Urban Village, Market Street development Options

[Simon Kirby]

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?

[Sherlock]

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.

[Andy Capp]

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

[Simon Kirby]

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.

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.

[blackdog]

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.

[Andy Capp]

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

[Exhausted]

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.

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.

[On the edge]

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.

[Cognosco]

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

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?

[Andy Capp]

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

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.

[Simon Kirby]

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.

Yes, I'd subscribe to all of that.

[Simon Kirby]

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.

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.

[On the edge]

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.

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'!!!

[user23]

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'!!!

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?

[On the edge]

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.

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?

[Andy Capp]

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.

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'!!!

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.

[Andy Capp]

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?

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.

[Simon Kirby]

The market is rigged to hold prices high and low wage people suffer for it.

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.

[Simon Kirby]

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?

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.

[Andy Capp]

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.

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.