Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 8 2011, 09:13 AM

Hi everyone. I asked a question at full council the other night asking what value the council places on consultation. As my follow up question, I asked if the Pavilion project would be scrapped if the people of Newbury did not want it. Graham Jones agreed that the Pavilion would not be built if it did not have broad public support. As a result, I am hoping to get 2,000 signatures on my petition for the next full council meeting so we can stop this project once and for all.

The link is http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/savevictoriapark

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 8 2011, 09:59 AM

Richard, could you post a link to some information about the pavilion please. I've heard about it, but I don't know much about it, and although it sounds like a stupid idea to build on the park there might be some merit in the idea that I've missed so I'd like to make an informed choice.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 8 2011, 10:20 AM

This is the original draft proposal, but not the one that was presented last year, or so.

http://www.newbury.gov.uk/VPexhibition/

Pictures of the updated one.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/berkshire/hi/people_and_places/newsid_8342000/8342757.stm

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 8 2011, 10:21 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/berkshire/hi/people_and_places/newsid_8342000/8342757.stm
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/Article.aspx?articleID=11499
http://www.newburysound.co.uk/pavilion-ready-for-olympics-i-3407.php
http://www.newbury.net/forum/m-1257379199/
http://forum.newburytoday.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=332
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/Article.aspx?articleID=9988
http://consultationfinder.westberks.gov.uk/uploaddocs%5CConsult274%5C071301%20-%20Wharf%20Brochure.pdf
http://cy-gb.facebook.com/group.php?gid=321108630593
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000415794924&ref=ts
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000415794924&ref=ts#!/group.php?gid=190319386418
http://www.surfersparadise.net/forum/m-1256648074/s-0/

Just some links from a google search. I support the art centre being replaced with a town centre facility, but I can't support any large development in the park.

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 8 2011, 10:56 AM

I think you'll need to know what 'broad public support' is and, to be fair you should also run a 'we want the Pavillion' petition too.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 8 2011, 10:59 AM

There is a facebook group in support of the Pavilion. It has 8 members. The facebook group opposed to the pavilion has 700 members, and another Victoria Park group exists too. If somebody wants to campaign for it, that's up to them. I've never had anyone say "Richard, I support the idea of a pavilion". It's clear to me that the 700 or so people against it on facebook far outweigh the support the council recieved for it.

Let's have a new arts centre, but let's not build it on the park.

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 8 2011, 11:03 AM

Planning notice for the new childrens playground states that it is being moved N to accommodate the pavillion should it be built.

I can understand why the park is the councils perefered site.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 8 2011, 11:05 AM

Have you got a link to the planning application?

It doesn't make sense to build it in the park. Where will people park?

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 8 2011, 11:12 AM

Where will people park? LOL?

The planning is attached to the gate into the playground.

You must be thinking of a new green field site out of town if parking is your only issue. People park for the Corn Exchange.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 8 2011, 11:20 AM

As I've said before, Let's build it adjacent to the museum so the two could be linked with a walkway, allowing visiting exhibitions to the museum to use the arts centre making the museum more attractive / viable in the process.

I'll have a look at the planning notice later. It wouldn't surprise me though, it's what everyone has been expecting!!! Oh well, when the Pavilion is defeated, we'll have a bit extra space for picnics etc. That area of the park by the canal does get busy on a warm sunny day!!!

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 8 2011, 11:21 AM

Adjacent to the museum? Err, isn;t that going to be reducuing the available parking further?

And I would not purt much credence in numbers on facebook groups. Seems to me those in favour of a pavillion won't even know what facebook is.

Posted by: massifheed Mar 8 2011, 11:39 AM

I noticed the wording on the planning application too. So, it would appear that whatever other reasons were given for moving the skatepark north, the real reason would be to accomodate the pavillion (should it be built).

Posted by: blackdog Mar 8 2011, 11:50 AM

The issue with parking is not that there will be no parking - but that it will not be convenient for users of the arts centre (especially for those with mobility problems). There will be parking on the other side of the A339 (I don't think they have said exactly where or how big) - presumably the current football ground park and part of the football ground. They are also proposing an expensive new wheelchair friendly pedestrian bridge from the library to the pavilion - so users will also be able to use the car parks behind the library and museum (those in front will go as part of the Wharf development). The other alternative will be the Parkway car park (how many will want to cross a dark park for an event on a winter's evening?).

An arts centre could be built behind the musuem or library taking up relatively few parking spaces - but it is an issue, some spaces would inevitably go. However, WBC are already getting rid of a load of spaces on the wharf, telling us that the new Parkway car park will take up the slack (would you opt to park there for an evening out in Newbury - where all the attractions are south of the river?). Perhaps the old idea of a multi-story alongside the A339 behind the library should be revisited; include an arts centre in the build and we'd kill two birds with one stone!

WBC (in the Newbury Vision 2025) declared that the area around the Market Place and the Wharf should be the town's 'cultural and leisure quarter' - hence the cinema, the transformation of the Market Place from a place to shop to a sea of eateries. Now they want to put a cultural facility across the river, outside of the 'quarter'...

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 8 2011, 11:59 AM

IMHO parking isn't the issue. I didn't use it as a negative for the Pavillion in the Park.

Posted by: blackdog Mar 8 2011, 12:28 PM

It's not THE issue but it is AN issue - it's just daft to put a facility like this in a place that dissuades people from using it.

Access in general is a bigger issue - no access for large vehicles will cause problems at times, no adjacent parking for the disabled drivers will limit their attendence.

Of course there are plenty of other issues ...

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 8 2011, 12:56 PM

I have to say that the thing I find most silly and petty about local politics is that stopping something from happening is the best we hope for.

Posted by: Brad Mar 8 2011, 01:25 PM

I like the idea of a pavilion.. you will always find more people opposed. People who want it don't go looking for petitions!

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 8 2011, 01:58 PM

It's not about stopping a new arts centre, it's about stopping it from being built on the park. The cost of putting it behind the museum in lost parking revenue is around £160k per annum.

Also, if Greenham want to move the centre, they could pay the costs of doing up the museum in return for allowing it to be built in town. We then save the million or so that the council is spending on lotery funding, so it's a double win for the taxpayer.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 8 2011, 02:55 PM

Lots wrong about the way this project has been run, it seems, right from the start. The original idea for The Wharf regeneration as a whole vision was much more joined up. The only building proposed then, as I remember, was for facilities that contributed to the park/canal. An Arts Centre, while worthy, does not.

So much about the presentation of information that supposedly supports the proposal looks more like 'hiding bad news'.

Whether or not the idea is right I reserve judgement. The process is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Posted by: user23 Mar 8 2011, 06:02 PM

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=190319386418, not 700.

I think the parking charges at the NDC group showed how quickly people are to protest and how slow they are to provide constructive alternatives for funding to keep the Centre going.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 8 2011, 06:12 PM

Have you tried this one?

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=190319386418#!/profile.php?id=100000415794924

683 'friends' from all over the world by the looks of it!

Posted by: user23 Mar 8 2011, 06:46 PM

That's not a group, it's a profile.

It's misleading as it says "the possible destruction of much of Victoria Park in Newbury" which of course is not what is being proposed. This highlights the problem with Facebook too. it's not a barometer of local opinion as it's open to everyone worldwide.

If only 683 people from 6 billion object then there's not much problem with going ahead with it.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 8 2011, 06:54 PM

What method should be used to gauge opinion user23? It seems to me the council have decided it is up to others to disprove, rather than the council show that people approve?

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 8 2011, 07:06 PM

If this project goes the same way as others in the past it will not matter how many object? It will be what 52 people want? yes the local mafia of WBC!

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 9 2011, 12:35 PM

Title is 'Help me stop the Pavilion'.

You will not stop anything, but you may kick off a requirement for more scrutiny of the decision if many others agree with your reasoning..

What is the significance of 2000 signatures? Just asking, as I do not know.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 9 2011, 01:22 PM

The significance is the council had a relatively low amount of support for the project. 2,000 signatures against is what I would call broad objection to the project.

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 9 2011, 01:31 PM

Did they?

Do you have any facts & figures to back this up?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 9 2011, 01:38 PM

You just have to look at the response the project had at consultation.

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 9 2011, 01:42 PM

In other words - no you don't.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 9 2011, 01:43 PM

Go on - tell...... I can't be bothered to look.

I don't think 2000 (or any number significantly less than 50% of the population) is evidence of broad opinion.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 9 2011, 01:59 PM

According to Graham Jones, only a third of responses to the most recent consultation were in favour. Having looked at the consultation documents from 2006, the pavilion had 77% support. But there was no mention of the pavilion being an arts centre!!!

What would member of this forum expect a pavilion to be?

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 9 2011, 02:03 PM

A third of responses received, or a third of responses sought? These things are all about the question asked, of whom, and the overall level of interest. If people perceived it was barely more than a second hit at an already-asked question then I can well understand a low turn out. If someone wins an election with only a 38% turnout that doesn't invalidate the result, does it?

I would expect a pavilion to be next to a cricket pitch.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 9 2011, 02:05 PM

How many people would think a pavilion would be an arts centre???

Posted by: Bloggo Mar 9 2011, 02:11 PM

Why wouldn't it be?
A Pavilion could be a venue for many different and varied events including but not exclusively art.

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 9 2011, 02:13 PM

The Arts encompass all maner of cultural activities, so I'd expect the Pavillion to have a connection with the arts. Otherwise it would just be a cafe.

Posted by: NWNREADER Mar 9 2011, 02:23 PM

Be, or include?

There is an excellent Pavilion in Brighton, as I remember.........

Then there is Bournemouth Pavilion, Plymouth Pavilions, Hailsham Pavilion, I could go on, but just Google for some examples.
You are hooked up on the name and deciding what the function must be according to a single definition.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 9 2011, 02:26 PM

The principle is the building of a large building in Victoria Park, essentially a replacement facility for New Greenham Arts. Why not built it somewhere else in town, rather than on a popular area of green specae?

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 9 2011, 02:27 PM

I was under the impression the idea of the Pavillion was to get more people into the park by turning over a small part of it to an improved cafe/al fresco restaurant, performance venue etc etc.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 9 2011, 02:28 PM

If the pavilion, arts centre and all, was built where the Waterside is, there would be no problem as far as I can see. In my view, green space is valuable. They're not making any more.

Posted by: massifheed Mar 9 2011, 02:35 PM

Pretty much anything recreational, it would seem...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavilion_(structure)

I'm not against it as such. But unless it's going to be park related, I think it should go elsewhere.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 9 2011, 02:36 PM

You've been misbriefed then!!!

Posted by: Bloggo Mar 9 2011, 02:37 PM

I think it a good idea but I don't think it should be built in Victoria park either.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 9 2011, 02:38 PM

This is the general view of people I speak to. Let's move it into the town, but just not the park.

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 9 2011, 03:04 PM

Sitting in the park, Pimms, Lemonade Ice & a Slice listening to a live music performance on a summers evening, glancing over at the canal, waiter bringing ones supper over.....

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 9 2011, 04:13 PM

You paint a nice picture. I'd still rather it was built elsewhere.

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 9 2011, 04:16 PM

I think my nice picture would be well supported...

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 9 2011, 04:23 PM

Not amogst the park users it won't!!!

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 9 2011, 04:26 PM

They will be park users.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 9 2011, 04:31 PM

Great argument, let's kick out the existing users and bring in new ones. Didn't you say earlier your view was that the council were doing this to INCREASE park useage?

Look, I totally support bring New Greenham Arts into town, but it has to be the right location. By combining it with the museum, it makes a lot more sense. And that wasn't a Garvie idea either, I've seen it suggested a number of times so I looked into the viability. It can work, but only if the council dare think outside of the box!!!

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 9 2011, 04:37 PM

Kicking out existing users?

Who is suggesting that? The area taken up by any 'pavillion' is relatively small & will in no way preclude the use of the other areas of the park by those that use it now, in the way they use it now.

How can you sit outside on a summers eve & listen to a music performance is the Arts Centre is behind the museum? Are you suggesting everyone sit in the beer garden of the Berkshire arms?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 9 2011, 04:39 PM

Since when was al fresco restaurant dining in the park become a must have? Maybe the replacement arts centre could be just that!!! Aren't we supposed to be promoting market square and the units under the cinema rather than opening additional restaurants?

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 9 2011, 04:46 PM

It isn't a must have, but desirable.

The units under the cinema, hmmm, wonder why they are still empty?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 9 2011, 04:52 PM

That's not the point though, the point is we have various units available for eateries, why create another. It's a bit like the sequential test, if there are plenty of suitable units within the town centre for a TESCO for example, why would you allow one to be built out side of the town centre?

As for the arts centre as a whole, what reasons can you give for it being included in the park?

Posted by: blackdog Mar 9 2011, 05:08 PM

I expected the original pavilion would have had a cafe, stores (for boats, maintenance equipment, etc), changing rooms and public toilets. And I thought that it was in totally the wrong place, as far from the football ground, tennis courts as possible.

What I didn't expect was a proposal for an arts centre PLUS a second pavilion for the sports facilities.

If an arts centre had to be built on the park it should be replacing the current toilet block - close to parking, plenty of footfall from the users of Victoria Square (aah, yes - I begin to see the problem). Of course it shouldn't be built on the park at all - but in the designated cultural and leisure quarter to the south of the canal.

Posted by: Bofem Mar 9 2011, 05:34 PM

Richard,

I'm not sure you need 2000 signatures. Read the Vision responses from 2003....nearly 80% say no to ANY building on the park.

Mind you, most also said keep the buses in Northbrook Street.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Mar 9 2011, 05:41 PM

The problem is, the consultation in 2006 is VERY vague about what a pavilion actually is!!! As for this petition, I'm not sure we will get 2,000 people, but hopefully enough to make the council look at other options for a site for a replacement for New Greenham Arts.

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 9 2011, 06:36 PM

Doesn't float my boat, we are going to lose the boating lake, what's wrong with sitting by the bandstand for a live music performance? You won't have the fumes and the roar of motors from the A339 by the bandstand either?
Any way if you have live music you will disturb the racing pigeons that will be living in the glorified pigeon loft
Pavilion? Still need to know where the parking will be and how disabled will access the pavilion?

It would seem to be the worst place you could think of to place a pavilion?
Could an arts center be made to pay especially being so far away from other facilities?

What's wrong with building it at Northcroft if we have to have one?

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 9 2011, 07:05 PM

Getting rid of the boating lake is a bonus!

Last time I looked the bandstand was a pigeon loft. Are not Northcroft & Goldwell also 'so far away from other facilities'? Not a huge amount of parking there either. Isn't the issue the building over the towns green spaces? Or is Victoria Park a special case which should be saved, whereas Northcroft & Goldwell can be lost?

And as for the 'fumes & roar of motors from the A339' are you saying that the area intended for the Pavillion is blighted by this? It does not stop those already using the area, and isn't having a toddlers play area in such a locations a bad idea?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 9 2011, 07:29 PM

Move the Town Council into a unit on the New Greenham Park - they'll only need a town clerk once they've been Big Societized - and then make the old town hall into an arts centre - it's a lovely building and it would be nice to see it used. Simples.

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 9 2011, 07:34 PM

Northcroft has far more parking than Victoria and is also as near to facilities as victoria? Yes I agree we don't want to lose more green spaces but the council usually ignores these sort of arguments anyway so may as well join in?
Victoria is used far more than Northcroft so lesser of evils?

Just noise from A339 not conducive to your picture of lying listening to music on a balmy summers evening?
Also remember the tree problems that have suddenly developed?

Posted by: user23 Mar 9 2011, 07:37 PM

Two drawback to this.

Greenham Park isn't in Newbury and they'll probably need more staff after more powers are given to them by the Localism Bill.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 9 2011, 08:12 PM

If it saves money, does that matter? As it happens, how many NT Councillors and associated workers live in Newbury?

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 9 2011, 08:15 PM

With modern communications and ways of working there is no need to have a large office space? Could not most work of the council be performed working from home? Meetings held using the internet with web cams etc. Most of the council meetings are talked through before any public meetings and decisions made before the event in any case?

Taking into account the unaccountability of councils I would have thought downsizing would be more appropriate and cost savings should by downsizing should be to the fore?

Posted by: blackdog Mar 10 2011, 10:30 AM

Why do we need to build an effing great building to bring this picture to life? We already have music events in the park without the pavilion.

In any case they dropped the idea of making a pavilion that would open up to provide a performance space for open air concerts. This was after they dropped the idea of removing the boating pond and turning the area in a seating area for the audience. If you went to a perfomance at the pavilion you would be seated in a windowless auditorium with little prospect of being allowed to take in a drink, let alone supper.

Posted by: blackdog Mar 10 2011, 10:38 AM

Interesting concept - how about a building in Swindon as new offices for WBC?

All NT councillors live or work in Newbury - if not they don't qualify to be NT councillors. One is standing down in May as he has moved out of Newbury (even though he will continue to work here).

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 10 2011, 10:57 AM

What is the definition of 'Newbury', and would it exclude them from being able to use places like NGP? I also included the admin and other support staff in my previous post.

Posted by: blackdog Mar 10 2011, 02:01 PM

In terms of NTC Newbury is the Civil Parish or Newbury - which does not include NGP (a map of the boundaries is available on the NTC website). I don't suppose anything prevents them going to NGP apart from the oddness of a town council operating from somewhere that is not in the town. It would be like West Berks being managed from an office in Swindon or the UK Parliament sitting in Paris.

Why so keen on NGP? There is plenty of office space available in town. Perhaps Greenham Trust would find room for them in that ghastly building in the Broadway that they bought last year; unless they are planning to do Newbury a huge favour and demolish it. NTC would only need a few hundred square feet of office and access to a large meeting room (perhaps they could share WBC's meeting room?).

I don't know where the staff live (there aren't many of them) - my bet would be that most are Newbury residents.

However, I am uncomfortable with the idea of an arts centre in the old town hall - I like the stairway and council chamber and wouldn't want to see them ruined.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 10 2011, 02:23 PM

I have no interest where ( actually wrote places like NGP), it is just user23 suggested that a chamber should be in the parish that it represents. Well some of the NTC are living in Greenham it seems.

http://www.newbury.gov.uk/councillors.htm

Posted by: Exhausted Mar 10 2011, 05:36 PM

Wasn't there some suggestion that the young persons drug and other addictions would be housed in the proposed pavilion. If Edge needs a home, the old town hall is the ideal place. Town centre, watchful eye of town centre law enforcement and no dark corners where they can frighten mum's and their toddlers and while the're at it, move the place in Station Road there as well, certainly as far away from any junior school as possible. The other reason for not having Edge in the park is that it will be distanced from the new skateboard park which is a youth related attraction which needs to be kept as far away from drug and alchohol addiction as possible.

Posted by: user23 Mar 10 2011, 06:00 PM

http://ww2.westberks.gov.uk/InternetMapping/Map.aspx?x=447177&y=165830&scale=20&layers=8.7.9.55&opencat=1, in terms of the Town Council.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 10 2011, 06:18 PM

I quite agree. Perhaps I don't understand what an arts centre is, I've assumed it would be something quite genteel.

Posted by: blackdog Mar 10 2011, 06:19 PM

Two of them (Phil Barnett and Julian Swift-Hook) live in Greenham (the Nightingales is in Newbury in terms of civil parishes) - presumably they work in Newbury.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 10 2011, 06:22 PM

I don't know whether meetings need to be held in the parish, but I don't think so. NGP is certainly convenient for parking.

If there's a need for a local presence the town council could rent a small boothe in the charter market.

Posted by: blackdog Mar 10 2011, 06:41 PM

New Greenham Arts (which is what we are talking about here) provides spaces that the artists and theatre groups who use it can shape/colour etc how they want.

Given what I know about the layout of the town hall I would assume that the council chamber would become the performance area - lighting gantrys, scenery, etc. Shutters over the windows, paint it all black so the room doesn't distract from the performance ...

The stairway would be irrestable for the display of art - out with the current old stuff and in with new creations. Paint it all purple (okay white is more likely) ...

The place would never be the same again.

I also suspect that NGA wouldn't particularly want the Town Hall - I doubt that it would really meet their needs. I'm sure Greenham Trust could find a place for NGA in town somewhere (I wonder why they didn't use the RAFA hall for this?) - the pavilion goes a step further and gives them a 'prestige project'.

Not so long ago WBC were all for demolishing most of Northcroft Leisure Centre and moving Speenhamland School to the site. Well it seems that the money for school building is no longer available, and, presumably, the Leisure Centre is just as redundant as it was when they told us when they were going to demolish it (the public were to use school facilities instead). So why not convert it for NGA?

Posted by: blackdog Mar 10 2011, 06:46 PM

Didn't know about the 'within three miles' bit - certainly qualifies the two from Greenham.

Makes me elligible for 6 or more parish councils; perhaps I should stand for election to them all. On second thoughts, no - I might get elected.

Posted by: user23 Mar 10 2011, 06:48 PM

Presumably the school facilities were to include a swimming pool.

Would it still retain this if they converted it into an arts centre?

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 10 2011, 06:50 PM

OK, so I have established that places like NGP are legally reasonable for a council chamber, as is any other parish that is adjacent to the Newbury town parish.

I have to say, I don't think the 'historic' control room (or wherever) is a good place for an arts centre. It would quickly 'wear out'.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 10 2011, 06:52 PM

How about installing some inexpensive terrapins, or something, next to it? Or rebuild a dual use cricket club pavilion?

Posted by: blackdog Mar 10 2011, 06:57 PM

The swimming pools would remain - as per WBC's ideas about the Speenhamland School move.

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=7649

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 10 2011, 06:58 PM

Just a quick question? How much use would this arts center get used do you think? Is there a high demand for this?

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 10 2011, 07:00 PM

Yes, perhaps in this age of austerity it should just be give it the big up and under and we could try and catch it later? Ditto the roving libraries?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 10 2011, 07:05 PM

I do have a lot of time for the library service. I think the roving libraries do a fantastic job of making books available to the less mobile and I don't think it's easy to appreciate the importance of that until it's you.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 10 2011, 07:08 PM

Of course, but it is truly used as such. Should this service not be periodically assessed, especially as burgeoning Internet access is insidiously putting everyone out of work already?

This is the thing with cut backs. They usually land on the things that have a high cost per head. There is rarely a benign cut back.

Posted by: user23 Mar 10 2011, 07:19 PM

I can understand why a school would have a swimming pool but why would an art facility need a swimming pool?

Posted by: blackdog Mar 10 2011, 07:34 PM

Aah, being deliberately obtuse today are you?

The swimming pools would remain as public swimming pools - located alongside the arts facility. Just as they would have been public pools next door to the relocated Speenhamland School.

Mind you, I'm sure there are artists out there that would love to use a couple of swimming pools in their next masterwork.

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 10 2011, 07:38 PM

A modern day Rubens?

Posted by: blackdog Mar 10 2011, 07:45 PM

Interesting question - would it get more use than a youth centre or a day centre?

However, the idea for the pavilion is that it would not involve taxpayer money - it would be built using grants from Greenham Trust, the Lottery etc and running costs would be met mainly by Greenham Trust (replacing the funding they current provide to NGA) and income from the cafe (ie the rental from whoever runs it). So it shouldn't really be considered in the same way as the current WBC cuts as it will be a shining example of Big Society in action.

Posted by: user23 Mar 10 2011, 07:46 PM

I would have thought it would have operated more like Kennet does than being a public facility all the time.

I don't imagine sn art facility with a swimming pool would work too well.

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 10 2011, 07:52 PM

So in effect we are donating part of Victoria Park to a non council enterprise?

Posted by: blackdog Mar 11 2011, 07:46 AM

I guess that would be an option - though two large pools seems overkill for a small primary school. However, it was not what was being considered by WBC

As you evidently couldn't be bothered to read the article I linked to here are a couple of pertinent quotations:
The council is also discussing scaling back the leisure centre to just its two swimming pools, while gyms, sports halls and fitness studios could be moved to Newbury’s secondary schools.
and
The councillor responsible for leisure centres, Pamela Bale (Con, Pangbourne) said that her department was “unaware” of plans to move the school to Northcroft, but admitted downsizing the leisure centre was being considered.

No suggestion that the pools would cease to be a public facility - clearly they were looking at downsizing the leisure centre to the pools alone.


No, I don't suppose it would. But my suggestion was for the swimming pools to be separate from the arts facility, albeit in adjoining buildings if it is impractical to separate them.

If the leisure centre does have a large amount of redundant space it would make some sense 'gyms, sports halls and fitness studios' sound like ideal spaces for conversion to a new home for New Greenham Arts.