The Western Area planning commitee, at the meeting last night confirmed the recommendation from the Principal Planning officer (Michael Butler) to refuse the planning application as proposed by the site owners.

The refusal was mainly based on the height and bulk of the two 39m (12 storeys) accomodation blocks. This was the main point offered by the members of the public allowed to speak in opposition to the scheme. There was also some concern from the members that this development would be acceptable in London but not Newbury. It was felt that it was not the type of home that should be provided for local prospective residents 30% of which would be affordable housing. There were in the application, 51 one bed, 134 two bed and 4 three bed apartments.

Part of the application was the commitment, as part of the development, to provide a new road through the estate from the SCATS end to Kings Rd which would have made the bulk of Kings road a cul de sac and remove through traffic from that road and also alleviate the traffic down the very narrow Mill Lane. The highways officer was in favour of this with some reservations regarding the Boundary Rd and Hambridge Rd junction.

It is known that the site is heavily contaminated as a result of previous heavy industry on the site (Gas Works and Sterling Cables) and was identified as the worst contamination in the local area. This has resulted in polluntants including heavy metals which are of concern to the Environmental Health Department. As part of the development, the site owner, although not responsible for the contamination, would clear the site and remove the contamination to the level required by the department. As this was part of the application, refusal means that this will not happen and it was suggested that if the Environmental Health Department are sufficiently concerned about contamination it may fall to the public purse to remediate.

I think the local authority now needs to work with the landowner to come up with a suitable solution for this site. There are benefits in regenerating this part of Newbury, and the landowner obviously wants to sell. Get them all round a table and make something happen. Otherwise it will be West Berks who end up picking up the bill for decontamination.

Quoted from richard.garvie

I think the local authority now needs to work with the landowner to come up with a suitable solution for this site. There are benefits in regenerating this part of Newbury, and the landowner obviously wants to sell. Get them all round a table and make something happen. Otherwise it will be West Berks who end up picking up the bill for decontamination.

The presentation from the architect and the applicant's agent Steven Smallman indicated that that is just what had happened prior to the application and the design, including a discussion with the WBC chief executive and meetings with the planning and highways department. A considerable amount of money has been invested by Nelson Land Investments into a design of which the building style, materials and quality was favoured by the planning department and also into the considerable number of aspects such as determining the level of site contamination. It is unfortunate that the costs to decontaminate the site and in particular dismantle the Newbury eyesore, the tower require a heavy burden in the number of apartments required to make the development viable.
Mr Vickers did manage to use the word "bicycles" but only once. I will give him that.

In what context was bicycles used?

If this process has been conducted with WBC and been allowed to go to application, why was it reccommended for refusal? If I was the developer I would be very unhappy this morning!!!

Quoted from richard.garvie

In what context was bicycles used?

He was pleased with the number of bicycle paking spaces allocated. Something like two per apartment.

Quoted from richard.garvie

In what context was bicycles used?

If this process has been conducted with WBC and been allowed to go to application, why was it reccommended for refusal? If I was the developer I would be very unhappy this morning!!!

refused - Because the height of the blocks was too high.  Methinks they have grown to offset the high costs involved with the site.

Quoted from brian

It is unfortunate that the costs to decontaminate the site and in particular dismantle the Newbury eyesore,

My understanding is that the top of the tower (the corrugated iron clad bit) was condemned as unsafe some years ago - and that it is the owner's responsibility to demolish it or make it safe.  If I have been informed correctly then this should have happened already - and should not depend on WBC providing funding either directly or through approving a planning application that would make the site worth so much more.

The road through it, which makes the site less valuable as it takes up land that could be built on, was once planned to go from Scats to the Racecourse station, the decision to shorten it looks ever more shortsighted.

Really do not understand how we can be asked to pay for this decontamination.  The owner let the land to companies who contaminated it, albeit legally, therefore it is his responsibility to clean it up.  He took the rent money off these companies, it didn't come to us.  If our garden is overgrown, the tax payer doesn't pay for it to be weeded.  

Quoted from jay

Really do not understand how we can be asked to pay for this decontamination.  The owner let the land to companies who contaminated it, albeit legally, therefore it is his responsibility to clean it up.  He took the rent money off these companies, it didn't come to us.  If our garden is overgrown, the tax payer doesn't pay for it to be weeded.  

No, you are wrong in your supposition. The current owner has not rented the buildings to businesses that contaminate. The contamination came from the old Newbury District gas works and probably Sterling cables. The gas works belonged to the Borough and Sterling cables no longer exist. I think, if you read the application documentation, the site owner would clear up the site even though he has no legal responsibility so to do and he would fund that from the development.

Quoted from blackdog

My understanding is that the top of the tower (the corrugated iron clad bit) was condemned as unsafe some years ago - and that it is the owner's responsibility to demolish it or make it safe.  If I have been informed correctly then this should have happened already - and should not depend on WBC providing funding either directly or through approving a planning application that would make the site worth so much more.

You could be right about the tower but I have not been able to find any records of the owner being instructed to do that. It is looking a little unsafe but I am not a structural engineer so cannot comment. The developer has not asked for any funding to demolish the tower, that and the site clear up would be included and financed by the value of the new flats. What WBC might have to pay for would be the clear up of the contamination as they by default are responsible for the contamination.

I have no idea who this photographer is but his website has some of the best photographs I have seen for a long time. He must look at Newbury.net as he has used one of the posts on his page for the Sterling Industrial Estate. Called "Stirling"and the "Sterling Garage" site in this weeks NWN by the way.

The set of photographs just show how derelict and ugly the site and the tower really are. All those people who perhaps have a rose tinted view of what is really there might want to revise their viewpoint.

Enjoy......

http://www.alansworld.co.uk/urbex/sterling.htm

Quoted from brian

I have no idea who this photographer is but his website has some of the best photographs I have seen for a long time.

Quoted from brian

The set of photographs just show how derelict and ugly the site and the tower really are. All those people who perhaps have a rose tinted view of what is really there might want to revise their viewpoint.

Your post suggests that should the Estate not be there in all its 'glory', you would have not been privileged to have seen these photos you admire!

This makes for an interesting point, that under certain circumstances, even industrial decay may have a beauty to it.  Modern buildings might be clean and tidy, but are they really interesting?  Are the expedient designs we have today something to be admired and proud of: Vue cinema, Parkway, St Bartholomews School, etc?

As a kid I used to enjoy exploring dereliction (there was a lot more back then).  There was a certain wonder about it.  A history, a record.  One of the great playgrounds of the 70s being the old mill in Kennet Road.

Quoted from Greenham Common

Your post suggests that should the Estate not be there in all its 'glory', you would have not been privileged to have seen these photos you admire!

This makes for an interesting point, that under certain circumstances, even industrial decay may have a beauty to it.  Modern buildings might be clean and tidy, but are they really interesting?  Are the expedient designs we have today something to be admired and proud of: Vue cinema, Parkway, St Bartholomews School, etc?

As a kid I used to enjoy exploring dereliction (there was a lot more back then).  There was a certain wonder about it.  A history, a record.  One of the great playgrounds of the 70s being the old mill in Kennet Road.

I detest graffiti, but can see the art and skill that goes into it.  I am anti hunt, but can still appreciate the brush work of a great artist.  You don't have to like the subject to enjoy the skill and technical camera work of this photographer.

You can't take a picture of something that isn't there.

Quoted from Greenham Common

You can't take a picture of something that isn't there.

That's true, but the piccies have been done and very nicely too. No point in leaving the buildings just in case another photographer wants to try his hand.

The next derelict photographic subject could be the old Enborne Road bit of St Barts once the students have moved out before the developers move in. It's a pity the internals of the old Newbury District Hospital weren't commited to somebody's digital camera. I was going to say commited to film but of course that's well out of date with today's 50megabit cameras.

Bear in mind that I'm not advocating that we should keep things like SC site as is as such, only that there are different ways of looking at things, and was simply trying to contradict brian's assertion.  The way things are going in Newbury, you couldn't blame people who think that we might haver been a town that was heavily bombed in the the war.  I think it was a Tory councillor that said something along the lines of: 'by the time we've finished, you won't recognise Newbury'.  Architecturally speaking, I don't think many of the changes have been for the better.

Quoted from brian

That's true, but the piccies have been done and very nicely too. No point in leaving the buildings just in case another photographer wants to try his hand.

The next derelict photographic subject could be the old Enborne Road bit of St Barts once the students have moved out before the developers move in. It's a pity the internals of the old Newbury District Hospital weren't commited to somebody's digital camera. I was going to say commited to film but of course that's well out of date with today's 50megabit cameras.

The photographs reinforce my view that there are a couple of nice buildings on the site, perhaps even worthy of listing. The fact that they have been neglected does not necessarily mean that they should be demolished (though it seems to be a tactic applied to many listed buildings).

As for the hospital - how do we know that it wasn't recorded. I'd bet that there were a lot of pictures taken in its last few months.  I have seen a load of pictures of it and Sandleford hospital taken (at a guess) in the 1970s - I can't say that they were inspiring art, but a decent record of what once stood on these sites.  

The old St Barts buildings should be recorded before the pupils move out - to show how they were used. They should get Newbury Camera Club or somesuch to spend a bit of time there.

Quoted from blackdog

The old St Barts buildings should be recorded before the pupils move out - to show how they were used. They should get Newbury Camera Club or somesuch to spend a bit of time there.

I wonder who the person is who took those pictures. He has to be someone who posts on this board as on another board he has posted pictures of the old concrete emplacements from WW2 which are local, Kennet valley, and I seem to remember seeing them somewhere else and I thought it was Newbury.net.

Quoted from brian

I wonder who the person is who took those pictures. He has to be someone who posts on this board as on another board he has posted pictures of the old concrete emplacements from WW2 which are local, Kennet valley, and I seem to remember seeing them somewhere else and I thought it was Newbury.net.

His details are in the public domain if you know where to look:

http://webwhois.nic.uk/cgi-bin/whois.cgi?query=alansworld.co.uk

And it's me!

Evening all, I'm Alan, responsible for alansworld.co.uk, which features, amongst other things, my report upon the Sterling Cables site.  My thanks to Brian and others for the kind comments about my humble stabs at a bit of snapshotting.  Thanks to Brian again for getting in touch with me off-forum.

As an urban explorer I'm passionate about the preservation in photographs of the sights and sites which have been with us for perhaps a long time, but run the risk of not being with us for ever.  Sterling Cables is one such; Colthrop paper mill is another I've done locally.  I hope we might be able to add in St Barts too in due course.  I very much enjoy seeing the old Newbury pics here and I would be delighted if one day somebody might look at my pics of Sterling and say, oh wow, I remember that before it was 700 flats!  I am certain that the only two pics of the old Railway Hotel are right here on this site.  

Regards to all,

A

And it's me!

Evening all, I'm Alan, responsible for alansworld.co.uk, which features, amongst other things, my report upon the Sterling Cables site.  My thanks to Brian and others for the kind comments about my humble stabs at a bit of snapshotting.  Thanks to Brian again for getting in touch with me off-forum.

As an urban explorer I'm passionate about the preservation in photographs of the sights and sites which have been with us for perhaps a long time, but run the risk of not being with us for ever.  Sterling Cables is one such; Colthrop paper mill is another I've done locally.  I hope we might be able to add in St Barts too in due course.  I very much enjoy seeing the old Newbury pics here and I would be delighted if one day somebody might look at my pics of Sterling and say, oh wow, I remember that before it was 700 flats!  I am certain that the only two pics of the old Railway Hotel are right here on this site.  

Regards to all,

A

Hi Alan. Are you a member over at 28 days later?

I don't know what happened, but my post appears to be proliferating!  Must be me refreshing the page or something. Apologies.

Massifheed - no, I don't particularly like 28dayslater to be honest.  I find derelictplaces much more to my taste.

Thanks Blackdog for the additional Railway Hotel pic.  Interesting to see the cable works there in the background.

A

Quoted from Alansworld

I am certain that the only two pics of the old Railway Hotel are right here on this site.  

Whilst I applaud the idea of recording the bits of Newbury that are disappearing so that they can be remembered I am absolutely certain that there are plenty more pictures of the Railway Hotel than two on this site (are there really only two here?)  Umm - no.  There are three on this thread alone: http://www.newbury.net/forum/m-1271490677/

I'm afraid you have picked a bad example - the Railway just happens to have been photographed much more than most other lost pubs - try finding pictures of the Pigeons, the Borough Arms, or even the relatively recently departed Rising Sun and Rokeby Arms.

Meanwhile here's another picture of the Railway.

If I remember correctly, the Rokeby Arms looked a bit like the current London Apprentice from the outside.

Quoted from Greenham Common

If I remember correctly, the Rokeby Arms looked a bit like the current London Apprentice from the outside.

Not a comparison I would make - more like the Lamb or the Swan in that it was 1930s/50s red brick and tile. The OLA is white paint and green roof though, as it was built in 1935, the layout is probably not that dissimilar.

Yes, my memory of the pub is not good, but it does resemble The Swan.  I think the OLA's white paint is fairly modern; didn't it used to be called something else?

I'm sure Blackdog will correct me if I'm wrong as he is an expert on Newbury pubs but the Old London Apprentice was built to replicate several other pubs in the Simond's of Reading portfolio. The Green tiles were quite distinctive. The license for that new pub was transferred from the other London Apprentice which was on St John's roundabout (A cross roads in those days).

The only other local place where green roof tilese used, as far as I know, was on the old filling station (now awaiting a buyer) at the top of the hill just up from the Rokeby.

Quoted from Greenham Common

Yes, my memory of the pub is not good, but it does resemble The Swan.  I think the OLA's white paint is fairly modern; didn't it used to be called something else?

Quoted from brian

I'm sure Blackdog will correct me if I'm wrong as he is an expert on Newbury pubs but the Old London Apprentice was built to replicate several other pubs in the Simond's of Reading portfolio. The Green tiles were quite distinctive. The license for that new pub was transferred from the other London Apprentice which was on St John's roundabout (A cross roads in those days).

The only other local place where green roof tilese used, as far as I know, was on the old filling station (now awaiting a buyer) at the top of the hill just up from the Rokeby.

The white paint goes back as far as I can remember (1980) and seems in keeping with the green tiles, so I suspect it was always like that.  I don't think I have ever seen those green tiles on a redbrick building.

Simonds built the OLA (as the OLA) in 1936/7 using the licence of the London Apprentice (as pointed out by Brian) to get round problems with local magistrates who were not granting any additional licences at that time.  It was built on the site of an old beershop called the Red House - which fronted on to Boundary Road and never had an on-licence.

I don't know that Simmonds built many pubs in this style (and I don't know that they didn't) - but pubs are built to meet the requirements of the day so those built at the same time would have many similarities.  

It is the Red House I was thinking of.  I've seen a picture of it as The Red House.

Quoted from Greenham Common

It is the Red House I was thinking of.  I've seen a picture of it as The Red House.

Now that's a picture I'd like to see!

I'm sure the picture is in one of the Newbury history books.

Just an update to an old thread that wandered a bit off course but started out as the refusal of the site owner's application to build on and decontaminate Sterling Estate`.
A new application has been entered to the planning department after, as far as I know, discussions with WBC with what they will and won't allow. The site owners have gone to great lengths to solve Mr Hunneman's vociferous objections to the "tower blocks" that were in that original application. The highest building is now only seven storeys high and the highest roof line is now comparable with the Railway Road houses. In fact the developers have gone to great trouble to ensure that the Kings Road and Gordon Road residents are not overlooked to any great extent and have added a group of town houses facing Kings Road.
It seems that the link Road is not on the plans but I don't think you can have your cake and eat it and I believe the back room boys at WBC have decided that it is no longer required. Pity they didn't tell Rachael Lancaster of the transport Policy dept of WBC.
There are a couple of knee jerk objections from members of the public who haven't, it seems, taken the trouble to look at the plans as they are still banging on about tower blocks.
The recommendations from the said R Roberts really made me smile. I wondered what planet she currently resides on.
For a 190 apartment development she wants
280 cycle parking spaces
Because it is a residential development, cycling to work should not be included in the travel plan for the development.
As an alternative to the 5 year travel plan she wants the developer to provide cycle training for all residents and provide a discount scheme to enable residents to purchase a cycle.
By the way she identifies the new occupants as "perspective residents". Ah well, even a spell checker won't get that one.

Oh, and the icing on the cake as far as S106 payments, the library has asked for £26,786. Nice one in these times when the council is cutting back on the essential services to the disadvantaged. As far as I'm concerned, libraries should be low on the money grabbing but as of todays date, they are first.

The NWNews suggests that the public consultation ends on Wednesday February 1st so where and when is this going to happen.

One other thing that Rachael Lancaster slips in is that WBC do not operate a car sharing database. That to me is an error of omission but anyway, I'm not sure if implemented it does work but there are loads of councils that operate a database. A phone call would be good. If she wants the link it's here.....

http://www.nationalcarshare.co.uk/downloads/pdfs/how_car_sharing_works.pdf

Judging by the results of that august body of persons leading or attempting to lead the town, Newbury Town Council were swayed into objecting to the sterling development plans, based this time mainly on road traffic increase by the apartment occupants who will all drive their cars to the Sainsbury's roundabout just when Mr Hunneman and Mr Anthony Pick want to travel down the A339. Trouble is that the developer has resolved the problem with the building height so Mr Hunneman needed another reason to not want the development to happen. Like a group of sheep, the council followed his lead. In actual fact anybody who thinks through the development would realise that some of the people will be turning right out of the estate to go east and that the percentage of people leaving the estate by car will be considerably less than that from an out of town estate such as that proposed on the racecourse and Sandleford. Equally, if one calculates the amount of traffic on and off the estate today, I doubt there will be any increase in the number of vehicles entering and leaving bearing in mind that today there are four garages which service cars including all their multiple daily van deliveries, a used tyre bay, a car valet business and a company that sells bottled industrial gas with all the commercial movements that go with that. Transforming the estate into a residential development will almost certainly ease the traffic flow down Kings Road not increase it. Pity that somebody didn't do their homework.
The Gordon Road resident believes that the value of his property will be devalued because of being overlooked. Well, lets not build anything because anywhere one builds there will be a matter of overlooking but the bonus point from his point of view is that the contamination will be cleared up and when a prospective purchaser for his property does a land search that will no longer be an issue for them. I wouldn't want to live near that sort of contamination.
What is it with these guys, they didn't want tower blocks and now they have been removed from the plans, they still don't want the development of the biggest eyesore visible to every rail visitor to the town and the potentially dangerous underlying pollution directly on top of our drinking water aquifer. The polluter was the old Newbury Borough Council who owned the original Gas Works and latterly, the Gas board, so might this end up as a taxpayer's problem if the clean up is not done for free by Nelson-Geneva who have no responsibility for the pollution.

Perhaps they just don't fancy having a building site for a neighbour for the forseeable future?

They may not be as high as the original proposal but the site would still have some very tall buildings.  But the biggest downside of the new plans is the loss of the relief road.

Quoted from brian

................The Gordon Road resident believes that the value of his property will be devalued because of being overlooked. Well, lets not build anything because anywhere one builds there will be a matter of overlooking but the bonus point from his point of view is that the contamination will be cleared up and when a prospective purchaser for his property does a land search that will no longer be an issue for them. I wouldn't want to live near that sort of contamination.
................

Wasn't the land marked as industrial on the Town Plan?  Perhaps we should oblige this resident with an indusrial estate!

I have objections to some of the large estates (racecourse / Sandleford) on the basis that the infrastrucure roads / water is not able to cope, Smaller estates like this are acceptable.

How tall is the tower on Sterling Estate or the flats in the Park Way development. So surely if its not as tall as that either of them it should be allright.

Here is a drawing from the planning application which shows how the height has changed dramatically.

http://planning.westberks.gov.uk/rpp/showimage.asp?j=11/02329/FULEXT&index=511100

As far as the Parkway tower goes, that tops out I believe above the dotted red line for the tower. So, no tower blocks on Sterling but a huge one on parkway.

Quoted from blackdog

They may not be as high as the original proposal but the site would still have some very tall buildings.  But the biggest downside of the new plans is the loss of the relief road.

Possibly, but what the residents of Gordon Road haven't sussed is that at the moment they are sheilded from the Kings Road and Mill lane traffic noise. Stick a road through from SCATS and they will get the full value of the traffic noise in both directions.
I believe that the council have doubts about the value of that road proposal and probably don't have enough spare money to develop their bit now or in the future.

Quoted from brian

Possibly, but what the residents of Gordon Road haven't sussed is that at the moment they are sheilded from the Kings Road and Mill lane traffic noise. Stick a road through from SCATS and they will get the full value of the traffic noise in both directions.
I believe that the council have doubts about the value of that road proposal and probably don't have enough spare money to develop their bit now or in the future.

But doesn't the traffic plan for the racecourse development include it?

Regarding the height - I thought the new plans had seven storey blocks - ie the same as Parkway.  It seems that successive developments are gradually raising the bar - I'm afraid high rise Newbury is with us for good (10/12 storey on the racecourse).

As for the Sterling cables tower, I thought that the owners had an obligation to take down the corrugated iron bit at the top for safety reasons.

PS BB - is there any way I can persuade the forum editor to recognise that I am English and that storey and recognise are not incorrectly spelt? Is it the forum or my own settings?

Quoted from blackdog

PS BB - is there any way I can persuade the forum editor to recognise that I am English and that storey and recognise are not incorrectly spelt? Is it the forum or my own settings?

It is probably your Internet browser set to spellcheck with a US dictionary!

Quoted from blackdog

PS BB - is there any way I can persuade the forum editor to recognise that I am English and that storey and recognise are not incorrectly spelt? Is it the forum or my own settings?

Does the bulletin board have a spell checker, mine doesn't seem to have one.

Quoted from brian

Does the bulletin board have a spell checker, mine doesn't seem to have one.

Must be something on my machine then.

Quoted from blackdog

Must be something on my machine then.

Turns out it was Chrome - set to English (US).  It did give me one alternative - English (Australian)!  Eventually managed to get it to add English (UK) and all is well.

Just trying to get this....

So, the Lib Dems are against Sandleford and the racecourse housing because they think 'brownfield' sites like this should be developed first.

Then, when the developer submits two very different proposals, neither are acceptable to the Lib Dems on NTC.

Surely objecting to this AND Sandleford is untenable, and highlights Lib Dem duplicity once again.

Quoted from Muddler

Just trying to get this....

So, the Lib Dems are against Sandleford and the racecourse housing because they think 'brownfield' sites like this should be developed first.

Then, when the developer submits two very different proposals, neither are acceptable to the Lib Dems on NTC.

Surely objecting to this AND Sandleford is untenable, and highlights Lib Dem duplicity once again.

hmmm........

What would Jesus Richard Garvie do....?

Quoted from spartacus

hmmm........

What would Jesus Richard Garvie do....?

Hopefully, not try and politicise planning applications for political gain.