process by a bunch of councillors desperate to pander to public opinion.  All caused by a 2,000 signature petition and a forthcoming election.

The demolition of the Luker building has been delayed (possibly prevented) by a vociferous campaign on facebook and through conventional channels.

It is possible to scupper the pavillion plans, even at this late date.

Quoted from blackdog

The demolition of the Luker building has been delayed (possibly prevented) by a vociferous campaign on facebook and through conventional channels.

And 10 points for guessing the architect behind the demo plans!

Blackdog makes a totaly valid point, and I agree wholeheartedly. Time and again we have seen cases that, having been made a high enough profile, end up in a reversal. My comments about Victoria Park nursery school are a prime example of this process.

Ever heard of losing a battle to win a war? These are the exceptions that prove the rule.

This is in all walks of public life. The police, for instance, are allowed to routinely kill people with impunity. For their part, Doctors (of medicine) get to bury their mistakes. etc etc etc - I'm sure we can all quote many similar examples.

The point is that, for the most part, these plans are made in secret, I suspect that the divvying up of the communal pot is done at the same time, and then we, the public who pay for it all, get to hear about it. And, as for their 'consultation process', as a professional in the field I can state categoricaly that it is not a true consultation process at all, but merely an information service. Only when we feel very strongly about an issue and band together to say so, do we see that we can change things.

But, let's be honest, we simply don't have either the time or the energy to band together over every single issue, and that gives these beaurocrats all the time they need to sub-divide both their plans and our public feedback to manipulate us into the result they want. No denials please, I can do this just as well as they can, and have.

In my world, everything that happens in the public domain would be open and honest. No secret meetings, no-one denied the opportunity to state their true opinions because of the risk of legal action, or being accused of an 'ism', and recognition that even if someone's opinion or belief is anathema to ourself, we all have the right to state our own, and accord others the same right. We wouldn't even be having this conversation in my world. But, it isn't my world, any more or less than it's anyone else's. If only our beaurocrats and politicians could learn this, what a peaceful world we'd have, I think!

Back to reality - time for a major protest, get on the telly, that sort of thing?

Quoted from 171

I'm surprised there isn't a 'Save Victoria Park' group on Facebook...

There is. See under Save Victoria Park Newbury

Quoted from Green guerilla

The police, for instance, are allowed to routinely kill people with impunity.

A tad harsh.

Quoted from Green guerilla

In my world, everything that happens in the public domain would be open and honest.

Don't be silly, or maybe you'd like to post under your real name?


Threep.

Quoted from Green guerilla

I suspect that the divvying up of the communal pot is done at the same time,

I doubt if anyone involved apart from Patrick Griffin are making money from this scheme - its all about prestige, vanity, etc.  Stuart Tagg at New Greenham Trust wants their flag flying in central Newbury, and New Greenham Arts out of the way so the site can be developed, and a few councillors believe the consultation and hence think its a vote winner.  All too many just want something, anything, to keep the Vision steaming full speed ahead.

What does delight me is the way they have separated the Pavillion from the Wharf makeover - by doing so they are exposing the main flaw of the consultation when a lot of people were counted as voting for the pavillion when what they really wanted was a quaint canal basin.  The two are not interdependent and now we can make the point about saving the park without being seen as the spoilsports who are trying to stop the wharf being prettified.

Quoted from blackdog

What does delight me is the way they have separated the Pavillion from the Wharf makeover - by doing so they are exposing the main flaw of the consultation when a lot of people were counted as voting for the pavillion when what they really wanted was a quaint canal basin.  The two are not interdependent and now we can make the point about saving the park without being seen as the spoilsports who are trying to stop the wharf being prettified.

I agree but somehow I thought that the finance for the pavilion somehow was coming from the sale of the Waterside. Is this the case or have we moved on and if that is no longer the case, where is the money coming from.
It has to be a costly venture as far as I can see as the only access was to be from Faraday Road, I remember some early discussions about a tunnel under the A339 for motorised deliveries. If this is not the case then we can look forward to lorries driving across the park. All will no doubt be revealed.

Quoted from brian

I agree but somehow I thought that the finance for the pavilion somehow was coming from the sale of the Waterside.

Yes - that was the way they sold it during the consultation - absolute tosh of course!

Quoted from brian

Is this the case or have we moved on and if that is no longer the case, where is the money coming from.

From what I understand the sale of the Waterside would only part fund the Wharf revamp - the rest coming from the sale of part of the Wharf for commercial developments (a pub and a restaurant).

The pavillion is being funded by New Greenham Trust as a separate issue.

Quoted from brian

It has to be a costly venture as far as I can see as the only access was to be from Faraday Road, I remember some early discussions about a tunnel under the A339 for motorised deliveries. If this is not the case then we can look forward to lorries driving across the park. All will no doubt be revealed.

There is already a tunnel under the A339, a bit low for vehicles, perhaps they are aiming to dig that out a bit?

Quoted from blackdog

There is already a tunnel under the A339, a bit low for vehicles, perhaps they are aiming to dig that out a bit?

That will do wonders for the river bank and the tow path as they would need another metre ? headroom.

Quoted from Greenham Common

Before the West Berkshire Vandals get their way, I took a phone picture of that 'muddy area' in Victoria Park, this afternoon.

Quoted from Greenham Common

Another view of the pre-vandalised Victoria Park.  Should we call it the (purposely) neglected park?

brian (or anyone else sympathetic to the conservation of open spaces), feel free to use my pictures.

Somebody else with a view...

http://newbury-pond-yachtclub.blogspot.com/2009/10/pav-in-park.html

Thats a good link and I fully concur with most that is stated. Just maybe this scheme will not take off because enough people decided to fill in the questionaire to inform the councillors that they DO NOT WANT A BUILDING THIS LARGE IN THE PARK...but its ok somewhere else if its affordable etc etc. Also do not give up on the planning process - the public need to object in large numbers and turn out at committee to make it clear to councillors the harm they are doing. Democracy is not dead in Newbury ...... yet.

Thing is, if Newbury doesn't have enough green spaces for the population, how come Goldwell Park, Northcroft Park or the area the other side of Shaw House are almost always deserted?

Quoted from user23.3

Thing is, if Newbury doesn't have enough green spaces for the population, how come Goldwell Park, Northcroft Park or the area the other side of Shaw House are almost always deserted?

It is not just about people using them, it is also to help for there to be clean areas to off set the polluted ones.  Also, less people, less sewage.  They also serve as flood plains, but a townie wouldn't understand such things.  

Quoted from Greenham Common

It is not just about people using them, it is also to help for there to be clean areas to off set the polluted ones.  Also, less people, less sewage.  They also serve as flood plains, but a townie wouldn't understand such things.  

Then the answer is simple. Restrict the use of cars more in Newbury.

Quoted from user23.3

Then the answer is simple. Restrict the use of cars more in Newbury.

It's not just cars (use of which is restricted in town anyway), it is the presence of people and all that follows.    The use of these spaces are especially precious for people seeking recreation when we have the Fair, Beer Festival, football, cricket, Crafty Raft, Carnival finish point and other such festivals... and also when the weather is fine.

Green areas would soon be less green should too many people use them.

Quoted from user23.3

Thing is, if Newbury doesn't have enough green spaces for the population, how come Goldwell Park, Northcroft Park or the area the other side of Shaw House are almost always deserted?

None of those areas you mention are actually parks in the sense that Victoria park and perhaps Greenham park are. They are green grassed area which are not maintained or laid out like a park. However, it makes no difference to what is going on in our one popular park. Victoria park has all the things going for it to make it such a popular place and has no need for a whole load of non park things being built there. The facilities need upgrading and the grant application that failed and cost NTC and indirectly us taxpayers a shedload, would have sorted that.

Quoted from user23.3

Then the answer is simple. Restrict the use of cars more in Newbury.

Sadly WBC have taken the opposite view by encouraging the building of a new shooping centre, cinema, etc plus thousands of houses - which will only serve to increase the use of cars in Newbury.

Cars are restricted in Newbury - look at the way traffic gets jammed up. This is going to get worse unless someone somewhere starts to seriously re-masterplan the traffic system. Or better still can't we all start getting together and start coming with ideas of our own rather than using planners, architects, engineers etc. Maybe joe public might inject some common sense into the system?
I think I am going off topic...back to green spaces......back to offsetting polution caused by cars by use of green space. Thats probably valid but if you decrease use of cars it should not mean that green spaces can be reduced. Green space is there as respite for townie living. I am one and I and my family use all the parks at some point during the year - they do not need to be thriving with people 24 - 7. They need to be there when we need them, for dog walking, playing with your kids, kids playing with kids, summer fetes, Michaelmas fair, beer festival, crafty craft etc etc. All the green sites around Newbury are of great value do not belittle them because a corner is muddy - (I used the muddy corner to play football with my kid because nobody was using it GREAT!) Give our park a chance......

Quoted from Saveourpark

- they do not need to be thriving with people 24 - 7. They need to be there when we need them,

like the market place?

Quoted from 78

like the market place?

Except £800,000.00 of tax payers money was used to give it a seemingly unnecessary facelift.

Quoted from Greenham Common

Except £800,000.00 of tax payers money was used to give it a seemingly unnecessary facelift.

And, just like that, we're back to the Market Place again.  

Quoted from massifheed

And, just like that, we're back to the Market Place again.  

Yes shame on you!

They are currently spending an equivalent amount on the Broadway enhancement. Can't we discuss that instead?

Quoted from Greenham Common

Except £800,000.00 of tax payers money was used to give it a seemingly unnecessary facelift.

But how much will the wharf scheme cost. £6 or 7 million just for the oversized unsustainable pavilion, that's without digging the park up to move the boat pond and play areas, demolish the existing cafe building and build a changing room block. or is that included in the price. When I asked the question, it was part of the park concept. i.e not included.
We seem to be selling our soul to the devil for the sake of getting a few barges tied up in the wharf and to help out the Greenham Trust who are desperate to get shot of the Arts buildings at Greenham and dangle juicy carrots on the end of a stick to move WBC to where they want them. I shudder to think what the deal for the Waterside land will be.
Why not get Greenham to rebuild, with WBC, the Waterside as an arts and youth centre perhaps as designed for the park and put a nice cafe and store room where the existing brick air raid shelter is in the park integral with changing block and if we must have one, a PCSO office.
I should think that there are enough pubs in Newbury anyway but should somebody want to build one in the wharf then that should be a consideration. We can dig the marina in 2020 when we know if the country is bust or not that still gives the vision 5 years although by that time, the Market Place, Bart St and the Broadway will want another makeover.

As part of the Pavilion plan they have to replace the lost park space elsewhere.  The plan is to relocate the football club and use part of that land as the replacement park space.  So why not build the arts and youth elements of the pavilion there?  Or would that be too close to car parking?

Or do they have plans to sell off most of the football ground to developers?

Quoted from massifheed

And, just like that, we're back to the Market Place again.  

That is likely because these 'Vision 2025' projects share similar issues.

Quoted from Greenham Common

That is likely because these 'Vision 2025' projects share similar issues.

Perhaps, if that were the case. But in reality it's usually just an excuse to moan again about WBC spending £2bn (the price goes up each time) on the market place. I dont think the market place money was well spent either, but I'm not going to keep moaning about it after the event as much as I may be annoyed by wasteful spending. Everyone's had a good complain about it on here, I wonder how many actually wrote to the council about it, or pressed them on the decisions made during the refurbishment process. Of the serial moaners on here, I bet that the vast majority have done nothing about contacting the council over their percieved failings in everything they do. Far easier to complain on a forum that requires no effort from them other than a few minutes spent at a keyboard.

I beleive that the users of this forum were dismissed as "serial moaners" by some at the unveiling of the pavilion plans in the library. As wrong as that perception may be, it's not hard to see where that idea comes from is it?

Quoted from BrianB

Yes shame on you!

They are currently spending an equivalent amount on the Broadway enhancement. Can't we discuss that instead?

A great idea! It would make a change.

So, Brian, from an NRA point of view, it's got to be good for the retailers in that end of town, surely? And if it costs a similar amount to make sure that the paved area matches Northbrook St so that, to the shopper, the whole area has a continuity, that's worth it, in my opinion at least. The broadway has always felt annexed to the main shopping area.

Looks like there's some good alternative proposals coming through. Well done!

I know it doesn't take much to out-think WBC, but these ideas will all be useful when the Local Government Ombudsman rules on the illegal process of not tendering for the design of a £6m public building (contravening the Procurement of Public Contracts Regulations 2006 since you ask).

BTW Some worried muttering going on in Tory circles about this. Some donors are refusing to donate to the General Election unless the pavilion is killed off. And there was me thinking Cartergrad was going to last 1000 years.

Quoted from massifheed

The broadway has always felt annexed to the main shopping area.

Good point. 15 businesses have folded there in the last 18 months, and yet there have been some brilliant retail ideas tried out there. New cobbling won't bring back 300 Vodafone workers, make Waitrose go away, or reduce Newbury's rents.

The REAL issue is to find a way to route people back into the town centre without going back the same way. I propose a tuk tuk to ferry shoppers back up to Dead Square (formerly La Piazza Milanese), so they're near most of the car parks.

Quoted from massifheed

Perhaps, if that were the case. But in reality it's usually just an excuse to moan again about WBC spending £2bn (the price goes up each time) on the market place.

I have seen no evidence of exaggerating the cost.  As far as we are concerned, the Market Place cost around £800,000.00 to surface (which wasn't long at all after the previous expensive re-surface.

Quoted from massifheed

I dont think the market place money was well spent either, but I'm not going to keep moaning about it after the event as much as I may be annoyed by wasteful spending.

I don't know; your objection to people bring this point up is often made with equal frequency!

Quoted from massifheed

Everyone's had a good complain about it on here, I wonder how many actually wrote to the council about it, or pressed them on the decisions made during the refurbishment process. Of the serial moaners on here, I bet that the vast majority have done nothing about contacting the council over their perceived failings in everything they do. Far easier to complain on a forum that requires no effort from them other than a few minutes spent at a keyboard.

And that is everyone's prerogative, so what?  And we will continue to moan, if it suits us and we are permitted.

Quoted from massifheed

I believe that the users of this forum were dismissed as "serial moaners" by some at the unveiling of the pavilion plans in the library. As wrong as that perception may be, it's not hard to see where that idea comes from is it?

No and they dismiss the impact of forums like this at their peril.  From my own experience, I more often hear disgruntlement from people, dissatisfied as described often on this and other forums, than I do praise.

At the end of the day this is just a forum.  Take it or leave it.  There is no obligation on any one here, other than to behave.

I will say though, that I am convinced that some people's posts are observed by those in authority.  I have seen for myself a number of things get 'corrected' that have only recently been complained about on this and other forums.


On topic.  I think it is quite clear that this pavilion project is not seen in good light by the majority that have expressed an opinion.  Whether on here or else where.

Quoted from massifheed

So, Brian, from an NRA point of view, it's got to be good for the retailers in that end of town, surely? And if it costs a similar amount to make sure that the paved area matches Northbrook St so that, to the shopper, the whole area has a continuity, that's worth it, in my opinion at least. The broadway has always felt annexed to the main shopping area.

From a personal point of view, I think that it was/is a shocking waste of money and will ultimately see serious damage caused to Clock House by a lorry or bus that has difficulty negotiating the new mini roundabout. I also can't see that the new piazza will be particularly beneficial to the retail trade. Tenants for the old Vodafone offices surrounding the Broadway would improve the situation considerably.

From an NRA perspective, I had to go along with what the retailers requested, although, they have experienced considerable inconvenience whilst the work has been carried out. The Broadway will benefit considerably when the new East Street opens allowing the Debenhams shoppers to spill out into the Northern end of Northbrook Street.

Quoted from Greenham Common

I have seen no evidence of exaggerating the cost.  As far as we are concerned, the Market Place cost around £800,000.00 to surface (which wasn't long at all after the previous expensive re-surface.

Before the forum re-jigg it would often be said to have cost £800,000, then someone else would say it was £1m, then £1.2m. The figure moved around considerably. Often being quoted as "nearly £1m!", which if we're being sensible and not sensationalist £800,000 is not nearly £1m. But the word "million" makes better headlines, and makes the cost seem worse than using a lower, more realistic figure.

Quoted from Greenham Common

And that is everyone's prerogative, so what?  And we will continue to moan, if it suits us and we are permitted.

What's the point though? Just moaning about something over and over again on a forum? Like I said in my previous post, I'm sure those that moan the most on here have done nothing else about the situation. Certainly never contacted the council, or found another way (that would require some effort) of voicing their displeasure. How boring just to moan away on an internet forum about the same old things, just because you can.

Quoted from massifheed

Before the forum re-jigg it would often be said to have cost £800,000, then someone else would say it was £1m, then £1.2m. The figure moved around considerably. Often being quoted as "nearly £1m!", which if we're being sensible and not sensationalist £800,000 is not nearly £1m. But the word "million" makes better headlines, and makes the cost seem worse than using a lower, more realistic figure.

Wasn't it £800,000 taxpayers money & 400,000 section 106?

Quoted from massifheed

Before the forum re-jigg it would often be said to have cost £800,000, then someone else would say it was £1m, then £1.2m. The figure moved around considerably. Often being quoted as "nearly £1m!", which if we're being sensible and not sensationalist £800,000 is not nearly £1m. But the word "million" makes better headlines, and makes the cost seem worse than using a lower, more realistic figure.

It would depend on what was being discussed. My take on it is that the Market Place cost £800,000.00, but other areas added to the cost to take it way beyond the £1,000,000.00 mark.  If we are talking exclusively the Market Place, then we would be talking about a smaller amount.  If it is about the cost of resurfacing the pedestrianised area, than we are talking about a much larger amount.  One also might include the cost of the previous resurfacing that was still quite new when it was torn up.

Quoted from massifheed

What's the point though? Just moaning about something over and over again on a forum? Like I said in my previous post, I'm sure those that moan the most on here have done nothing else about the situation. Certainly never contacted the council, or found another way (that would require some effort) of voicing their displeasure. How boring just to moan away on an internet forum about the same old things, just because you can.

I am sure that there are a number of people on here that do put their keyboard, or pen, where their mouth is and I think you are simply making an assumption that they don't.

My view is that you seem sensitive to some of the criticisms on here, which suggests to me that you are not total bipartisan in all matters discussed anyway.

Forums like this one, at least give a voice to some that would otherwise remain reticent and I only see that as a good thing.  I am sure that forums like these do make a difference, even if it is not as great as other methods.

In my view, councillors and other members of the local councils should engage on forums like theses.  Although I'm sure some do in a covert way, but their ignorance of forums like these,  I think, show them in a poor light, more than anything else.

Why do we not see more councillors 'standing up' to the forum 'serial moaners'?  It would be a good thing to help dispel some myths and perhaps better explain some of the things that go on in Newbury.

By the same tyoken, they should also be standing in the Dog and Duck every evening, listening to the outpurings of the village drunks....!

Quoted from Greenham Common

In my view, councillors and other members of the local councils should engage on forums like theses.

One town councillor used to be a regular contributor to these forums - but he stopped as soon as he left the council.  I used to get a bit fed up with the party political nature of many of his postings but good on him for sticking his head above the parapet. Come back Wolfie - most is forgiven!

Meanwhile, this thread was about the pavilion for Victoria Park.  I am sure WBC will be happy to see it disappear into a wave of gripes about something that has happened and they have all but forgotten (the Market Place) rather than build the case again this riduculous building in the park.

If you want to moan about the Market Place or Broadway why not start threads on those topics.

Quoted from 40

By the same token, they should also be standing in the Dog and Duck every evening, listening to the outpourings of the village drunks....!

I'm not sure why, but it would be very impractical.

Quoted from blackdog

If you want to moan about the Market Place or Broadway why not start threads on those topics.

I don't want to moan about the Market Place, I replied to other peoples posts, who themselves had deviated.  I will say, however, that failed project can serve as an epitaph to apparent poor 'market' research.

As I have stated before, I think there has been sufficient negative public feed-back to suggest that this is a bad idea.  It is rare to read or hear any positive feedback on this.  Last weeks NWN was mainly negative for instance.

Quoted from 40

By the same tyoken, they should also be standing in the Dog and Duck every evening, listening to the outpurings of the village drunks....!

And of course almost everyone in the Dog and Duck would have a bag over their head, so you couldn't actually tell who they were!

Quoted from Greenham Common

As I have stated before, I think there has been sufficient negative public feed-back to suggest that this is a bad idea.  It is rare to read or hear any positive feedback on this.  Last weeks NWN was mainly negative for instance.

Most responses on local forums, be they on the Internet or the local rag's letter's page are negative. People will not go out of their way to say well done, you are doing your job.

Quoted from user23.3

And of course almost everyone in the Dog and Duck would have a bag over their head, so you couldn't actually tell who they were!Most responses on local forums, be they on the Internet or the local rag's letter's page are negative. People will not go out of their way to say well done, you are doing your job.

Nice one!  Suspect the pubs could come up with a line of branded bags....

Quoted from user23.3

And of course almost everyone in the Dog and Duck would have a bag over their head, so you couldn't actually tell who they were!Most responses on local forums, be they on the Internet or the local rag's letter's page are negative. People will not go out of their way to say well done, you are doing your job.

But this does happen when the council get things 'right', like with the cinema for instance.  At the end of the day, this pavilion has met with a large amount of negativity and has little support amongst those who express an opinion.  If the council insist on moving this forward, I anticipate we will have not heard the last of the 'no' camp.

Quoted from user23.3

Most responses on local forums, be they on the Internet or the local rag's letter's page are negative. People will not go out of their way to say well done, you are doing your job.

You would want to believe that the general populace who read the NWN or 'local rag' as you term it would keep reading week after week the letters from people who write in with adverse comments about the pavilion and that they would be inclined to pick up a pen and dash off a support letter. However, is there perhaps the chance that, apart from yourself of course, there actually aren't many supporters.

It will be interesting to get the results from the anonymous forms filled in at the exhibition. They can be sorted into three piles.

1. Yes that's fine, I like it, go ahead.
2. It's OK but I have some reservations
3. No thank you, I do not want such a large building in the park

There may need to be some further sorting of pile 2 but my suspicion is that pile 3 will be the largest by a long stretch.

Since the "not for the Golden Oldie" comment by a local councillor and I bet he now wishes he had kept that observation to himself, I'm having some difficulty attempting to determine what unique youth facilities are being provided. OK, the Youth services and cyber cafe, whatever that implies, but also offices and meeting rooms for Edge. I understand the severe problems that we have with drug and other abuses and if it turns around one young person then perhaps there will be some value but I have to wonder if this is the right place for it. I sort of get the feeling that the design is a big buildlng and 'now what can we fill it with'. Are there grant implications from central government perhaps for this sort of counselling which might make the ongoing costs more acceptable.

Quoted from Meddler

I know it doesn't take much to out-think WBC, but these ideas will all be useful when the Local Government Ombudsman rules on the illegal process of not tendering for the design of a £6m public building (contravening the Procurement of Public Contracts Regulations 2006 since you ask).

Have you been in touch with the Ombudsman then?

I'm in favour of the pavillion. I think large areas of the park are underused.

Quoted from 78

I'm in favour of the pavillion. I think large areas of the park are underused.

That's good then but how will, in your opinion, building large structures on a green space change that based on the fact that the activities in the pavilion are all indoor activities and have no bearing on the park whatsoever other than the toilets and oversized cafe.

Quoted from 78

...I think large areas of the park are underused.

I think that, in itself, is a virtue and is to be protected.

Quoted from Greenham Common

I think that, in itself, is a virtue and is to be protected.

Indeed. I think that some people see a large open space and think that, because it's not full of people doing things, then it is being wasted and should be put to use in other ways.

One of the things that I find great about the park is that, if I am walking in town with my young daughter, she knows that she needs to stay close and not run off anywhere. But as soon as we get to the park, she can run on ahead on the grass and I can see her fine, and if she falls over she's not going to hurt herself. It's that sense of freedom that I think is very important not to lose.

Quoted from blackdog

Have you been in touch with the Ombudsman then?

I have indeed. They advise us all to complain to WBC first, and if it's not addressed as a Stage 3 complaint (that means the Supreme Leader himself will have to respond), then we're good to go.

The chap I spoke said they could force WBC to tender this properly. Favouritism is not a criminal offence in itself, unless any serious misdemeanour can be proved (ie fraud, deception).

You don't have to wait for the planning app to go in, if you think WBC have ignored their own contract procurement rules, it's worth getting the ball rolling.

No rest for the wicked eh?

Quoted from massifheed

Indeed. I think that some people see a large open space and think that, because it's not full of people doing things, then it is being wasted and should be put to use in other ways.  One of the things that I find great about the park is that, if I am walking in town with my young daughter, she knows that she needs to stay close and not run off anywhere. But as soon as we get to the park, she can run on ahead on the grass and I can see her fine, and if she falls over she's not going to hurt herself. It's that sense of freedom that I think is very important not to lose.

I think this sums up well my feelings on the matter.  It is a pity that something similar couldn't be placed else where but with in a stones throw of the park.  Indeed, if the area was 'over used', this would possibly add extra weight in favour of a development, not less likely.

Quoted from Greenham Common

But this does happen when the council get things 'right', like with the cinema for instance.  At the end of the day, this pavilion has met with a large amount of negativity and has little support amongst those who express an opinion.  If the council insist on moving this forward, I anticipate we will have not heard the last of the 'no' camp.

Yes, there's a thread moaning about an extra 1,000 people being in town.

Seems whether visitor numbers to the town are perceived to be up or down, they'll be the same people moaning about it.

Quoted from user23.3

Yes, there's a thread moaning about an extra 1,000 people being in town.

Seems whether visitor numbers to the town are perceived to be up or down, they'll be the same people moaning about it.

Once again you highlight your lack of understanding of the English language. There is a thread commenting on the 1000 extra people likely in town not moaning about it.

No wonder WBC can't tell their arse from their elbow if all the employees are like you!!

Quoted from brian

That's good then but how will, in your opinion, building large structures on a green space change that based on the fact that the activities in the pavilion are all indoor activities and have no bearing on the park whatsoever other than the toilets and oversized cafe.

The park is large enouh to accommodate the pavillion & all the other activities which currently happen there. You have the sports areas adjacent to Park Way that are almost always empty. People use the canal as a walk through & the path which runs up towards the Robin Hood giving an impression that these areas are busier. So having a larger cafe, arts venue etc etc will bring more people to the park, some of whom will return to use the green areas.  

If the canal basins can be restored that will be good too. I'd prefer a less avante garde building design for the pavillion, but what can one expect from a modern architect?

Goldwell & Northcroft parks are huge & always empty.

Quoted from Greenham Common

I think that, in itself, is a virtue and is to be protected.

The town has three underused parks. Let's use a small space in one of them for other public use. Goldwell & Northcroft are larger & even emptier.

Quoted from 78

The park is large enough to accommodate the pavilion & all the other activities which currently happen there. You have the sports areas adjacent to Park Way that are almost always empty. People use the canal as a walk through & the path which runs up towards the Robin Hood giving an impression that these areas are busier. So having a larger cafe, arts venue etc etc will bring more people to the park, some of whom will return to use the green areas.

Which in itself will require more maintenance.  The pavilion doesn't, however, guarantee that the park in general will get more use, not that, in my view, is important.

Quoted from 78

If the canal basins can be restored that will be good too. I'd prefer a less avante garde building design for the pavillion, but what can one expect from a modern architect?

Exactly, why have a big ugly building? They shouldn't be able to get away with it.

Quoted from 78

Goldwell & Northcroft parks are huge & always empty.

No they are not always empty, but that isn't the point.  These areas serve a purpose buy NOT having people in them.

Quoted from 78

If the canal basins can be restored that will be good too.

The canal basins cannot be restored without moving the A339 bridge and the library - the proposal is to open a new canal basin, not restore the old ones.

Not that this requires the building of the pavilion in the park. Very little of the proposed usage of the pavilion has anything to do with the park - the arts and youth centre elements should be supplied elsewhere. My vote would be to supply the youth centre at the Waterside, and the arts in a rear extension to the museum (adding in the necessary access and storage improvements to the museum).

Quoted from Greenham Common

Which in itself will require more maintenance.  The pavilion doesn't, however, guarantee that the park in general will get more use, not that, in my view, is important.


Exactly, why have a big ugly building? They shouldn't be able to get away with it.


No they are not always empty, but that isn't the point.  These areas serve a purpose buy NOT having people in them.

Goldwell & Northcroft still will have no people in them. So they'll still be serving their purpose.
I don't think it is an ugly building.

Quoted from blackdog

The canal basins cannot be restored without moving the A339 bridge and the library - the proposal is to open a new canal basin, not restore the old ones.

Not that this requires the building of the pavilion in the park. Very little of the proposed usage of the pavilion has anything to do with the park - the arts and youth centre elements should be supplied elsewhere. My vote would be to supply the youth centre at the Waterside, and the arts in a rear extension to the museum (adding in the necessary access and storage improvements to the museum).

Shame about the old basins. Maybe they should rebuild the castle instead.

Quoted from 78

Goldwell & Northcroft still will have no people in them. So they'll still be serving their purpose.
I don't think it is an ugly building.

And once the 'precedence' is set in Victoria Park, next stop, the little used Goldwell & Northcroft parks.

Quoted from 78

Shame about the old basins. Maybe they should rebuild the castle instead.

Now that sounds interesting!

Quoted from Greenham Common

Now that sounds interesting!

well, despite the fact that the 'castle' appears on the Newbury coat of arms & that some sources say it was demolished to make way for the canal basins, there are some accounts which say Newbury never had a castle. Hamstead Marshall & Donnington the nearest.

Blackdog?

Quoted from Greenham Common

And once the 'precedence' is set in Victoria Park, next stop, the little used Goldwell & Northcroft parks.

Northcroft has already had an ugly building put in it - the Leisure Centre.  While they were building it they put in a temporary car park on Goldwell - which is still there decades later!

Recently there were suggestions that Speenhamland School should be relocated to Northcroft - so they can sell off the school's two sites for development.

And there is also whatever is needed to replace the Waterside's canoeing function.  

They have recently moved the pedestrian route from the Monkey Bridge to Northcroft Lane to the east - freeing up some space at the end of the Leisure Centre.  Anyone else suspect there are ideas about development there?

I use all three parks - and will regret the loss of any part of any of them to development.  There is no need to build on our green spaces - they are protected by planning laws; WBC should recognize that there is a reason for these laws and stop eyeing them up as cheap building plots rather than working out how to get round the law in order to start building.

Quoted from 78

I'd prefer a less avante garde building design for the pavillion, but what can one expect from a modern architect?

What you ask them to deliver. Of course if you have a "closed shop" so the architect is already chosen they'll deliver any crap they want as has been proved already by this architect!

Quoted from Nobby

What you ask them to deliver. Of course if you have a "closed shop" so the architect is already chosen they'll deliver any crap they want as has been proved already by this architect!

Somone in WBC, and this must be at the top, has briefed the architect with what is required in the building in terms of the number of amenity areas, public spaces, storerooms and offices. This will determine the overall footprint. The number of floors required will be included as an end result for the requirement for the space to contain that which has been specified.
So, we come to the subjective question as to whether the architect has made appropriate use of the space given and has produced a good tight design. Answers on a postcard please.
The next subjective question is 'does it look right?', Answers on the other side of the postcard.

But, we come to the question which is most important, was the brief correct in the first place forcing the architect to design a major building rather than a park related building.

I'm afraid that the senior members of WBC have missed the whole point of what is needed for our recreational requirements in a protected environment like Victoria park, spurred on by a landlord who wants his buildings back offering incentives so to do. The Greenham Trust like to be seen as the good guys around town but they are, despite their altruistic posturing, a commercial concern. We and WBC should bear that in mind. There used to be a saying "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts".
The altruistic appealing to the egoistic perhaps.

Quoted from brian

The Greenham Trust like to be seen as the good guys around town but they are, despite their altruistic posturing, a commercial concern.

New Greenham Trust is not a commercial concern in fact it is not New Greenham Trust (to my surprise) but Greenham Common Community Trust. It is a registered charity set up by WBC (or NRDC) when they bought back the common.  

Their trading activities are to raise money to a) maintain their assets and b) spend on charitable causes.

In recent years their income has risen and their spending fallen - I can see why they are looking for a nice big project to spend some of their money on.  This year they have already bought two buildings in Newbury, the old RAFA hall (for use as a community arts etc space) and the dreadful ex-Vodafone building in the Broadway (sadly not to demolish it but to use as open plan offices for local charities - most of whom don't actually want to share open plan offices).

Quoted from 78

well, despite the fact that the 'castle' appears on the Newbury coat of arms & that some sources say it was demolished to make way for the canal basins, there are some accounts which say Newbury never had a castle. Hamstead Marshall & Donnington the nearest.

Blackdog?

You called!

There have been attempts to find the castle in the wharf - to no avail.  The most recent was an archaeological dig on the site of the library.  As nothing has ever been found, and all early references to it stem from a single souce (an old poem about William the Marshall as a child) it seems reasonable to plump for it being at Hamstead Marshall (William the Marshall's father's manor hence its name) where there is evidence of multiple Norman castles.  The poem is about a siege of Newbury Castle in the civil war between Stephen and Matilda (1150ish - Brother Cadfael's time). A besieging force of that time would be quite likely to put up a castle (wooden palisade on top of a mound and ditch - motte & bailey) alongside the one they are attacking - a likely explanation of the multiple mounds at Hamstead Marshall.

Tony Higgott wrote an article in the Field Club journal putting this case.

However, there are also tales of stone from the castle being used as late as the C18th.  I suspect these may refer to Donnington Castle.  But I guess the case is not entirely closed, there could have been a motte and bailey castle on the wharf, perhaps even back behind the museum. Market places were commonly sited at the castle gate, and there was an old in called the Castle of the east side of the Market Place - could this have started at the castle gate?  I doubt we will ever know for certain as there are unlikely to be any traces left - after all the area has been developed multiple times since the C12th including digging the canal basins.

Quoted from blackdog

New Greenham Trust is not a commercial concern in fact it is not New Greenham Trust (to my surprise) but Greenham Common Community Trust. It is a registered charity set up by WBC (or NRDC) when they bought back the common.  

Their trading activities are to raise money to a) maintain their assets and b) spend on charitable causes.

In recent years their income has risen and their spending fallen - I can see why they are looking for a nice big project to spend some of their money on.  This year they have already bought two buildings in Newbury, the old RAFA hall (for use as a community arts etc space) and the dreadful ex-Vodafone building in the Broadway (sadly not to demolish it but to use as open plan offices for local charities - most of whom don't actually want to share open plan offices).

I hear what you are saying here but what's in a name. It may have a charity status and it may be non profit making but it runs like a commercial business, with, if you like, the community as shareholders reaping a dividend in respect of the 'good works'.

That is excellent, sharing the wealth from the income from commercial land that belongs to the community anyway, with the community. Where it sort of goes pear shaped is that they, by virtue of the fact that they have some loose income, put bias or pressure perhaps on the recipients to do their will.

You mention the Vodafone unit in the broadway that they have purchased, that seems to me to be a very suitable place for EDGE that are expecting space in the Pavilion especially if Greenham kit it out properly according to the wishes of the end user rather than how they think it ought to be.