Victoria Park pavilion design brief was only given to one firm Options

[Iommi]

A quote from this story - link here: Architect firm says it is disappointed that Victoria Park pavilion design brief was only given to one firm

The Vision councillor, Pamela Bale said: “Sutton Griffin were commissioned to create designs as the logical next step of a considerable amount of work they had already done without charge."

Ms Bale, there is no such thing as a free lunch!!!

[Strafin]

I was a bit suprised by this until I read further down and saw the name Liz Taylor.

[On the edge]

Has anyone else living round here noticed that the OED has got the definition of 'democracy' wrong?

[Bloggo]

A quote from this story - link here: Architect firm says it is disappointed that Victoria Park pavilion design brief was only given to one firm

The Vision councillor, Pamela Bale said: “Sutton Griffin were commissioned to create designs as the logical next step of a considerable amount of work they had already done without charge."

Ms Bale, there is no such thing as a free lunch!!!

I think the Council are forgetting that they are elected to act on behalf of the people of newbury and should be very open in explaining what is planned for Victoria Park, why there has only been one Architect involved in the Pavilion project how much of tax payers money is being invested in the project.

As stated above it is niave to think that any firm does work for nothing and I would bet £100 that Sutton Griffin get the project as they seem very active in the town of late.

It seems a grand project, why all the secretcy??

[blackdog]

It seems a grand project, why all the secrecy??

So that those opposing the pavillion have as little time as possible to mount an effective campaign to get the scheme scrapped during the final 'consultation' period?

[ArchitectRIBA]

I agree about the planning process, once this application is lodged the planning officer will be under great political pressure to approve irrespective of public opinion....however maybe council onbudsmen needs to take a look at what has been going on.
I do actually believe Sutton Griffin will come up with a good scheme its just that it would have been good to see others have ago and let the public have more of a say.
Pamela Bale's quote is shocking - any architect would do feasibilty work for free if it means being appointed for the rest of the project. I hope she has written a nice long list of potential architects for future projects in the West Berkshire area and distributed it amongst her team, who will have brushed up on the competitive tendering process which is meant to be the EU norm!

[Bloggo]

I agree about the planning process, once this application is lodged the planning officer will be under great political pressure to approve irrespective of public opinion....however maybe council onbudsmen needs to take a look at what has been going on.
I do actually believe Sutton Griffin will come up with a good scheme its just that it would have been good to see others have ago and let the public have more of a say.
Pamela Bale's quote is shocking - any architect would do feasibilty work for free if it means being appointed for the rest of the project. I hope she has written a nice long list of potential architects for future projects in the West Berkshire area and distributed it amongst her team, who will have brushed up on the competitive tendering process which is meant to be the EU norm!

I think Pamela Bale is spinning a little.
According to EC directives, isn't it illegal not to go out to tender when spending public money for projects such as this.

[ArchitectRIBA]

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.

[blackdog]

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.

I believe the funding, and the contract came from New Greenham Trust - not quite public money. It is still pretty dubious for a local charity whose funds come from letting what is essentially public land (Greenham Business Park) adopting this approach. It is even more dodgy that the Town Centre Partnership (supposedly the people driving the Vision and hence the Pavillion project) should include in their number Patrick Griffin (bet you can't guess who he works for).

West Berks councillors are present on both the New Greenham Trust and the Town Centre Partnership - they should know better!

[ropey]

I believe the funding, and the contract came from New Greenham Trust - not quite public money. It is still pretty dubious for a local charity whose funds come from letting what is essentially public land (Greenham Business Park) adopting this approach. It is even more dodgy that the Town Centre Partnership (supposedly the people driving the Vision and hence the Pavillion project) should include in their number Patrick Griffin (bet you can't guess who he works for).

West Berks councillors are present on both the New Greenham Trust and the Town Centre Partnership - they should know better!

I am puzzled by Cllr Bales comments about Sutton Griffons doing work free of charge, when as far as I know they have been paid around 40,000 to make drawings, Greenham Common Trust say they would be happy to fund it if approached, they appear to be the main driver behind this, funding drawings with a view to moving their arts centre to Newbury, do we need another town centrre arts venue.

Please lets not build on a lovely park.

[ArchitectRIBA]

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?

[blackdog]

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?

I think Buxton is a bit of an unfair comparison, as a spa town it's park was set up to cater for a tourist trade that Newbury has never dreamed of. Perhaps Victoria Park could be revamped as a pleasure park along the lines of Buxton but that would probably mean evicting the footballers - which is hardly fair as Newbury has relatively few public pitches.

However, I am in sympathy with your sentiments, concreting over any part of our ever diminishing urban green spaces is not my idea of progress.