The only functions in the pavillion that could not relocate to the other side of the A339 is the cafe. And that would be better situated where the existing kiosk is - centrally located between the children's play area and the sports facilities. Include the changing room and toilets and you would have a far less obstrusive and far more acceptable solution.
Isn't this what Newbury Town Council (who actually own the park) were proposing to do in the park and was part of their plan submitted for a grant. This, even though they had laid out a large amount of funding to pay for the proposal for that grant, was scuppered by WBC because they wouldn't come clean on what they wanted to do in the park. No wonder NTC seem to have given up on the park at the moment.
Isn't this what Newbury Town Council (who actually own the park) were proposing to do in the park and was part of their plan submitted for a grant. This, even though they had laid out a large amount of funding to pay for the proposal for that grant, was scuppered by WBC because they wouldn't come clean on what they wanted to do in the park. No wonder NTC seem to have given up on the park at the moment.
Reading this thread has made me consider what is important in my town (user, note that I live in Newbury). Putting a massive building on the park and inviting activities that are fundamentally indoor pursuits means to me that the park will be overtaken. I like Victoria Park because it doesn't have centrally organised events and lets the public use for the space it is now.
According to this web site 2000 people were asked their opinions and were previously in favour of some sort of development. What I'm not sure of is what the questions were and how they were interpreted. There are some anomolies with the percentages in the results so if anyone has the full questions and results, I'd be interested to seem them.
[size=18]As a resident of Newbury this building does nothing for me and IF it does go ahead it would only provide me with toilet facilities and an indoor cafe ONLY. (The rest of it for the benefit of Greenham Arts (which currently use - from time to time -(the Corn Exchange)). A rather oversized building for much needed hygenic facilities. What about enhancing the rest of the park? I visited the exhibition and found many mixed messages of what is being offered. There were park enhancment plans with Lottery Funding signage that I understand was turned down, I counted at least four different 'footprints' for this pavilion, not including the model. No other designs from other architects were on show just Sutton Griffin were others invited to tender? At a cost of £50,000 for the design work I am surpised no other suggestions were offered to us residents. As for the position, nothing could be worse. As I was informed at the exhibition the nearest public parking would be on the east side of the A339 by the football club of which there are no plans to increase or enhance or in the Parkway underground car parks. As mentioned in previous posts no direct access for those who need assisted access unless in the course of the planning revision(s) a road across the park with parking will be added. Newbury is a traditional market town fortunate to have a large green space close to the shops lets keep it that way and let Green Arts have their 'new home' elsewhere.
Isn't this what Newbury Town Council (who actually own the park) were proposing to do in the park and was part of their plan submitted for a grant. This, even though they had laid out a large amount of funding to pay for the proposal for that grant, was scuppered by WBC because they wouldn't come clean on what they wanted to do in the park. No wonder NTC seem to have given up on the park at the moment.
I thought that NTC only leased the park from WBC, when did this all change ??
Thanks for that. There are some interesting assumptions and interpretations in this.
Looking at the questions, it seems that the Wharf development and the "Pavilion" are intermixed and it is difficult for me to see how the conclusions about solely developing Victoria Park comes out of this.
"82% are in favour of the overall proposal to develop the Wharf Area" isn't a mandate, in my opinion, to only build on Victoria Park. There is a specific question on whether there should be a building on the park but this was not reported in the findings.
Dos anyone know if this is this the only reponse that was issued? Or were other figures and conclusions issued elsewhere?
I thought that NTC only leased the park from WBC, when did this all change ??
Yes, that's right - NTC do lease the park. I think Brian was making a very good point, see earlier posts, where he points out the park was owned by Newbury District Council and so morally at least, the park should be the property of the Town. Can anyone else remember the lengthy and wholly unnecessary squabble that broke out between WBC and NTC when the lease was originally set up. Made the officers responsible look rather silly.
These are the points that stood out for me when I read the documents ..
Most people didn't want the Wharf retained as a car park – this doesn’t stack up with the constant complaints of lack of parking
Most of the respondents were ‘old codgers’!
It does state …the relatively small number of responses, prevent us from being able to place too much weight statistically on the results.(For many reasons the public aren’t always very good at responding to questionnaires, they usually only say what they think when it’s too late)
Question 8 asked categorically, ‘On the basis of the information provided, how would you describe how you feel about the proposed development overall’.
If it is, the respondents would think the pavilion to be much smaller than the boating pond (I think most of us would have agreed to this wouldn't we?) Which, in reality, doesn’t appear to be the case. I can see why people think there’s something odd about it all.
Isn't this what Newbury Town Council (who actually own the park) were proposing to do in the park and was part of their plan submitted for a grant. This, even though they had laid out a large amount of funding to pay for the proposal for that grant, was scuppered by WBC because they wouldn't come clean on what they wanted to do in the park. No wonder NTC seem to have given up on the park at the moment.
It is indeed along the lines of NTC's proposal. However, you are mistaken in thinking that NTC own the park, the freeholder is WBC (inherited via Newbury District Council from Newbury Borough Council on its dissolution in 1974).
It would be nice to see a campaign for such properties (there are/were many) to be handed back to NTC as the obvious reincarnation of the Borough Council. Perhaps they would be less inclined to persuade developers to cover them with concrete (no I'm not that convinced they would't do the same as WBC).
These are the points that stood out for me when I read the documents ..
I came across an NWN article on an earlier consultation in 1998. In this consultation they determined that 89% of the 300 respondents were keen to see open air events (concerts, theatre) in the park. A specific question and clear answer - though a small number of responses.
In 2007 the Wharf consultation offered open air events staged in the new pavillion. And a lot of people liked the idea.
In 2009 they present us with a design where the only open air events would be watching TV. They have removed an extremely popular feature of the pavilion and yet they will still base their planning application on the huge popular support they calculate they received in 2007. As they have removed such a popular feature can they still use the 2007 figures?
One of the points I made was that I thought the 'pavilion' should have a covered stage, rather than, maybe, the café. Also, the foot print of the building with the outside perimeter, makes the development bigger than illustrated on the aerial plan.
I've just studied the first image in this thread and I'm wondering if the trees in that area are giant ones, only the 2 storey building is only half the height of them.
If it is, the respondents would think the pavilion to be much smaller than the boating pond (I think most of us would have agreed to this wouldn't we?) Which, in reality, doesn’t appear to be the case. I can see why people think there’s something odd about it all.
If this is the leaflet then it doesn't seem to show the pavilion! I suspect that this was what Newbury Town Council were proposing before the current proposal by West Berks. I must say that I think this leaflet is much more in tune with usage of a park.
If this is the leaflet then it doesn't seem to show the pavilion! I suspect that this was what Newbury Town Council were proposing before the current proposal by West Berks. I must say that I think this leaflet is much more in tune with usage of a park.
It shows a pavilion (tucked in the corner) on the last page.
Male
Logged
