WBC is supposed to have systems in place for procurement of public projects, this project falls in a grey area as GCT is apparently the funder. However WBC has councillors on the NTP, so where were they when the selection was being made? Looks more like old newbury boy network pulled the wool over Cllr Bale.

I did read that a local architect recently raised this issue with the NWN. However there is no issue with feasibility work being commissioned by West Berks, as long as the planning side of a project is tendered. Currently this project is being funded by Greenham Common Trust, so West Berks have no control in theory. However if GCT is on the board of West Berkshire Partnership maybe they need to question their motivation for not having some sort of competition for the final design once feed back is received on this proposal. Maybe the project is this big so that it is worth Sutton Griffin doing it, else if it shrinks the fee shrinks.

I do not think all the signs are up yet...so still waiting for first sign of sand around damaged bollards.

Do not see why having a youth centre temporarily located in this area is a problem when it would be next to the new massive school with children who are there for sevral hours of the day - in a residential area. Anyway its not going to happen.....

Whats the rush with the pavilion? Wait till new St Barts completed, decamp from existing youth centre to empty Luker (or could have been Wormstall - too late now), build new replacement on existing site. Problem with Newbury Vision group is that they don't seem to use much vision but adopt plenty of local business clout via NTP to influence local matters. Just an idea, maybe someone can come up with a better one as I am not a politician.

The New Greenham Arts building will be demolished - thats the first I've heard of that - did I miss an article somewhere? Does anyone have any more detail on this?

Of course its best for it to be in the town - just trying to suggest use of existing buildings instead of constantly building new ones - not very green approach for a so green West Berks Council?

The amended layout is almost ready for the next bunch of mistaken drivers, I do not know if its going to be an improvement as nothing has been done to the layout coming from Market Street. On the whole I would be surprised if the number of 'spiked' cars does not decrease.

Is it true that the other week a bus passenger was hurt in the pedestrian zone when a pedestrian was hit (they walked away) by a bus - how ironic is that?

Engineers and the environment agency obviously have proved you can dig a big gaping hole into a low water table without displacing the water elsewhere - (lets wait and see) - thus why not do it at the wharf?

There would be room if it wasn't 20,000 sqft - or why not go taller - not stopped them with the park way development.

Youth centre temporarily housed elsewhere ie - luker building when its emptied and before its redeveloped - or how about the greenham arts centre - must be loads of options besides these.

I did not mean relocate the new basement car park I meant use it as a precedent for more basement car parking. Personally I do not think I will park my car there when there is heavy rain forcast - remember what happened at Vodafone HQ?

Just maybe it was a bad idea for St Bartholmew School gaining permission to change use to residential for Wormstall building - could this not have been used as a youth centre? Or better still - whilst Luker school is still standing convert that to a youth centre? The St Bartholomew School Foundation would then make some money from the council rather than sell all their assets to speculators.....why don't the NTP think of such ideas?

#
Who says its going to developers, is it not owned by the council? If we are council tax payers which one of us agreed to sell it ? Another case of public land being flogged off without a proper debate.

No doubt the focus group lost their focus somewhere and thats why its become such a political hot potato. Most of the backers keep quoting the 2007 survey that said 80% wanted it, however I can't see in the small print where its says they wanted a 20,000sqft building?Anyone wondering what will happen with the Greenham Arts Centre....keep your eyes peeled.

There has been no complacency to build an underground car park for the shopping development, so why not re-site the pavillion opposite the library and shift the existing parking under it, that would form a nice courtyard with views also over the canal. Failing that why not just redevelope the Youth Centre - why demolish it and then change it to housing as seems to be hinted at the moment.

Good point about the actual number of traffic movements this will generate, I think there is little to stop this going thru due to the considerable contributions to be levied. I only wish they would carry out the road works improvements before the development happens (if any can be designed to improve the harm this development and the possible sandleford and race course sites will cause).

I know a developer who looked at this site as a pre-app a couple of years ago and the planning department said (without prejudice of course) nothing over three storeys would be permitted - so will they change their mind I wonder ? !
The design looks modern but I am worried it will be built cheap and nasty.

The highways department needs to start looking at how the roads are going to be altered to cope with potentially 4000 vehicles coming from the south of Newbury to get to Sainsburys, may I suggest it has its own access road? The only problem is it would have to plough through established streets.With all manner of land being considered north, south, east and west of Newbury, we need to look at the infrastructure and get the services sorted out BEFORE these developements get the go-ahead, else we are heading for gridlock or another by-pass on the east side of Newbury in twenty years time......

I only hope the Newbury public will make an effort to look at this project as it may need to be seriously reviewed or withdrawn. Any complacency will only let the project steam roller thru the planning system.

Looking at the officer report Aldi offered £34,000 when WBC were asking for £70,000.
Considering Sainsburys have to pay over £400,000 to highways for their new extension + car park it looks as if Aldi gambled and lost. They ought to resubmit and make the contributions payment and then this would all be done and dusted. Developers know that contributions are required for such projects so I would be surprised if they did go to appeal as that might cost a lot more.

Not that muddy when I played football with my son recently, else maybe this area needs to be taken care of by the grounds people. If it was banked up and had more planting less water would sit around here possibly.
I still feel the park is currently a disappointment, so surely it would benefit from a serious rethink as a landscaped park rather than as a building site. Can we not all propose this instead when the exhibition takes place?

If it is open space then it should remain so - a 20,000sqft (yes that is big) building is not a welcome visitor to a public open space. Some one somewhere defined the brief and we need to be informed as to who shaped this brief? Councillors keep stating that a survey in 2007 resulted in the vast majority of public wanting a new centre, but this survey did not give the public a choice of what should go into it until now. Also you may not be aware but the youth centre has been touted for redevelopment, why not spend the money remodelling it - there must be imaginative architects and builders who could do this rather than to keep on building everywhere.
The NWN states that there will be a public exhibition on 5, 6, 7 November in the Library, maybe a survey needs to be done as to whether the public think the size and uses of the proposal needs to be downscaled ?

Lets all cross fingers that the latest solution works - I certainly hope so for pedestrians and drivers alike. I shall let you all know if there is an improvement from my office view !

All we should expect is a replacement for the tatty kiosk, maybe fractionally larger but not what appears to be supported by our elected members and other parties. We already have the corn exchange as an arts centre and the museum could potentially be improved. At the end of the day stop building over the park. Having been upto Buxton (which does have a large Victorian Pavillion but the park is stunning) our park is a disgrace. I cannot help thinking about all that developer contribution money that goes to the council for parks, it does not look like they have spent much of it? We need to focus on the landscaping and not more buildings, do you not think?

HURRAH ! Tesco beaten by village of Holmfirth (for now). It took over a thousand objections - very democratic me thinks! It's a shame there is so much complacency down here just think what Newbury would have been like if Newburians clubbed together more often. By the way the Competition Commission are also looking at introducing a Competition Test for large supermarket planning applications, the Office of Fair Trading would advise on the potential impact of any new development. HURRAH HURRAH someone somewhere in government must have been reading our rants!!!!!!!

Sadly the politicians are failing to deal with the problem that large successfuk companies often easily have the finances to do what they want, alot of small traders seriously struggle to pay the leases on the units in this town which are well known to be very high. I know what our office pays in rent and council tax, its scary.
So how do you regulate - maybe a portion of the business rates that large companies pay such as Vodafone, Tesco, Waitrose etc needs to be redistributed to reduce council tax on small business premises under a certain size.
A windfall tax on the banks that are starting to make a lot of money again (before they dish it out in bonuses)?
If there are empty units (offices and shops) in the town why not encourage a reduction in the council tax to increase occupancy.
I just think its time the pendulum swung the other way a bit. Afterall the more trade the town can bring in, this will create increased footfall for the big shops too - is that not fair and democratic ?

Fair comment, happy to refrain from further sarcasm just thought we need more ideas rather than comments saying the bollards should stay and continue to wreak havoc and cost the local tax payer (if its true that it is costing the council to fix them everytime with no recompense from the insurers).

Do not know if West Berks have spent any of our money, it might have been funded by well known estate agent or even a charity. Anyone got any info/facts/figures on this ? It is possible to submit an application on a site you do not own as long as you notify the owner, maybe this is what is happening here.