Well, boys and, er, boys I dropped in to the exhibition earlier and - you won't like me for saying this - I really don't think this is a bad thing. To my mind the important question is, does this add to the town or take away? I think it adds. OK, we 'lose' a small part of Victoria park but we also lose the awful kiosk as well and I can see the Newbury Ark being a real draw: pulling more people into the park, rather than driving them.
I was a fan of the original idea, but this is simply ugly and out of place.
To those who are concerned about losing some of the town's green space, I know what you mean and would be concerned about that myself. On the other hand, Viccy park isn't - as you may have noticed - not the only green space in Newbury. We also have the barely used Northcroft and Goldwell Parks. Wonderful green spaces, only a minute or so from Northbrook Street. Unlike you, I walk through them every day and there's hardly a soul to be seen.
Being used 24/7 isn't the point. These places provide almost traffic free areas in town, helping with keeping pollution in check. Not withstanding habitation for wildlife.
I think the real problem here is that every bloody Tom, Dick and Brenda feels they have the 'right' to be consulted about this stuff. Bollocks. Did the Victorians - town developers extraordinaire - 'consult' every time they changed anything? (Answers on a post card please.)
Whether they did or didn't is besides the point. Public green spaces are shrinking, not growing or moving. I also don't think everyone thinks that they have the right to be consulted, only that these issues are consulted properly and openly. They way that this Vision has been handled has been underhand.
If you really want to attack this plan, go for the ongoing running costs. I gather that it's possible that some at WBC are working on the basis that budgets will be reduced by up to 30%, given the dire state of the economy. 30% is a lot. Think about it.
Exactly. What is built, or not, must be sustainable and on a minimal budget. This looks like another expensive white elephant in the making, but by the time this is realised, the people responsible will be long gone.
Well, boys and, er, boys I dropped in to the exhibition earlier and - you won't like me for saying this - I really don't think this is a bad thing. To my mind the important question is, does this add to the town or take away? I think it adds. OK, we 'lose' a small part of Victoria park but we also lose the awful kiosk as well and I can see the Newbury Ark being a real draw: pulling more people into the park, rather than driving them.
To those who are concerned about losing some of the town's green space, I know what you mean and would be concerned about that myself. On the other hand, Viccy park isn't - as you may have noticed - not the only green space in Newbury. We also have the barely used Northcroft and Goldwell Parks. Wonderful green spaces, only a minute or so from Northbrook Street. Unlike you, I walk through them every day and there's hardly a soul to be seen.
A nice new arts centre would be an asset - but there is plenty of space to build it in Newbury without using Victoria Park - I don't like the building but I am not adverse to its function. I just hate the positioning.
I think the real problem here is that every bloody Tom, Dick and Harriet feels they have the 'right' to be consulted about this stuff. Bollocks. Did the Victorians - town developers extraordinaire - 'consult' every time they changed anything? (Answers on a post card please.)
It's not that I expect to be consulted more often, just that I expect consultation to involve more than we get. Some sort of choice would be nice from time to time; the thought that those doing the consulting hadn't made their minds up beforehand would be good. The Library event is all about selling the design to us, not consultation.
Amusingly, when I was in the libary, I overheard three local councillors exchanging views about Marcus Franks' and newbury.net's views about all this. Don't ask.
Keeps them occupied, when I was there it was newbury.net and Newbury Society / Garry Poulson that were the subject of conversation.
If you really want to attack this plan, go for the ongoing running costs. I gather that it's possible that some at WBC are working on the basis that budgets will be reduced by up to 30%, given the dire state of the economy. 30% is a lot. Think about it. Also, if you're keen to knock things, there's planning abortion that is our new Vue Cinem.....ah, too late.
The finances seem to be a huge hole in the plan - they might have some real trouble raising it all. Makes it seem odd that they go for what seems to me to be an expensive building in terms of its function (anyone know what an equivalent building using conventional building techniques would cost).
What I an unable to work out is how the lorry loaded with sound gear or the cafe delivery van can get close to the pavilion without driving across the grass.
What I an unable to work out is how the lorry loaded with sound gear or the cafe delivery van can get close to the pavilion without driving across the grass.
They will drive down Faraday Road and then use a trolley to take stuff under the A339 to the pavillion. Probably okay for the cage deliveries but I can see a band's transit getting closer than planned.
More interesting is how they build the place without wrecking half the park driving deliveries across.
Of course they could always ask for delivery by narrowboat.
I think the real problem here is that every bloody Tom, Dick and Harriet feels they have the 'right' to be consulted about this stuff. Bollocks. Did the Victorians - town developers extraordinaire - 'consult' every time they changed anything? (Answers on a post card please.)
Well done Jerry, another red herring.
In Victorian Newbury, I wouldn't have a vote for who represents me in Parliament. As a dissenter, I would be on my way to a sheep farm in Australia, and if I did find a moment to go and speak to the secret club running Newbury at the time, I most likely would have asked when my street would be lit up.
In business, I thought it was normal practice to go out to tender for work, especially in the case of major expenditure. I might have missed something before this report but did any other architects get the chance to put their ideas forward? Were there any other designs from the architect that designed this one? I'm not against a small development on the park if it is for the good of the community (the majority) and there are aspects of this design that are good but I'm not so sure it's 'the one'. I listened to what Mr. Griffin had to say on the radio and he spoke about giving Newbury it's own identity, or words to that effect. I couldn't help thinking it was more an identity for the architects.
I do hope this has not been decided already. If the majority of local people,assuming they voice their opinions, are truly *emphasis on truly* happy with, first of all, building on the park and secondly are totally happy with this design, then so be it. The outcome will certainly be interesting.
They will drive down Faraday Road and then use a trolley to take stuff under the A339 to the pavillion. Probably okay for the cage deliveries but I can see a band's transit getting closer than planned.
No, they can't do that because if you look at the plan, that has been designated as a extension to Victoria Park and shown green. Presumably there will be footpaths but they are not shown and will therefore turn into a muddy area so that User can approve building there.
The big coloured mural on the face I assume is a screen. Not much use between about 1:00 pm and 10:00 pm in the summer as it faces West and will have the sun shining directly on it. Is this our contribution to the Olympics, no doubt the royalties will not be a problem.
Ah well, if PPG1 doesn't grab you, maybe the WBC constitution will.
Here's section 2.4.2 (if you'd like to quote it at WBC).
There should be a presumption in favour of decision-making being open and transparent, with members of the public being afforded effective access to relevant information and the processes by which decisions are taken.
Due consultation should take place with those likely to be affected by a decision. So far as practicable, decision-taking should be planned in advance nd the public given due notification of forthcoming decisions.
Where a decision is likely to have wide-ranging or significant impact on the community, additional time and emphasis should be given to consultation and members of the public actively encouraged to contribute their views.
Decisions must be taken with regard to all relevant considerations and ignoring all irrelevant matters.
Decisions should be taken on the basis of the Council's corporate aims and values, and have regard to any approved policies or procedures of the Council.
Ah well, if PPG1 doesn't grab you, maybe the WBC constitution will.
Here's section 2.4.2 (if you'd like to quote it at WBC).
There should be a presumption in favour of decision-making being open and transparent, with members of the public being afforded effective access to relevant information and the processes by which decisions are taken.
Due consultation should take place with those likely to be affected by a decision. So far as practicable, decision-taking should be planned in advance nd the public given due notification of forthcoming decisions.
Where a decision is likely to have wide-ranging or significant impact on the community, additional time and emphasis should be given to consultation and members of the public actively encouraged to contribute their views.
Decisions must be taken with regard to all relevant considerations and ignoring all irrelevant matters.
Decisions should be taken on the basis of the Council's corporate aims and values, and have regard to any approved policies or procedures of the Council.
Well, I think they have actually done the things that you have said are in 2.4.2. There has been a proposal published months ago and in comparing what was suggested then and what is on offer now, apart from the design of the pavilion, it pretty much lines up with what is in the library today. The exhibition is fairly clear on what is proposed, the public have the opportunity to comment on the designs and according to the man on the stand, the planning application will not be submitted until all the interested parties views are known. The theme today seemed to me to be around the fact that it is purely a concept at this stage. (I was told this twice by two different people) It doesn't make it right in my view as I believe the whole park thing is oversized and will almost certainly cost a fortune to run with nothing, apart from a little cafe, to generate any income. I find it a little difficult to understand where the six million or so is coming from. The answer I got was the Town Council, WBC, The Greenham trust and the Pavilion partners. The latter group seem to be an anonymous group of "local traders". I asked was that in fact the Town Centre Partnership and after a bit of shuffling of feet, was told 'Yes'. I asked where a few shopkeepers would find that sort of money for a project that wasn't going to provide them with one jot of income, I was told that grants are available. Goodie I thought.
Wow what a building ..... however a lot of the local public won't like this sort of inspired object (its a bit like Marmite). Also the term pavilion isn't really correct any more - its an Arts / Cafe Centre. I like the design, but its in completely the wrong location, who on earth thought we could put it there? Aren't trees going to be chopped down? If not what about the roots of other trees? Aren't the tree officers going to object especially as its in the park. I think the images show greenery behind the building but that can't be realistic as there aren't trees behind it on the plan. The servicing accessunder the bridge is unrealistic, my hands almost touch the ceiling when I walk there, how on earth will emergency vehicles get there? Disabled access is another one , no sign of parking, even the parking on the other side is being filled in with water. Also the park is shown extended over the other side - this area is already green so thats a fake statement. Why didn't the Town Partnership raise these queries afterall they are supposed to have been reviewing the work, (blindfolded I guess)? How about just putting it on the site of the buses car park and extend the park there. Then move buses behind the museum, or better still locate it parallel with the granary building and then link it with the museum. Same design just a different sensible location.....wake up Newbury have your say.
I read in the Newbury Weekly that some councillor said its the same old hardcore objectors - I think he might find he's wrong over the next few weeks as I am a new objector to current proposal. I also don't believe its cost £50,000 - surely its more like £5000? Still its Greenham Common wotsits money! This project may cost millions but I sure someone in the Newbury Town P knows someone at the Bank of England and do some quantative easing towards the project......
I read in the Newbury Weekly that some councillor said its the same old hardcore objectors...
Yes, it was upon hearing a councillor speak like this that lost them my vote for their party sometime ago.
It seems they will take the vast majority of the potential electorate's utter apathy (read, couldn't give a flying ferk) as a mandate to do as they please and vandalise the town's assets. Meanwhile, we as tax payers, directly or indirectly, fund it.
No, they can't do that because if you look at the plan, that has been designated as a extension to Victoria Park and shown green. Presumably there will be footpaths but they are not shown and will therefore turn into a muddy area so that User can approve building there.
There are already footpaths there - the greens swathe is shown as a red herring to suggest there will be a lot more public green space that at present - in reality it is just the same space as is there now as park/allotments. One aspect of the planning requirements is that they have to replace any public green space they build on with a similar amount of space elsewhere. If they can get away with suggesting that the new space is in this area I would be amazed (and so would they). The real plan is to relocate the football club and turn part of it into the 'new' green space.
The big coloured mural on the face I assume is a screen. Not much use between about 1:00 pm and 10:00 pm in the summer as it faces West and will have the sun shining directly on it. Is this our contribution to the Olympics, no doubt the royalties will not be a problem.
I did wonder why they thought that watching tele was a good activity to promote in parks.
Male
Logged
