Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 19 2015, 11:11 AM

There's a consultation on the new Market Street development.

For me, with the touted 200 new homes, I would want to see adequate allotment provision, and with typically one in 30 households growing their veggies on an allotment that suggests an allotment site within the development of seven full plots, or half an acre of the development site given over to allotments.

What would you want from the development?

Posted by: Sherlock Jun 19 2015, 12:03 PM

Presumably there's a case for moving the bus station from its current location but I'd like to know what it is. Is there relatively little interchange between buses and trains?

Otherwise, the more residential accommodation there is in in the town centre, particularly affordable accommodation, the better. It would be interesting to know how whether benefits (economic, environmental etc) could be achieved by encouraging more people to live in towns and cities rather than villages.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 19 2015, 12:27 PM

Do nothing. The council are useless with legals. See Parkway affordable housing 'joke' for example.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 19 2015, 03:01 PM

Intuitively I'd say that there are significant benefits to sustainability in having people living in the same place because you get an economy of scale which supports a rich variety of local facilities, retail, leisure, and employment, and travel is minimised. The down-side to urban living tends to be sh1te urban planning and design - fix this problem and urban dwellers get all the convenience of large urban centres with all the social and amenity benefits of village life. The idea of an urban village is to my mind precisely the right thing to aim for, but the design does need to be good, and that's why I flag the need for allotments, because just that one element occupies 10% of the site and you can see how a developer wishing to maximise their profits might want to compromise on the quality of the design.

Posted by: blackdog Jun 19 2015, 05:37 PM

The term 'urban village' has sod all to do with villages, sustainability, allotments, community or morris dancing. It is purely a ploy to make a bog-standard high density urban development sound nice. I'll have a bet that there will be no allotments or gardens, greenery will be limited to a few young trees along the walkway to the station. The much vaunted extra parking for the station will actually have fewer spaces than needed for commuters, WBC staff, users of the existing pay & display park and the residents of the development. WBC will end up taking over more of the Kennet Centre car park.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 19 2015, 05:56 PM

It is just a shame that land has no value in the centre of town.

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 19 2015, 06:04 PM

I have to agree with you. It's a bit like the artist's impression that normally get into the planning portal. Allotments in the middle of a town development. No way, however, I might like to see some green areas but planting fruit trees is an opportunity for vandalism as the late night revellers pass through.

There is a plan for a multi storey car park I understand and small scale arcade type retail units. No idea what that latter bit is but as that was part of the Parkway development scuppered by the space for John Lewis, last minute That alteration changed a community area into a large concrete block.

On a personal note, I really don't like the idea of a raft of affordable housing. It's the byword for councils and councillors, most of whom have no concept of the real meaning of that term. I see it as the local ratepayers funding the free renters and benefit claimants. I have some sympathy with SLI not rushing to find a social housing provider but I do not have any sympathy with them grabbing a million quid WBC backhander and then not meeting their part of the deal.

Anyway, the Community planning, consultation with participation will allow interested parties to influence the design. Yeah OK.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 19 2015, 06:15 PM

As ever, good design is everything. Several studies have shown that city living is considerably more 'sustainable' than rural; that's taking the whole into account and not just individual elements. The concept here is pretty good, however, as said in other posts, design is all.

I'd want to see the dwellings built to the highest energy efficiency standards and also be properly sound insulated. Equally, in lifestyle terms, some private outdoor area; even if communal would be appreciated. It woukd also make sense for the internal fit out to be semi permanent and almost 'plug in' so quick and economic refresh was practical and possible.

Careful attention needs to be paid to the external design / cinstruction so it becomes and remains visually attractive. The proximity to the station could be a major advantage and the opportunity could be taken to make the station approach attractive and welcoming - unlike today.

Yes, there is an opportunity to create an interchange BUT please let this be designed properly and professionally and not by local politicking. A bus station isn't the answer, an interchange is very different - and there is no problem asking passengers to walk a short way through an attractive area. However, whilst we have trains, we don't 'do' buses in Newbury.

Some feature would be a nice touch, perhaps even a water based one. This ought to be an opportunity for some decent public art.

Learning lessons from Parkway, it would seem that WBC would be best advised to get professional third parties to manage their contracturals and have them properly bonded.

Finally, let's forget the 'affordable housing' nonsense - let the local market decide.

Posted by: Cognosco Jun 19 2015, 06:18 PM

Come on Andy you just won't learn will you? Petra has taken precious time from her High Pressured job, I think that implies she uses a pressure washer to clear out all the bull sh*t after council meetings, to inform you that it is obviously best to leave these decisions to the professionals! Us useless plebs should butt out and let the Council get on with doing a professional job..........there has to be a first time I suppose?
I just wonder how many thousands this latest development will end up costing us poor precept payers?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 19 2015, 06:20 PM

Yes, balls to people who can't afford homes or places that they can afford to live in. We all have our homes and we don't want council house trash round here.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 19 2015, 07:34 PM

Yes, I'd subscribe to all of that.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 19 2015, 07:39 PM

That's not at all what OtE is talking about, quite the opposite actually - the free market by definition sets an affordable price, "affordable" funny-money schemes is just so much meddling and in the end the punter pays.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 19 2015, 09:44 PM

Not quite sure what you are driving at. Any half decent developer is going to build homes that the local market can afford, or he's out of business. Simple as that. Keep the dead hand of 'the Council' out of housing provision and the prejudices you are displaying will disappear. I also find it ironic that another one of these initiatives was to provide ''affordable housing for key workers' . If the workers concerned are so key, why aren't they paid the local rate for the job? Step forward their employer, generally that same 'Council'!!!

Posted by: user23 Jun 19 2015, 09:50 PM

I think this is more those employed by Thames Valley Police, the National Health Service, and Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue, and so on.

What's the local rate for the job though? Are you saying nurses in Newbury should be paid more than Nottingham or Newcastle?

Posted by: On the edge Jun 19 2015, 09:54 PM

In any event, the WBC are quite wrong in stopping innocent people buying and selling their apartments in Parkway just because it has a dispute with the builder. In effect, they are punishing a group people for the assumed wrongs of someone else. And yet we talk of British justice!

That sort of stupidity certainly puts me off buying any home where WBC had a finger in the pie. Yes, it's a large sum of money, but as its not in Court already, is this yet another case of duff work up front?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 19 2015, 09:58 PM

I would be a lot more convinced if either of you could demonstrate where laissez-faire housing policy works and provides a reasonable standard of housing for the low paid.

As I see it, your policy works if we had an egalitarian society but we don't. The market is rigged to hold prices high and low wage people suffer for it.

Being affordable is not just about purchase price, location and running costs are also an issue.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 19 2015, 10:03 PM

There's more to it than that, but yes, I see WBC as being completely inept in this, what should have been the flagship model; however, the owners of the development are not free from guilt and the only 'free' power WBC has is to block their ability to trade.

I understand one of the problems is a snag list and I have heard rumour that the quality of some of the flats isn't great, BUT that is only hearsay.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 19 2015, 10:15 PM

And there's your answer. Free-up the market, remove the rigging. If house prices are too high people won't buy, and if local business needs those workers then they'll have to pay them enough to live.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 19 2015, 10:18 PM

Let the market decide. A national wage is an artificial construct of a monolithic centralised state employer, pay local wages and the problem goes away.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 19 2015, 10:31 PM

WBC don't have the power to do that, do they?

We have a two, or more, tier economy. Any government that threatens high house prices is doomed.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 19 2015, 10:36 PM

If I may bring this back to the OP, WBC can't control that.

Can you point me to a developed country which has a laissez-faire housing policy which facilitates a reasonable standard of homes for the low paid?

It as all very well coming out with this free market stuff, but the housing 'bubble' was actually created out of a huge subsidy.

Posted by: blackdog Jun 19 2015, 10:36 PM

In the past there was an alternative solution - the employer supplied subsidised housing for key workers. Farm workers expected a tied cottage. the UKAEA built estates all over this area, the police and hospitals had hostels for single employees, houses for married personnel. I suspect council workers might have found it easier than most to get a council house.

It guess that it is only the armed forces that follow this model today.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 20 2015, 05:51 AM

I'd certainly agree that the developer does appear to have some very serious questions to answer. That we don't really know is a testament to the opaque secrecy in which the Council operate. The developer is not trading with the individuals the Council is punishing and this action is not the Council's only remedy. The individuals concerned are wholly innocent! Again, why is this not in Court? I wonder what the Council would do if one of these individuals decided to fight back, by removing a stack of books from the Library and refusing to hand them back until the matter was settled?

Posted by: On the edge Jun 20 2015, 06:02 AM

Ironic that. The Labour Party fought long and hard to have tied cottages abolished. It wasn't a subsidy, rather payment in kind; a part of salary. It was also an effective way of exerting control and discipline on the workforce. If we really want to bring back tied cottages, lets bring back the Truck Shop as well!

Newbury was in the frame for a 'new town' development immediately after the last war, but made quite a fuss, so in public it was ruled out. The new nuclear weapons industry which supported the then cold war needed a location and masses of available residential accommodation. I wonder if the two are connected.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 20 2015, 06:11 AM

In many places properly constituted housing trusts and associations provide accommodation of high standard. Our local model is simply meddling, it does not answer the problem as we have seen. The issue of 'inexpensive housing' is more to do with land ownership than anything else. If the Council honestly wanted 'affordable housing' then it has a cheap and effective way to deliver that, why does it not significantly reduce Council Tax for the deserving?

Posted by: blackdog Jun 20 2015, 08:17 AM

Truck Shop?


I doubt if there was a connection - Basingstoke got the London overspill development as well as AWRE housing.

Posted by: blackdog Jun 20 2015, 08:17 AM

Truck Shop?


I doubt if there was a connection - Basingstoke got the London overspill development as well as AWRE housing.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 20 2015, 10:59 AM

It may not be the longer term answer, nor do I think a laissez-faire housing policy to be a long term good thing either; however, we need solutions for now, not 30 years time. 'Give' the land to a housing association.


Because the local settlement isn't enough and they cannot raise the lost revenue from other council bands?

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 20 2015, 11:45 AM

Whenever a developer comes along who wants to build apartments or houses, the one thing that he needs is to make some sort of profit from the deal. That is his right and we are a free economy in that respect so he is entitled to that profit.

What the planning regulations require is that the developer provides houses to an agreed percentage which can be administered by a housing association. These homes must reach the required standard which means that the basic build must be at the acceptable NHBC standard for a newbuild. The final finish however does not come into that equation so no luxury kitchens, no luxury bathrooms, no luxury lighting schemes, standard floor covering and a coat of magnolia to finish. That is what the housing association have to expect as there is little or no money for anything else within the payment to the developer for that unit. So, these 30% or thereabouts of affordable houses, show no profit to the developer. This is one reason why they don't want them.

So, what happens now, the remaining 70% of the units have to provide the profit for the developer within the 100%. Who provides this profit, the people who wish to buy on the open market. Ergo, the house prices are inflated and the estate is devalued by some (not all) social tenants. Not many people take up the shared ownership option so there's the rub.

As far as Parkway is concerned, I can understand WBC blocking purchase completion, it's their only trump card in reality. What has happened though is that SLI have allowed the purchaser(s) who have committed to move in under licence. The story in the NWN is very emotive about wedding cancelations etc but whilst it suggests that they are paying rent to SLI what it doesn't say is how much and what the terms of the licence are. I suspect like all news stories, there is a possibility we don't have the full story.

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 20 2015, 11:54 AM

Everybody got some of that, the whole of Elizabeth Avenue was built for AWE, Harwell and Culham workers wasn't it?.

Posted by: blackdog Jun 20 2015, 12:35 PM

The suggestion was that Newbury avoided the GLC overspill because the UKAEA didn't want it - I was just using Basingstoke as an example where the UKAEA had a stake and didn't prevent the overspill. I think the choice regarding Newbury was to build here or in Swindon. Swindon won/lost?

There are many UKAEA developments in Newbury, Reading, Basingstoke, Harwell and Tadley - probably more in North Berkshire that I'm not familiar with. Wendon Road etc was one, Elizabeth Avenue certainly looks like another.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 20 2015, 12:48 PM

One of the reasons that we don't get a quality built environment is that we don't engage positively and cooperatively with the process. If I can bring the discussion back to the OP, the developer is asking, so as an exercise please assume good faith and suggest what you'd like the development to include.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 20 2015, 02:38 PM

Truck shops gradually abolished by the various anti truck legislation enacted between circa 1830 to 1940. Wages were paid by way of vouchers which could only be redeemed at a company shop. Which I'm sure would have always traded in a fair and equitable way and prices would have been the same or lower than elsewhere.

Berkshire is, of course the home of using subsidy to alleviate low wages, the local magistrates right here in Newbury invented the 'Speenhamland system - the forerunner of tax credits!

Agree, some overspill did go to Basingstoke, it was quite a clever sleight of hand. Once 'new towns' had become unpopular, the powers had to deliver the original numbers; as always stealth is the answer. Some still remember Thatcham as a real village.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 20 2015, 02:47 PM

No, its not a trump card, its not even a card. In real life. WBCs trump card is the court - that's why we have them!!! What have they got to hide, after all if it was cut and dried the mere threat of litigation would bring the developer to heel. After all, they'll be wanting to work with other local authorities because that's how they do their business. Reflect then, why WBC hasn't used its influence through the Local Government Association to blacklist Costain? Nah, better to kick little Joe around, he won't bite back. Too right we don't have the whole story and too right they are using public emotion to stoke the flames.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 20 2015, 02:49 PM

In the 'other place' someone is bemoaning the possible loss of the echo place. Rather than just grouse, send in a suggestion that its retained and even improved. That might actually get some interest.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 21 2015, 10:26 AM

And another reason is the views of others are ignored. I would just like the land to be handed to a local HA.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 21 2015, 12:03 PM

Interesting point that. It could also be argued that it's no bad thing that the views of others, if they are simply prejudices, are ignored. Wren's design for St Paul's didn't meet popular acclaim at the time. They key point is that whatever is created should be properly designed and meets the requirements. It's this latter we often fall down on, disregarding needs simply to suit personal aesthetic considerations.

Posted by: blackdog Jun 21 2015, 04:34 PM

Or, alternatively (and IMO far more commonly), disregarding aesthetic considerations simply to suit the bank balance.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 21 2015, 07:32 PM

OK, but assuming for the moment that your opinion will be listened to, what would you like the development to deliver?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 21 2015, 07:41 PM

Quite. I'd be surprised that, if asked, a significant number of people wouldn't want fecking great walls and barbed wire entanglements to make them feel safer in their homes, whereas the reality is that this kind of urban design creates a hateful dangerous place. Asking people what they want doesn't always elicit a healthy answer and sometimes it's best to ignore what you hear and trust the architects (and yes, I do sound like Petra, and that worries me too).

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 22 2015, 05:46 PM

I doubt anyone on here has much to offer in terms of town planning or architectural design, so what we have to rely on are the professionals giving us what we want when we haven't got a clue what we do want. Part of the remit has to be profitability and if WBC are trading the land for the proverbial quid, that shouldn't be too much of a problem.

The key here is........

what do we want for the living space and what style or density should we have

can we afford gated garden squares surrounded by two or three storey houses

how much social housing (affordable) should we have

what do we want for the commercial side (shops etc) big shops or little shops. Barry Forkin v John Lewis

do we want a pub, a nursery, a primary school.

how much parking do we need, multi storey, how many levels, underground or above ground

what do we want for the pedestrian access both within and through ways

what do we want for transport interchange, bus and taxi only with extended pick up points

I can't think of all the answers or even all the questions but if we can produce a want/desire list perhaps Simon might like to co-ordinate the results and present them as the newts request.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 22 2015, 06:06 PM

Great idea, time we had another newt anyway!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 22 2015, 06:17 PM

That's a top post Exhausted, and a great excuse for another Newt...