So far as we know, Nick Carter and his colleagues at West Berkshire Council would still very much like to build an 'arts pavilion' on Newbury's Victoria Park.  Is this a good idea?  Here is some background information:

Only one firm of architects was asked to bid for the work.  No one knows why this firm is so favoured by the council: http://forum.newburytoday.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=332

The Newbury Society, which should be working to preserve the town, doesn't seem to have much to say on the subject http://bit.ly/osfKT8

So far as we know, both Conservative and Libdem local councillors are in favour of the scheme.  If this is so, are they really in touch with the people who elected them?

Note that you can select more than one option in the poll.

Quoted from noobree

So far as we know, both Conservative and Libdem local councillors are in favour of the scheme.  If this is so, are they really in touch with the people who elected them?

Councillors I have spoken to about the Pavilion have a range of views - from outright opposition to lukewarm support. I suspect that most are relatively indifferent to it - but are toeing the party line (whatever that is at the moment).

And no one has been able to give even a vageuely convincing reason why an arts centre needs to be built in the park.

What bothers me about the way that WBC decide that they have a mandate to build, is the format of the public questionaire.When the first format was cobbled up, the result was quite negative. So, they had a second go and confused the questions along with their proposals for the wharf including proposals for new licensed premises. The question papers also seemed to bypass the Newbury ratepayers as I don't know anybody that received and filled one in.
If they do it again, we all know now what they want to force upon us so forewarned is forearmed.

Quoted from blackdog

And no one has been able to give even a vageuely convincing reason why an arts centre needs to be built in the park.

The option of extending the library building has many advantages - they could simply build the new wing to look exactly like the existing one, recycling the plans and saving tens of thousands in architects fees.  They might even be able to get the roof right this time.  It would easily fit on the Wharf - see attached - and there would be no need to build a bridge.

Or, for those who would still like to see the basin part of the vision implemented, there's this option.  Where should I send my invoice?

Quoted from noobree

The option of extending the library building has many advantages - they could simply build the new wing to look exactly like the existing one, recycling the plans and saving tens of thousands in architects fees.  They might even be able to get the roof right this time.  It would easily fit on the Wharf - see attached - and there would be no need to build a bridge.

Yes, excellent proposals. The site could be further extended by incorporating under a glass roof, the whole of the left hand end of the space including putting the stone building under cover. That could have a glass fronted view of the canal with a walkway in front to provide the opportunity to sit alongside the river on tables and chairs in summer but with an option for an interior space when the weather is inclement. We could do without losing the library car park space, but we were going to lose the wharf car park under the WBC  proposed scheme anyway.
Forget the boat wharf, if WBC can't provide car parking, why dio they need to provide boat parking. No revenue from that.

I like your thinking.  Option 2, if the library extension isn't favoured by Market Street, would be to site the pavilion in Northbrook Street.  A swathe of empty shops is opening up on the west side, from Curries onwards.  I'm sure a decent architect could come up with a sensitive and imaginative conversion of three or four buildings which would provide ample space and breathe some life back into our high street.  If the pavilion is built in the park it will only suck more people away from Northbrook St which would surely be disastrous post Parkway.

If only they'd consulted us about options in the first place rather than plonking their god-awful park destruction scheme in front of us and then spinning the 'consultation', but that's typical of the current regime.

I wonder who voted to build it in the park? Not...

Quoted from 26

I wonder who voted to build it in the park? Not...

No, it would not be. The members of the Newbury Few don't enter into things like polls etc. They just go ahead and dictate exactly what they are going to do!  

Quoted from blackdog

Councillors I have spoken to about the Pavilion have a range of views - from outright opposition to lukewarm support. I suspect that most are relatively indifferent to it - but are toeing the party line (whatever that is at the moment).

And no one has been able to give even a vageuely convincing reason why an arts centre needs to be built in the park.

Becuase there is a spare green space and the Newbury Architect has designed it, enough said? What more of a reason would you require?  

Build it to connect with the museum, making the museum a more viable facilty and possibly connect it to the Corn Exchange.

Quoted from richard.garvie

Build it to connect with the museum, making the museum a more viable facilty and possibly connect it to the Corn Exchange.

Now you're talking. Keep 'em coming.

It is useless just whingeing on here, getting up a petition would be equally pointless, all the Councillors web adresses are published so why not email all of them continually with a barrage of objections indicating not putting the wretched building in the park? Perhaps the 'Friends of Victoria Park' could organise a campaign.

Quoted from old codger

why not email all of them continually with a barrage of objections indicating not putting the wretched building in the park?

Is the correct answer to this 'It would be pointless because most of those who are keen on this appalling scheme (including Messrs Carter and Jones and most of the latter's tory henchpersons) don't live in Newbury'?  (I believe quite a few of the 'senior' Libdems are keen on the scheme as well, irrelevant though they may be these days.)

It's fascinating to see the discrepancy between the 'scrap the whole idea' and 'I can't think of a single reason why this might be a good idea' votes in my very unscientifically constructed poll questions! As things stand there are about 50% more people who think the scheme should be scrapped than there are people who can't think of a good reason for going ahead with it.  What larks!

What is the Newbury Society's position on this, incidentally?  Does anyone know? Allegedly all the local voluntary and charity organisations live in fear of the Greenham Common Trust and some are saying that the trust are rather keen to build on the park.  Is there any truth in this?  It seems absurd if so.  I hope that these are just malicious rumours and someone will straighten things out asap.

Quoted from noobree

It's fascinating to see the discrepancy between the 'scrap the whole idea' and 'I can't think of a single reason why this might be a good idea' votes in my very unscientifically constructed poll questions! As things stand there are about 50% more people who think the scheme should be scrapped than there are people who can't think of a good reason for going ahead with it.  What larks!

What is the Newbury Society's position on this, incidentally?  Does anyone know? Allegedly all the local voluntary and charity organisations live in fear of the Greenham Common Trust and some are saying that the trust are rather keen to build on the park.  Is there any truth in this?  It seems absurd if so.  I hope that these are just malicious rumours and someone will straighten things out asap.

As usual money does the talking..... councils take heed?  

A little update. WBC will start consulting on this in January to March 2012, but the focus will shift onto the 'museum' side of the canal. At the moment, this appears to be a way for WBC to build momentum, and only then will they add on a quick exercise to ask us about the pavilion.

The challenge for opponents is to move the message onto cost. The costs of digging out a canal basin far outweigh the benefits by some £5m, and the pub/restaurant isn't needed. A meeting will be arranged shortly to get the 'no' campaign organised, and make sure WBC don't split the 'no' vote through their usual methods.

The No campaign will be open, transparent & not be using any of the 'usual methods' I take it.

Quoted from noobree

What is the Newbury Society's position on this, incidentally?  Does anyone know? Allegedly all the local voluntary and charity organisations live in fear of the Greenham Common Trust and some are saying that the trust are rather keen to build on the park.  Is there any truth in this?  It seems absurd if so.  I hope that these are just malicious rumours and someone will straighten things out asap.

A former chairman of the Newbury Society resigned from that position because he felt that his outspoken criticism of the pavilion might affect the funding for the charity he works for.  NGT have ridiculed his fears - but he still resigned from the chairmanship.

As far as I know the Newbury Society is still firmly against the pavilion.

Quoted from 78

The No campaign will be open, transparent & not be using any of the 'usual methods' I take it.

What would they have to hide?

Quoted from blackdog

A former chairman of the Newbury Society resigned...Newbury Society is still firmly against the pavilion.

OK, thanks for that.  What I really, really don't understand is why they're so desperate to build on Victoria Park when there are so many brownfield sites they could use.   Do they have something against parks?  It can't just be because the land is already publicly owned - there's plenty of other publicly owned land on which they could build.  If they really want to build on a park, I doubt whether many would complain if the thing were to be sited next to the Northcroft Centre.  Perhaps they could completely redevelop the Northcroft Centre site into a new sport and arts centre (retaining the lido, of course).

So far as I understand the situation, the trust want to shift New Greenham Arts into town so that they can have more office space on the Greenham Arts site - if that's right, that makes a lot of sense.  The part which doesn't is building on Victoria Park.

Quoted from noobree

So far as I understand the situation, the trust want to shift New Greenham Arts into town so that they can have more office space on the Greenham Arts site - if that's right, that makes a lot of sense.  The part which doesn't is building on Victoria Park.

I couldn't agree more - the only reason for building on the park I have ever heard was from Patrick Griffin.  He wants a building there to create some sort of flow and connection between the Wharf and Parkway - from that point of view the use of the building is virtually irrelevant.  However, making it a public space like an arts centre is a good move (if you want it built) to help glean some public support for the building (I suspect Griffin would be quite happy to put a restaurant or pub there).

Quoted from blackdog

I couldn't agree more - the only reason for building on the park I have ever heard was from Patrick Griffin.  He wants a building there to create some sort of flow and connection between the Wharf and Parkway - from that point of view the use of the building is virtually irrelevant.  However, making it a public space like an arts centre is a good move (if you want it built) to help glean some public support for the building (I suspect Griffin would be quite happy to put a restaurant or pub there).

Well that's it then end of debate - what Griffin wants..........

Quoted from blackdog

I couldn't agree more - the only reason for building on the park I have ever heard was from Patrick Griffin.  He wants a building there to create some sort of flow and connection between the Wharf and Parkway

I wonder why anyone would think that's a good idea.  Wouldn't it just draw more people away from Northbrook Street? And doesn't the existing bridge provide a 'flow and connection' between the Wharf and Parkway?  It's not as if anyone could stand on the Wharf and not be aware that Parkway was there.

I'm sure that this has been mentioned before, but isn't it just possible that there might at some point be a slight conflict of interest between Mr Griffin BA (Hons) professional and Town Centre Steering Committee roles?  I'm sure that's incredibly unlikely and he is able to take an entirely objective and professional view, but wouldn't it be a good idea if he wasn't involved with the SG just in case anyone has doubts?  

http://www.suttongriffin.co.uk/page52.html

There appear to be plenty of other firms of architects in the area, many of them with offices actually in Newbury: http://bit.ly/nmQiEF What's going on here?  I think we should be told.

Just in case anyone needs to be reminded about what Mr Griffin apparently wants to build, photos and a plan are here: http://www.newbury.net/forum/m-1257379199/s-all/

Also, why do so many buildings these days attempt to look like boats?  It's not very original, is it? http://goo.gl/887qK

Quoted from noobree

Just in case anyone needs to be reminded about what Mr Griffin apparently wants to build, photos and a plan are here: http://www.newbury.net/forum/m-1257379199/s-all/

If he was one of the three little pigs, which house would he have built?

Good question.  Also, does anyone know if his firm would get the contracts for the pub, the restaurant, the bridge and the apartments which are shown on the plan on the earlier thread?  Or is it too early to say?

Interesting to note that this thread will shortly have had 700 views.  Lovejoy may be right that no one takes any notice of the tripe posted on this forum but that's a lot of people not taking any notice, even allowing for User's multiple visits on behalf of his masters.   Onwards etc.

Quoted from noobree

Good question.  Also, does anyone know if his firm would get the contracts for the pub, the restaurant, the bridge and the apartments which are shown on the plan on the earlier thread?  Or is it too early to say?

Interesting to note that this thread will shortly have had 700 views.  Lovejoy may be right that no one takes any notice of the tripe posted on this forum but that's a lot of people not taking any notice, even allowing for User's multiple visits on behalf of his masters.   Onwards etc.

700 views can be the same person viewing the thread 700 times.

Of course it's unlikely in this case and is more likely to be the 46 people who voted in the poll looking at the thread an average of 15 times.

By the way, here's the results of the last poll on here.

Labour Party           28%
Apolitical Democrats      16%
Independent           16%
Not Voting                   16%
Liberal Democrats      12%
Conservative Party      8%
UKIP                       4%

Quoted from user23.3

700 views can be the same person viewing the thread 700 times.

Of course it's unlikely in this case and is more likely to be the 46 people who voted in the poll looking at the thread an average of 15 times.

Good point, well made - I'm sure you're right the numbers of actual visitors are tiny. This is good news as it means that we can plot our campaign against Mr Griffin's BA (Hons) god awful park wrecking excrescence pretty much in private.  Coincidentally, I was once told (by someone who would have known) that Supreme Leader Carter boasted that the whole Vision thing was deliberately developed in private on the basis that when it was revealed to the anxiously waiting public we would gasp with awe and amazement.  It was supposed to be, literally, a revelation.  From what I read at his website I suspect that it was Mr Griffin himself who put this thought into the Supreme Leader's head.

Meanwhile, the poll you mention is interesting because it turns out that the numbers reflect pretty much exactly what people think of the coaltion parties now that Messrs Cameron and Clegg have shown us ewhat 'Broken Britain' really means, although I'd be amazed if the Libdem's support is actually in double figures.  Why is it, I wonder, that none of our bankers and press barons/senior executives have actually been locked up?  I can only imagine that they behave with impunity and leech billions from our pockets and pensions because they know there will be no come-back whatsoever. These people have no respect.

I'm appalled at the damage the power elite have done to this country and the example they've set.  Broken Britain indeed.  Whatever will become of it?

http://www.nosacredcows.co.uk/golden_oldies/829/oxfords_secret_societies.html

It was supposed to be, literally, a revelation

In context, and notwithstanding the agrument for & against the chosen site for the building, I'd say that is the right reaction a council would want to a flagship public development. We are not taking about a revamp of bus shelters here. Architects always talk up their buildings. They want them built.

Quoted from 78

The No campaign will be open, transparent & not be using any of the 'usual methods' I take it.

As open as the town centre steering group!

Quoted from Muddler

As open as the town centre steering group!

looks like I was right - This is good news as it means that we can plot our campaign against Mr Griffin's BA (Hons) god awful park wrecking excrescence pretty much in private

Quoted from 78

looks like I was right - This is good news as it means that we can plot our campaign against Mr Griffin's BA (Hons) god awful park wrecking excrescence pretty much in private

You can only play to rules of the lowest common denominator.

Quoted from noobree

Meanwhile, the poll you mention is interesting because it turns out that the numbers reflect pretty much exactly what people think of the coaltion parties now that Messrs Cameron and Clegg have shown us ewhat 'Broken Britain' really means,

Actually I was pointing out the difference between the poll on here and the actual poll of voters in West Berkshire held a few days later.

Conservative            57%
Liberal Democrat      32%
Labour                      9%
Apolitical Democrats      < 1%
Independent           < 1%
UK Independence       < 1%

Quoted from user23.3

Actually I was pointing out the difference between the poll on here and the actual poll of voters in West Berkshire held a few days later.

Conservative            57%
Liberal Democrat      32%
Labour                      9%
Apolitical Democrats      < 1%
Independent           < 1%
UK Independence       < 1%

Whereas noobree was suggesting that the actual poll on this forum was more far-sighted.

Quoted from blackdog

Whereas noobree was suggesting that the actual poll on this forum was more far-sighted.

Do you also think that in light of current events nationally the Apolitical Democrats would get 16% of the vote in Newbury?

I don't.

Maybe the votes on here reflect what they would like rather than who they vote for!

Albeit there will be some distortion due to sample size.

Quoted from 78

looks like I was right - This is good news as it means that we can plot our campaign against Mr Griffin's BA (Hons) god awful park wrecking excrescence pretty much in private

Not sure what your point is, but it seems to me that we're up against the massed forces of West Berkshire and the Greenham Common Trust and their combined wealth and power.  Planning regulations and laws are also, I expect, stacked against us.

As we can't match the enemy's power and resources we need to think differently.  I remember a quote from a Viet Cong leader who said that when they saw the apparently overwhelming US military machine arrive in South Vietnam they thought that there was no possibility that they could win so they decided instead to adopt a strategy of not losing.  I have no idea how this applies to stopping the Carter-Griffin Excrescence but it sounds vaguely relevant.

So, if we're going to take our lead from the Viet Cong, it seems we should start by digging a massive network of tunnels under Viccy park. Not sure how we match their other important move - being supported by the Chinese supplied NVA, though.  Perhaps we could ask the Chinese to buy Newbury so long as they promise not to build on the park?  There. Problem solved.

Quoted from noobree

Not sure what your point is, but it seems to me that we're up against the massed forces of West Berkshire and the Greenham Common Trust and their combined wealth and power.  Planning regulations and laws are also, I expect, stacked against us.

As we can't match the enemy's power and resources we need to think differently.  I remember a quote from a Viet Cong leader who said that when they saw the apparently overwhelming US military machine arrive in South Vietnam they thought that there was no possibility that they could win so they decided instead to adopt a strategy of not losing.  I have no idea how this applies to stopping the Carter-Griffin Excrescence but it sounds vaguely relevant.

So, if we're going to take our lead from the Viet Cong, it seems we should start by digging a massive network of tunnels under Viccy park. Not sure how we match their other important move - being supported by the Chinese supplied NVA, though.  Perhaps we could ask the Chinese to buy Newbury so long as they promise not to build on the park?  There. Problem solved.

Has not the WBC Tree Officer sort of helped? Did they not move the new skatepark further down so as to not damage tree roots? Even though there were no real footings to dig, unlike the footings that will need to be dug at a rather deeper than normal distance due to the marshy ground conditions in Victoria Park, for the proposed Pavillion Pigeon Loft. Same trees apply for this as the skatepark surely?  

Quoted from Cognosco

Has not the WBC Tree Officer sort of helped?

Interesting point.  Are you suggesting that the Tree Officer is a fellow traveller?  Do you think he'll join us in our secret underground lair to plot against the imperialist oppressors at WBC and GCT and their rotten Carter-Griffin Excrescence related scheme?* If so, this is excellent news!

*Other excrescence related schemes are available

Quoted from noobree

Interesting point.  Are you suggesting that the Tree Officer is a fellow traveller?  Do you think he'll join us in our secret underground lair to plot against the imperialist oppressors at WBC and GCT and their rotten Carter-Griffin Excrescence related scheme?* If so, this is excellent news!

*Other excrescence related schemes are available

No - he'll allow the trees to be cut down for timber cladding!

Quoted from noobree

Interesting point.  Are you suggesting that the Tree Officer is a fellow traveller?  Do you think he'll join us in our secret underground lair to plot against the imperialist oppressors at WBC and GCT and their rotten Carter-Griffin Excrescence related scheme?* If so, this is excellent news!

*Other excrescence related schemes are available

Oh!.....Yes - well it is nice to daydream sometimes I suppose? probably the trees nearby will develop some nasty fungal infection or other just before the footings need digging and will have to come down.....purely for Health & Safety reasons you understand?  

Hey, we're the ones who are supposed to use underhand tactics!  We must mount 24 covert surveillance of the trees to ensure that  they aren't deliberately infected or sprayed with Agent Orange.

Meanwhile, it would be nice if our new name for the unwanted-and-hopefully-never-to-be-built edifice could be adopted more widely.  Just checked definitions of 'excrescence' and the second one here http://goo.gl/Vpjxe exactly fits the bill, vis. '2. An unattractive or superfluous addition or feature'.  There's also this http://goo.gl/YIQkJ In this case the addition would be both unattractive and superfluous, obviously.

Quoted from Cognosco

Oh!.....Yes - well it is nice to daydream sometimes I suppose? probably the trees nearby will develop some nasty fungal infection or other just before the footings need digging and will have to come down.....purely for Health & Safety reasons you understand?  

Too late - http://www.newbury.net/forum/m-1294330178/s-18/

Quoted from blackdog

Too late - http://www.newbury.net/forum/m-1294330178/s-18/

I have a nasty suspicious feeling that the WBC Tree Officer may find this has become highly contagious!  

Take our lead from the Viet Cong?

There goes any credibility this campaign had then.

Quoted from user23.3

Take our lead from the Viet Cong?

There goes any credibility this campaign had then.

OK, I thought you might struggle with an analogy.  Let me explain with a simile and we'll work up to analogies once you've grasped that.  If I said you were as thick as two short planks I wouldn't mean that you were literally two diminutive pieces of planed wood.  Does that help?

Quoted from noobree

OK, I thought you might struggle with an analogy.  Let me explain with a simile and we'll work up to analogies once you've grasped that.  If I said you were as thick as two short planks I wouldn't mean that you were literally two diminutive pieces of planed wood.  Does that help?

Come on Noobree! Still too technical for him...remember he is employed by WBC... keep it simple!  

Any way User you have not managed to deflect this one yet....so back to business please!

Quoted from user23.3

Take our lead from the Viet Cong?

There goes any credibility this campaign had then.

Glad you got there in the end but even for you, it's a bit tenuous. It was a quote however which is rather good and was not approving their politics although they probably felt that their God was on their side.

Quoted from noobree

OK, I thought you might struggle with an analogy.  Let me explain with a simile and we'll work up to analogies once you've grasped that.  If I said you were as thick as two short planks I wouldn't mean that you were literally two diminutive pieces of planed wood.  Does that help?

"Take our lead from the Viet Cong" isn't an analogy and you could only have made a worse choice if you'd mentioned the IRA or Al Quaeda.

Quoted from brian

Glad you got there in the end but even for you, it's a bit tenuous. It was a quote however which is rather good and was not approving their politics although they probably felt that their God was on their side.

That's the problem with internet forms. One's perfectly good argument can so easily be discredited by some nutter popping up, associating themselves with one's cause and comparing it to a group of murdering Communist terrorists.

Do you feel your campaign has God on it's side, by the way?

I think User was attempting to be witty and didn't really think that I was advocating that the Anti Excrescence Insurgency should adopt the VC's actual tactics.  Difficult to be sure, though.  I'm sure that they believed that their cause was just.  The book from which the quote was drawn is here http://goo.gl/TWZB7 - highly recommended, not just by me as you'll see from the reviews.

Quoted from user23.3

"Take our lead from the Viet Cong" isn't an analogy and you could only have made a worse choice if you'd mentioned the IRA or Al Quaeda.

Or WBC!!

Quoted from user23.3

"Take our lead from the Viet Cong" isn't an analogy and you could only have made a worse choice if you'd mentioned the IRA or Al Quaeda.

I give up.  You're a complete idiot. Go and play somewhere else.

Quoted from noobree

I give up.  You're a complete idiot. Go and play somewhere else.

He'll accuse you of being rude now - he does that when people tell the truth about him!

Quoted from noobree

I give up.  You're a complete idiot. Go and play somewhere else.

Don't be too hard on him.....he is only following orders!  

Now where were we.....

Quoted from noobree

I give up.  You're a complete idiot. Go and play somewhere else.

You'd never make it in the Viet Cong, giving up as easy as that.

I'm sure you'll be red, with embarrassment if the line "..the group, who have compared themselves to Marxist terrorists, the Viet Cong.." turns up anywhere.

Quoted from user23.3

I'm sure you'll be red, with embarrassment if the line "..the group, who have compared themselves to Marxist terrorist group, the Viet Cong.." turns up anywhere.

ROFL!! Brilliant! Yes, you're right, that would be so embarrassing. Not for me, however. What sort of brainless idiot could possibly write a line like that?

Quoted from noobree

ROFL!! Brilliant! Yes, you're right, that would be so embarrassing. Not for me, however. What sort of brainless idiot could possibly write a line like that?

I think a large number of WBC employees might qualify for that one!

Quoted from noobree

ROFL!! Brilliant! Yes, you're right, that would be so embarrassing. Not for me, however. What sort of brainless idiot could possibly write a line like that?

I thought you gave up?

The offensive references to the Viet Cong. The cringe-worthy attempts at grammatical one-upmanship because you didn't realise how offensive your references might be. The childish petulance once the penny dropped.

This whole episode is embarrassing for the "scrap the Youth Centre" cause. Let's leave it here, shall we?

Still trying and failing to deflect the argument User!!

Has Griffin started to deliver the brown envelopes yet??

Quoted from user23.3

I thought you gave up?

The offensive references to the Viet Cong. The cringe-worthy attempts at grammatical one-upmanship because you didn't realise how offensive your references might be.

Coming from the bloke that thought it was funny that a murdered child was called "baby p" in the press is a bit rich.

Quoted from user23.3

I thought you gave up?

The offensive references to the Viet Cong. The cringe-worthy attempts at grammatical one-upmanship because you didn't realise how offensive your references might be. The childish petulance once the penny dropped.

Desperate stuff User.  Do you seriously believe any of your complete and utter misreading of my reactions to your drivel? I was going to give up on you, but your persistent deluded state suggests you're in need of help and I'll be in touch on that. It's really good to have the satisfaction that I've got under your skin, though, so do keep it up!

User, I've told you before that your ability to construct an argument leaves an awful lot to be desired and still you perist in posting illogical claptrap.  Now that I'm back from a brief break I'm feeling in a generous mood I'm going to give you one last chance.   Virtually all of your posts in this thread have been based on an absolute howler of a logical fallacy.  Have you spotted what it is yet?

<<pulls up chair>>

<<hands Muddler bucket of popcorn>>

Quoted from noobree

<<hands Muddler bucket of popcorn>>

Sorry can't wait any longer I need to go to the toilet and pop down the shop for more popcorn! Let me know what happens!  

Quoted from user23.3

I thought you gave up?

The offensive references to the Viet Cong. The cringe-worthy attempts at grammatical one-upmanship because you didn't realise how offensive your references might be. The childish petulance once the penny dropped.

This whole episode is embarrassing for the "scrap the Youth Centre" cause. Let's leave it here, shall we?

OK, User. I'll take this slowly as - in spite of what people who know you tell me - you seem rather dense.  Look up 'non sequitur' and tell me what it means. Once you've got that we'll continue and I'll explain why your logic is seriously flawed and exactly what an analogy is.

While User tries to figure that out here's another great quote, which could almost be the motto of whoever's in charge of reporting on West Berks Council's surveys:

'If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.'

Brilliant, isn't it?

While we wait for User to dig himself deeper into his hole, I'm interested in the whole User phenomenon.  He seems to have a loyalty to our beloved district council's policies which is above and beyond anything I've ever come across in any employee of any organisation.  According to those who know him User is, in the real world, a reasonable enough chap.  So I can't help wondering whether he comes amongst us as a sort of agent provocateur.  

Here's my theory.  We know very well that district councillors don't post here openly themselves because, on the odd occasion one of them has tried (rightly or wrongly) to do so they've been subjected to  outrageous barracking.  However councillors do indeed get very annoyed by the posts here. I heard 3 of them getting extremely hot under the collar about Newbury.net once - you should have heard them spit it out.  Given that their blood, not quite literally but almost, boils they need a vent for their anger.  Hence User.  What other explanation could there possibly be?

Quoted from noobree

While we wait for User to dig himself deeper into his hole, I'm interested in the whole User phenomenon.  He seems to have a loyalty to our beloved district council's policies which is above and beyond anything I've ever come across in any employee of any organisation.  According to those who know him User is, in the real world, a reasonable enough chap.  So I can't help wondering whether he comes amongst us as a sort of agent provocateur.  

Here's my theory.  We know very well that district councillors don't post here openly themselves because, on the odd occasion one of them has tried (rightly or wrongly) to do so they've been subjected to  outrageous barracking.  However councillors do indeed get very annoyed by the posts here. I heard 3 of them getting extremely hot under the collar about Newbury.net once - you should have heard them spit it out.  Given that their blood, not quite literally but almost, boils they need a vent for their anger.  Hence User.  What other explanation could there possibly be?

We should not be too hard on him perhaps they do not breif him well enough?  

I have wavered on the subject. I used to think that he shouldn't be barred as I found him amusing. But now I realise that he is just a troll. He never actually engages in s discussion, he just trolls it.

Quoted from 26

I have wavered on the subject. I used to think that he shouldn't be barred as I found him amusing. But now I realise that he is just a troll. He never actually engages in s discussion, he just trolls it.

No don't agree with banning him! Like Noobree says if he is replying to or defending the councils on this forum then we know the councillors are reading our forum and issuing him their instructions?  

Quoted from 26

I have wavered on the subject. I used to think that he shouldn't be barred as I found him amusing. But now I realise that he is just a troll. He never actually engages in s discussion, he just trolls it.

Definitely shouldn't be banned but I'd quite like to know whether his efforts here are officially sanctioned and/or encouraged or if they're all his own work.  By all accounts, between them User and Mrs User probably cost the rest of us well over £100K a year when their full employment costs are added up so it's hardly surprising that he toes the official line.  (If that number is low or high apologies, but the person who PMd me seemed pretty certain.)

I wonder how he's getting on with figuring out exactly how flawed his earlier contributions to this thread were.  It's not that difficult - 'it does not follow' is the key phrase.  Come on User, you can do it. I've given you some huge clues.

Meanwhile, for those who are unfamiliar with the 'Carter' in Carter-Griffin Excrescence, take a look at this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRXqf9HPqtI

It's really odd.  Appears to have been filmed in someone's lounge - perhaps Chez Carter in Swindon? - but whoever it is has posters blu-tacked to the wall promoting the 'initiative' they're discussing.  I'm sure someone out there can tell us the full story.

When does work start on the next phase of the vision?

That's one of the things I was trying to find out before User started his idiotic straw man posts.  

Am I right in thinking that the consultation on the Pavilion/Carter-Griffin Excresence didn't ask separate questions about the location of the Pavilion?  So that when they reported that 70% of people were in favour of a pavilion, they simply ignored the likely huge opposition to plonking it in the park?  

Personally I think the pavilion is a great idea, as is the redevelopment of the Waterside.  What I absolutely hate is the proposed location. I think the arts centre (perhaps with a new youth centre) should be in Northbrook Street but there are obviously other brown-field options. If it must be on a council owned greenfield site (follow the money) the under-used Northcroft Park or a redevelopment of the Northbrook Centre site might be good alternatives.

I'm also deeply unimpressed by Mr Griffin's design and feel very strongly we need to bring in some fresh talent in to re-think this.  

Between them WBC and, sadly, NTC seem intent turning poor old Viccy Park into a disaster area with their poorly thought through/executed schemes.  I'm sure they had the best of intentions but it's all rather tragic.

There will be a Vision refresh in September apparently.

Quoted from richard.garvie

There will be a Vision refresh in September apparently.

Any news on further consultation exercises?

According to Admin, Greenham House is now surplus to requirements in the WBC portfolio. It's a fairly run down old building and I doubt it is listed but if sold for development it will almost certainly be knocked down. Given that, what a location that could be for an arts centre and I'm sure that Greenham would be just as happy financing that as they seem to be with the pavilion. Anything to get rid of their unwanted tenants. It's also closer to the drug rehab centre in station Road so that's an Edge bonus. Parking might be a problem though but we seem to be happy with underground car parking in West Berks so get it on. Oh, before User says that I am wrecking one park to save another, there is alraedy a substantial building on that site and the area around it is already covered in tarmac so no green lost.

Great idea Brian.  I hope that the Visioneers appreciate all the help we're giving them here.  Don't worry about User, he's irrelevant. As he will shortly discover.

Quoted from brian

According to Admin, Greenham House is now surplus to requirements in the WBC portfolio. It's a fairly run down old building and I doubt it is listed but if sold for development it will almost certainly be knocked down. Given that, what a location that could be for an arts centre and I'm sure that Greenham would be just as happy financing that as they seem to be with the pavilion. Anything to get rid of their unwanted tenants. It's also closer to the drug rehab centre in station Road so that's an Edge bonus. Parking might be a problem though but we seem to be happy with underground car parking in West Berks so get it on. Oh, before User says that I am wrecking one park to save another, there is alraedy a substantial building on that site and the area around it is already covered in tarmac so no green lost.

Good idea Brian....that is if a new art centre is really required or indeed wanted in Newbury?  

Quoted from Cognosco

Good idea Brian....that is if a new art centre is really required or indeed wanted in Newbury?  

Well, I'm sure I don't know but one thing is sure is that the thing they, WBC, want to put on the park is 75% arts centre so they must believe there is a need. Given that premise, here is an opportunity to resolve that without a major unwanted development in Victoria park. It doesn't interfere with their other glorious plan to decimate the Waterside building and build luxury apartments on the site and in fact from what I understand, the canoe group wouldn't be too upset moving to Northcroft anyway.

I wouldn't be that sure that WBC see a need for an arts centre - the pavilion is to be built for the sake of building a pavilion, the arts centre function is just to satisfy NGT who would be putting up the local funding needed to gain the necessary lottery cash. It's also the sort of use that the lottery would approve of and the sort of function that can be used to justify building on a park.

Greenham House is listed Grade II - but listing is never a problem when the planning authority want to demolish a building.

Many years ago there was a proposal to turn Greenham House into an hotel - perhaps that idea could be resurrected.

Quoted from noobree

Any news on further consultation exercises?

Pavilion consultation has been split in two (digging out the wharf and then building on Victoria Park) and will launch Jan 2012. Many Tory councillors are lukewarm about it...Lib Dems have scented the opportunity too.

Expect questions like: "Would you like the canal extended up to the museum?" rather than "Should we spend £5m extending the canal to the museum?"

While we're waiting, perhaps we can come up with some questions for WBC to ask on the wharf  in this forthcoming consultation. Any ideas?

Would the location of the proposed centre affect your views about whether the development should go ahead?

Would you prefer the centre to be built in Victoria Park or on a previously developed site in, for example, Northbrook Street?

Which do you prefer?  Live trees or dead trees used as cladding?

What would Queen Victoria think?  Seriously.

Would you say that the whole Vision thing smacks of committee-think or that it's truly visionary?

What's this whole 'Patrick Griffin' thing about?

What if we said we were going to build it in Victoria Park regardless and we don't really care what you think?

Did you notice that when you replied to those questions we had our finger in our ears and were going 'La la la la'?

Why are we even talking about this given that many pundits believe we are about to see the collapse of the economic system on which the prosperity of Europe and the USA is based?

If you had to choose one, who would you prefer to see prosecuted by the International Criminal Court: Ho Chi Min or Henry Kissenger?

Do you think that if someone quotes a Viet Cong commander, that means that they approve of all the Viet Cong's actions?

Why are you digging that tunnel?

Oh yeah, and:

'Where, precisely, is Moamar Gaddafi?'

Quoted from Muddler

Pavilion consultation has been split in two (digging out the wharf and then building on Victoria Park) and will launch Jan 2012. Many Tory councillors are lukewarm about it...Lib Dems have scented the opportunity too.

Expect questions like: "Would you like the canal extended up to the museum?" rather than "Should we spend £5m extending the canal to the museum?"

While we're waiting, perhaps we can come up with some questions for WBC to ask on the wharf  in this forthcoming consultation. Any ideas?

Question:

How will it benefit West Berkshire taxpayers by spending £5 Million of taxpayers money to flood the Newbury Wharf area?

Would it be £5 Million of taxpayers money?

I doubt it.

I see the scheme as St Katherine's Docks - but in Newbury!  

Quoted from Greenham Common

Would it be £5 Million of taxpayers money?

Not exactly - the idea was to fund it through the sale of taxpayers' assets.

That way WBC can claim that it is not funded through council tax.

Quoted from blackdog

Not exactly - the idea was to fund it through the sale of taxpayers' assets.

That way WBC can claim that it is not funded through council tax.

So theoretically it is?

Quoted from 78

I doubt it.

I see the scheme as St Katherine's Docks - but in Newbury!  

How would this scheme benefit the average West Berkshire taxpayer?

Quoted from Cognosco

How would this scheme benefit the average West Berkshire taxpayer?

We could always throw Nick Carter in !

Quoted from Nobby

We could always throw Nick Carter in !

Someone of high status in Newbury has not just purchased a narrow boat by any chance have they? A small problem of somewhere to berth it perhaps, to overcome?  

As promised, here are some locations for the arts pavilion which might, I suggest, at least be worth investigating.

They all:

• use existing brownfield or unoccupied sites (although the unoccupied restaurant at Weaver's walk is displaying signs advertising for staff so it seems this is a missed opportunity - looks as though it could have been a good location);
  
• have road access and (in the case of the nice looking office building on the Wharf behind St Nics) even have their own car parking spaces - the proposed Victoria Park site doesn't have road access, unless they're proposing to build one or its own parking;
  
• wouldn't involve destroying more of Victoria Park.
  

There are lots of other vacant brownfield sites which are close to the centre of town and would have the advantage of drawing people into and across Northbrook Street or down to Cheap Street. Using the still unnocupied restaurant space below the cinema would seem ideal in many ways - what better than a combined cinema and arts centre?

I'm sure that those responsible for the Vision will consider these and other possible sites with open minds.

Constructive thoughts, anyone?

Good suggestions noobree only snag is they do not look like a Pigeon Loft and you know who will not be able to recover costs already incurred.

So sorry Vicky Park is still under threat!  

The third one is a pretty good idea - better be quick though, it's about to be demolished so yet more flats can be built on the site.

Weavers Walk is very good. It's got two floors, already got the facilities (bar, loos etc), and is available.

It could stimulate footfall for all those independent shops that keep folding down there.

And where's Griffins' profit in that then? Some of us might think it's a jolly good idea to use the Weavers Walk site. But they want a more expensive grandiose scheme. Got to boost the old ego dear boy, eh what?


Threep.

So, a vanity project. Something that will make a statement and look good on the pages of The Architect's Journal - http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk

It really does need to be set amongst trees and surrounded by plenty of grass to get on those pages, doesn't it? Something bold, different. You can almost hear them whispering in the client's ear 'You'll need real balls to pull this one off.  The little people* will hate you, but in the eyes of those who count**...'

Oh well, I can see we're screwed on this one.  Look on the bright side: we could turn the whole sorry tale into a 'Very Peculiar Practice' type humorous drama and sell it to BBC2.

*that's us, btw.

**these are the sort of people who make very senior appointments, award gongs etc.

Interested to hear your views about the Pavilion, whingewhingewhinge.  

Do you think it should be built in the park, as per the Vision, or would you prefer a brown field site somewhere else in the town centre?

It's always better to deal with specifics, rather than launch scatter-gun ad hominem attacks, don't you think? Let's hear what you have to say about what's actually going on in the town.

Quoted from noobree

Interested to hear your views about the Pavilion, whingewhingewhinge.  

Do you think it should be built in the park, as per the Vision, or would you prefer a brown field site somewhere else in the town centre?

It's always better to deal with specifics, rather than launch scatter-gun ad hominem attacks, don't you think? Let's hear what you have to say about what's actually going on in the town.

Have the anti's now got royal backing? Were they correct after all?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15358006

Could I add another site.  The defunct CCTV room which is sitting doing nothing.

Good thinking Jay.

I'm sure the Visioneers are very grateful for all our suggestions although they must be kicking themselves for not crowdsourcing this in the first place. Never mind, lesson learned.