It shows a pavilion (tucked in the corner) on the last page.
It was so small that I didn't notice it!. What it does say is "Construct a park pavilion to provide a kiosk, toilets, information point, park warden facilities, changing rooms, boat and seating storage, minor equipment storage and an indoor classroom"
The size and scope of the pavilion seems to have changed a lot.
I still find the whole consultation process confusing as what is proposed now is on a different scale to the original questions in the survey. Originally the pavilion in the questionnaire was taken as part of a wider development of the Wharf and Victoria Park. Where are the plans for the Wharf development and is it likely to happen or is the pavilion the end of the process?
I realise that I keep on about the kids play area (it is the part of the park I use most as my children love it), but the link above seems to make no mention of it at all, just an "activity area" around the boating pond which, I assume, can't be it. Do they think that by ignoring it completely, other people will forget about it, and the loss of a popular facility, also? It seems a bit mad to me to just make no mention of it at all and hope no-one will notice.
When I was at the exhibition on Friday, a West Berks rep stated that the youth centre was to be relocated to Northcorft - which is why the youth facilites are so meagre. I thought they were touting the youth centre activities be relocated in the pavilion in all the earlier PR or have a been reading things wrong?
I realise that I keep on about the kids play area (it is the part of the park I use most as my children love it), but the link above seems to make no mention of it at all, just an "activity area" around the boating pond which, I assume, can't be it. Do they think that by ignoring it completely, other people will forget about it, and the loss of a popular facility, also? It seems a bit mad to me to just make no mention of it at all and hope no-one will notice.
The play area and skatepark are retained and will be near the pond and seated area from the pavilion (the North end).
The play area and skatepark are retained and will be near the pond and seated area from the pavilion (the North end).
Is that retained, as in they'll be demolished, but rebuilt, or retained as in the development wont touch them? Looking at the plans, the pavilion sits right on top of where the play area is.
Is that retained, as in they'll be demolished, but rebuilt, or retained as in the development wont touch them? Looking at the plans, the pavilion sits right on top of where the play area is.
I don't know, except that there will be a play area and a skate park.
Are the Town Council signed up to this? Removal of the play area and skateboard ramps, the new building intruding into their part of the Park, a boating pond where they were planning to build facilities?
The building is at least twice the footprint that I had envisaged - as well as being impressively ugly. I have also become accustomed to viewing artists impressions with immense suspicion - it will look a lot bigger still when it is built. [And User - it doesn't use any of the bank.]
Thre green area east of the A339 is labelled 'Victoria Park Extension' - its always been part of the park, until they built the A339 through the Park it was an integral part. But it can't survive as the green space shown, they have coloured over the access road from the end of Faraday Road to the new building.
The overall plan has also changed - the Stone Building seems to survive, but only as an annex to a pub. The new museum is still there, what is it going to hold?
One has to admire Patrick Griffin's patience though - he designed the Waterside replacement 20 years ago.
why no stick the new building in the 'Victoria Park Extension'?
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).
Yes, sorry, I did know that but the Town Council are the tenants for want of a better word. As they seemed to be taking responsibility for the grant application and also maintain it, my assumption was, possibly wrongly, that they would have the lions share of the decision making. Once again, the grant was scuppered by WBC not coming clean about their plans, this after NTC had invested a fortune in both the design and application for that failed grant
Is that retained, as in they'll be demolished, but rebuilt, or retained as in the development wont touch them? Looking at the plans, the pavilion sits right on top of where the play area is.
Demolished and rebuilt. I couldn't get a feeling for what they really propose but the model showed three circular areas at the northern end of the pavilion with the first circle closest to the outdoor cafe seating for the toddlers, the next circle play stuff for the juniors and the last most northerly circle containing the skateboard area. I don't think the skateboard area is not nearly big enough but I didn't want to drag my tape across their lovely white concept model.
This is the reply about how they, WBC, arrived at their statistics.....
In terms of the approach we adopted for the survey, we employed a probability (ie. random) sample methodology: the results are based on just over 2,000 completed, returned questionnaires (50% response rate). As a result of this sampling methodology, we are able to extrapolate out the findings to the wider population, within an overall confidence interval (margin of error) of less than 2.25%. Please see section 3 of the report for more detail.
In terms of the replies the statistics were based upon a received 2,000 replies. Of these if you search through the statistics,..
535 respondents visit the park freqeuntly. 1,274 visit infrequently or never.
So, their statistics are based on a whole group of people who don’t use the park.
In terms of the replies the statistics were based upon a received 2,000 replies. Of these if you search through the statistics,..
535 respondents visit the park freqeuntly. 1,274 visit infrequently or never.
So, their statistics are based on a whole group of people who don’t use the park.
In one way it makes sense - most of the respondents don't use the park - so how can we make it into a facility they will use.
However, that supposes that these 1,274 represent a group of potential park users and not a random selection of West Berkshire residents many of whom live in places like Tilehurst, Burghfield and Pangbourne and have only visited Newbury a few times in their lives. A new pavillion will not atract these to Newbury, they live in the Reading area and are already well served by the facilities provided by Reading Council.
It was so small that I didn't notice it!. What it does say is "Construct a park pavilion to provide a kiosk, toilets, information point, park warden facilities, changing rooms, boat and seating storage, minor equipment storage and an indoor classroom"
The size and scope of the pavilion seems to have changed a lot.
I still find the whole consultation process confusing as what is proposed now is on a different scale to the original questions in the survey. Originally the pavilion in the questionnaire was taken as part of a wider development of the Wharf and Victoria Park. Where are the plans for the Wharf development and is it likely to happen or is the pavilion the end of the process?
The document you have been looking at was Newbury Town Council's plan for the park as proposed to the Lottery people. This was totally scuppered by WBC's failure to put their pavillion plans together in time to be included in NTC's proposal for lottery funding. NTC made the mistake of believing WBC's planned schedule would be met.
There have been earlier plans for the park - here's one from 1998.
Logged
Male
