Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Mr Brown Nov 17 2014, 02:00 PM

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2014/environment-agency-opposes-park-cafe-for-fear-of-flooding-despite-flood-alleviation-scheme

I'm not quite sure what to make of this. Living in Parkway, I use the park quite a lot, it's a very pleasant green area actually my nearest.

From what I can make out, this 'cafe' will be much bigger than the existing one. What with the mountain bike fitting, the children's play area and the fenced off bowling area, it's not a place for restoration.

As this is a council designed scheme, surely they would have designed in Environmental Agency wants from the start. Leaving it until planning permission stage seems to suggest someone is simply taking a risk.

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 17 2014, 04:17 PM

Welcome to Newbury. It has not taken you long to cotton on to the efficiency, or lack of, of our local authorities?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 17 2014, 06:14 PM

Cllr David Allen of the Town Council misunderstands what the Flood Alleviation Scheme does, so perhaps when he's had a chat with the chap from the EA he might be a little less brusque.

The Flood Alleviation Scheme is designed to prevent fluvial flooding - that is, flooding from the river. It's a levee, keeping the river within its banks. However, land can flood for a number of other reasons such as when the groundwater rises up through it (groundwater flooding), and when water flows onto it from higher ground (run-off). Fluvial flood defences are a gamble that pays off if the river would have burst its banks, but fluvial defences can compound the problem from groundwater and run-off flooding because they impound that water and hold it back from entering the river. The Environment Agency model this kind of thing, and for Newbury the balance was that fluvial flood defences would improve the town's resilience to flooding, taking into account both the improved defence against fluvial flooding and the increased risk from groundwater and run-off flooding.

So it's a mistake to think that the Newbury Flood Alleviation Scheme necessarily makes it any more sensible than before to build on a field which, before it was called Victoria Park, was called The Marsh. Victoria Park is still susceptible to groundwater flooding because of its hydrogeology, and being relatively low-lying it's also susceptible to run-off flooding, and building on it doesn't just expose those buildings to flood-risk, but it puts stuff in the way of flood waters trying to find their way to the river which increases the up-stream flood-risk.

David Allen should understand this - he voted public money to support the Flood Alleviation Scheme.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 17 2014, 09:30 PM

Don't worry Mr B, the park will stay green, that's the only colour Astroturf do! What's the betting that will be the next move.

As for the Council being surprised about the Environment Agency's interest, you have to appreciate that Newbury Town Council doesn't do planning so can't be expected to know the rules and why should they? After all this 'little cafe' is the other side of the path to the canal. As you know, living in the Town Centre we are desperately short of cafes.

On a serious note, the EA got roundly slagged off last year for apparently not doing their job. So, here in Newbury, when they actually do it, what happens? They get slagged off. Coming from NTC that's rich!

Posted by: JeffG Nov 18 2014, 10:06 AM

Haven't I seen blue Astroturf somewhere?

Posted by: On the edge Nov 18 2014, 01:30 PM

It looks as if the park has had its day anyway. In public enjoyment terms it really would be far better to pave the whole thing. There isn't much green left now, and the absence of grass and flower boarders would help keep the kiddies clean as they played. Much easier to sweep away the dog poo, crisp packets, coke cans and the like. Much better for joggers too, a clean firm surface. Do it with a decent foundation and the fair could go there as well. Seriously, we have Northcroft what's the point of Victoria now it looks like a municipal,scrap yard?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 26 2014, 10:02 PM

From the very first line of the Town Council's November newsletter:

But it isn't, is it?

Posted by: spartacus Nov 26 2014, 10:55 PM

It's a green space of sorts and should be retained (and I take it your comments are slightly tongue in cheek) however that concrete circle of fetid stagnant water advertising itself as a 'boating pond' or whatever is a thing from a bygone era and should be broken up and consigned to the nearest landfill.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 27 2014, 07:33 AM

Couldn't agree more! Wouldn't it be ironic if our dear Council found that it had been leaking for many years........!

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 13 2015, 07:51 PM

Strange and late article in our local newspaper which tells us about the flood risk as if it was thrust upon the planning application last week. Not so, the Environment Agency placed their objection to the application in September 2014.
The application can be seen in full on the WBC planning portal. 14/01791/FUL here http://planning.westberks.gov.uk/rpp/index.asp?caseref=14/01791/FUL
In brief a floodplain map which is called the Flood Risk Assessment, is shown which covered not only the whole of the park but also the latest set of buildings recently approved, Parkway shopping centre. So OK for the big boys but not NTC who want to give us a bit of modernity in our main park. It looks for a 1 in 100 years flooding event. Even in the worst flooding since Victoria park was constructed I can find no record of the park flooding.

It is interesting to read through the Archaeology Ground Investigation Report which involved screw boreholes to determine the ground structure. It says that the boreholes began to collapse at less than one metre deep and ground water was entering at 1.2m. What a surprise that the Marsh has high level of ground water but surely this 'discovery' must have weight on the ongoing NTC case against Standard Life. The whole park floats and has been stable on this water table since year dot and removing the water must have caused problems due to the undersurface which is mainly gravel and stone shrinking when the water stabilising feature is removed. There are some photographs at the tail end of this report which shows clearly what the ground looks like.

This application was lodged as a full application in July 2014. It's about time it was offered to the Western Area planning committee. The EA objection is effectively advice to the planners. They could ignore it, in my opinion, what does it matter if during the next 100 years we get a flood, sweep out the water and business as usual. It's only a single storey building, one up from a garden shed unlike its prestigious neighbour in Parkway who didn't seem to have this objection laid at their door.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 14 2015, 11:02 AM

Just a couple of points.

I think if I was applying for planning permission for a new building! I'd be more than a tad upset if the designer had failed to produce a design that couldn't easily satisfy the
Planners reasonable demands. Strikes me this is yet another case of NTC knows best fire, ready, aim.

Then the location itself. If your description is that lucid and accurate, why isn't the matter already in Court? After all, being so cut and dried, it would have taken a couple of months max...

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 14 2015, 05:59 PM

I assume you mean the park sinking. Have a quick look at the spoil from the test boreholes. It is fairly large stone gravel with smaller stuff on top. There is no sign of any solid chalk or similar so the whole area seems to be very porous old river bed material and as such will use the water as part of its basic structure. Remove that water by massive pumping day and night for weeks on end and the material will compact down as it dries out. This would not be caused by a prolonged drought as suggested as the water table would not have moved downwards by more than a few centimetres. Fairly common sense I would have thought. Using the wrong experts and by the look at the costs, the wrong legal team. At £150 an hour, that is a lot of soliciting that's gone on. You can almost hear them rubbing their dry palms together as NTC came round the corner. Local lads are they ?.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 14 2015, 07:54 PM

This lot make the Vicar of Dibley, Dad's Army and yes Minister look positively clever compared to them!
Something must be wrong when they disagree with Vodafone. This lot say that another set of traffic lights on the A339 for the Faraday Road development won't make any difference whilst Vodafone say the towns roads are already at gridlock and are unable to take any new development without infrastructure modifications. Unless you class another set of traffic lights producing more gridlock as infrastructure modifications I suppose!

Does anybody think that an 80 seat cafe in the park is going to be used to capacity considering all the outlets already close by? When asked a NTC spokes person replied No, No, No, Yes!

It would be hilarious if it wasn't for how much all this Parkgate etc was costing the precept payers!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 14 2015, 10:35 PM

<snip>

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 15 2015, 01:15 PM

The application for the café etc has been lodged by Newbury Town Council but it hasn't been signed so no idea who it was within the council. The agent for the application seems a little strange though, a Paulette McAllister who appears to work from a small house in Herongate, Essex. No idea how that came about. Equally, the project management team, Dayle Bayliss Associates are based in a private house in Suffolk. http://www.daylebayliss.co.uk/contact-page/ nice picture of I assume Dayle.
The design consultants are Joseph Hardy Design & Heritage who don't yet have a website but use the same address as Dayle Bayliss.
There is little information available on the architect Karl Normanton apart from where he studied and some references to his working in Hong Kong.

I'm not suggesting that there is any impropriety here but surely for a little café we could have come up with a local team rather than persons based in Eastern England.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 15 2015, 01:34 PM

Yes unable to obtain much these days without the made in China label somehow being attached?

Perhaps we didn't have the local team this time as there has been rather a lot of criticism in the past regarding wood cladding?
I bet there is rather strong words being issued though as there is a job lot of cladding going spare after the dropping of the Pigeon Loft Pavilion!

I just hope there has been a good business case carried out regarding the viability of an 80 seat cafe being made to pay especially during the winter months?

Posted by: Lolly Feb 15 2015, 04:49 PM

And neither am I (suggesting impropriety) but I do agree that it seems bizarre for a Town Council to have commissioned a team from so far away. Presumably it was put out to competitive tender, so I guess the reasoning will be recorded in Council minutes/paperwork somewhere. You could always FOI it and move up from being a vexatious candidate to being a fully fledged member of the party!

Meanwhile here is what Dayle Bayliss LLP have reported as a testimonial from NTC:

http://www.daylebayliss.co.uk/testimonials/

Granville Taylor of Newbury Town Council, Project Management New Community Café, “The support and professionalism provided by Dayle Bayliss Associates LLP has been exemplarily. The attention to detail and grasp of the project has ensured that the criteria set has been fully understood and met in a timely and professional manner and look forward to continuing onto the next phase of the project and through to a successfull conclusion.”

Posted by: MontyPython Feb 15 2015, 05:21 PM

I wonder if anyone will use NTC's recommendation and use Dayle. Would any of you take a recommendation of a builder "he's a very nice bloke and knows exactly what we want, we look forward to him actually building it" as a reason to use said builder for your extension?

Posted by: MontyPython Feb 15 2015, 05:29 PM

I should imagine they are either inexperienced or hard up for work judging by the fact that one of the "Projects" they list is doing surveys for loft insulation.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 15 2015, 09:38 PM

I'm not entirely sure I want to encourage the town-hall numpties to build on a floodplain, but the thrust of what I was suggesting earlier is that the Environment Agency's objection is principally that building a cafe on the park will occupy a volume of space which would otherwise be filled with flood water thereby increasing the amount of water that will go and flood other people's properties. Building the cafe on stilts is one way of getting round the problem because floodwater can merrily occupy the cafe's undercroft, but it isn't the EA's favourite strategy, and if we're to believe what NTC tell us putting the cafe up on stilts is also going to make the building much more expensive to build.

The EA's first choice strategy when building on a floodplain is to create an equivalent volume somewhere on the edge of the floodplain that can take the floodwater displaced by the development. NTC might think about asking WBC if they can dig a bit out of the hill at Goldwell Park, and if WBC don't want to help out then NTC could also scalp a few inches off the high ground at their Dairy Farm allotment site, but as they dug out a great pile of spoil at that site a few years ago they might also try and make the case to the EA that they have already created the level-for-level compensation that the EA are withholding their consent over.

But it does seem ridiculous that NTC appear to have submitted a completely inadequate Flood Risk Assessment, and it's just hopeless that it seems to have taken them from August until now to grasp their problem.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 15 2015, 09:55 PM

....and its frankly beyond belief that this organisation; a significant part of the formal planning process and one that apparently knows so much about the environmental conditions and rules in this particular area shoukd fail on such an elementary point.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 15 2015, 11:09 PM

As you say, it does fundamentally undermine the credibility of the town council's planning committee. It really is time the curtain came down on this pantomime.

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 16 2015, 05:05 PM

I think that what NTC have paid for was a 'concept', even the architects drawings are bland without any detail. I know it's only one up from a garden shed but the more I look at the planning application, the more I believe that the WBC planning department could not possibly have enough detail to approve this irrespective of the environmental one in a hundred event. Just compare this application with a small addition to a house in Newbury. Picked at random but it shows the standard that is normally put before the planners. http://planning.westberks.gov.uk/rpp/index.asp?caseref=14/00770/HOUSE.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 16 2015, 06:11 PM

Another disturbing thought comes to mind, due to the amateurish antics of our Councillors, what if an operator for the cafe is unable to make a profit from this new cafe, if it ever now comes to fruition, will the precept payers have to put their hands in their pockets again?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 16 2015, 08:01 PM

The application is on the light side.

Posted by: user23 Feb 16 2015, 08:10 PM

Are you implying town councillors should get paid for what they do?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 16 2015, 08:49 PM

Amateurish - done in an unskilful or inept way. Incompetent, inept, useless, unskilful, inexpert, amateur, clumsy, maladroit, gauche, blundering, bungling, bumbling, botched, crude, bodged.

Posted by: user23 Feb 16 2015, 09:31 PM

I wondered how long it would take you to reply with something like that.

Posted by: MontyPython Feb 16 2015, 09:59 PM

What - you mean the truth?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 17 2015, 07:32 AM

Simply correcting your mistaken understanding of the word "amateurish". While "amature" can mean unpaid in a literal sense "amateurish" only has the figurative meaning and I just posted you the first definition Google gave me.

Do you have an opinion on the topic of the thread?

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 17 2015, 03:48 PM

I bet staff must get used to it at WBC, being called amateurish I mean, amongst a lot worse of course!
It would seem that both our Local Authorities always seem to bring out the worst in taxpayers, you definitely seem to have it down to a fine art I must say?

Is there a weekly prize from the Supreme Leader for the member of staff who can utter the most inane statement in any form of media and wind up the public the most?

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 17 2015, 04:58 PM

They should not as they have volunteered to serve their local community and they really don't have that much to do anyway. What goes on at NTC is the effect of them historically building their own empire to satisfy their sense of importance. On the other hand, the WBC councillors do get paid and from what I can gather, get paid well for what they do. At least they don't dress up in old fashion garments and silly hats although a few of them don't seem to make too good a job of attendance at the meetings.

Posted by: user23 Feb 17 2015, 07:42 PM

Doesn't take a lot to set you off.

On the topic of the thread, I think it's great. I gather there's no changing rooms, but there's no football pitch either so perhaps they're not needed.

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 17 2015, 08:52 PM

I'm not sure why you bother User. Snide comments seem to be your forte, bit sad really.

Posted by: Mr Brown Feb 17 2015, 09:01 PM

Well spotted, I find that quite amazing. It means that the original design brief was seriously deficient and supports the argument of those claiming that the Town Council isn't sufficiently competent to do this properly.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 18 2015, 07:00 AM

As you'll see from another thread, rules and guidelines don't actually apply to Councils round here.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 18 2015, 07:06 PM

Of course there's no football pitch, it was all in the secrete agreement between WBC and Parkway shopping to avoid the fowl language the new exclusive residents would have to put-up with every other Sunday morning. The sinking park was just one big ruse.

http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/9250540.Concerns_about_new_football_pitch

Posted by: x2lls Feb 18 2015, 07:58 PM

Why did the chicken cross the park?

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 18 2015, 10:57 PM

I get that --- bloody c0ck crowing every morning!

Posted by: Lolly Feb 18 2015, 11:45 PM

The Daily Mail confirms Simon's terminology...

Drivers have been fined for parking outside bays after a bungling local authority made the spaces too short after repaint

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2959069/Motorists-fined-parking-outside-bays-bungling-local-authority-spaces-short.html#ixzz3S8wMjmPf
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 19 2015, 12:18 AM

If you look carefully it's not the only one.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 19 2015, 12:32 AM

It's generally the Newbury Town Council who I would describe as bungling and otherwise hapless, inept, abusive, unaccountable, dishonest, self-serving and arrogant. I don't have much of a problem with West Berkshire Council and can say from experience that much of it is really very professional, helpful, and competent. Whether they've bungled here I couldn't say as the major problem seems to be that bays have been marked too short rather then too narrow so I guess you'd have to be parked pretty badly to merit a ticket, and I don't have a great deal of sympathy for terrible parking.

My gripe here was just that it was unacceptably rude to attack the appearance and cleanliness of the chap who'd taken the measurements, and I also thought that WBC's response was defensive and mealy-mouthed.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 19 2015, 01:11 AM

Since I've taken any noticed, I have felt WBC had a problem with PR (and traffic management, signage, planning, etc, ).

Posted by: On the edge Feb 19 2015, 10:12 AM

PR is only ever sticking plaster. In reality, it comes down to attitude - if those at the top have a bad one; it will shine through the rest of the organisation. Of course there will be, and are some competent and professional people at WBC who must get as demotivated and disturbed as we are with the poor attitude and deficient leadership skills at the top.

Posted by: The Hatter Feb 19 2015, 04:45 PM

A good boss doesn't blame the staff.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 19 2015, 08:33 PM

I met a chap from WBC today, measuring parking bays. A more courteous and professional individual you couldn't wish to meet, presenting an open, honest and likeable face of our local authority that we just don't get from the mealy-mouthed politicos.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 19 2015, 08:52 PM

So they are not going to accept Stan's word then?

Goes to show they don't have any confidence in what size their parking bays are then?

Posted by: x2lls Feb 19 2015, 08:57 PM

Bit of an assumption there. They could be confirming the reported sizes.

Posted by: MontyPython Feb 19 2015, 09:08 PM

So as said they are not certain of the sizes.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 19 2015, 09:53 PM

Measuring the bays sounds like the right thing to do, no? I don't think I'd take on trust something that I'd read in the Hate Mail.

The accusation was that cars were being ticketed for parking outside undersized parking pays because the bays were too small to park within. I simply don't believe that to be true, and while I think WBC put their case really badly, I think the truth of it is that the CEOs do indeed use their common sense and only ticket cars that have parked really badly. It seems quite likely that some parking bays will be smaller than the recommendations (and they're recommendations, there are no regulations as such), and as spartacus has already said (so intemperately) cars are a lot bigger now than they were twenty years ago, so there is a valid criticism to be made that WBC hasn't grown the bays to accommodate our juggernautical girth, but the problem there is that we're getting our doors dinged more than we need - cars generally aren't yet so wide that they literally can't fit wholly within the marked bay, and even when a car is parked somewhat out of a bay the CEOs exercise a degree of leniency so you really need to have parked pretty badly to have got a ticket.

Posted by: blackdog Feb 20 2015, 10:38 AM

What happened to the football pitch - I understood it would return when the subsidence issue was resolved?

Changing rooms are also needed for tennis players - or are the tennis courts going as well?

A rapidly growing town like Newbury needs more sports facilities, not fewer.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 20 2015, 01:07 PM

Err, that's a bit like saying there ought to be football pitches in London's Green Park! A good few of us would actually question the need for the cafe, let alone all the other municipal junk in what is supposed to be a town centre park! Go under the bridge, there is already a nice wholly underused football pitch.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 20 2015, 05:35 PM

Is that a fact? The 'some will, some won't' comment doesn't really support that view.

Posted by: blackdog Feb 20 2015, 07:29 PM

There was a football pitch there for decades - until the Parkway development displaced it for their temporary use. They are no longer using it - so why has the football pitch not been re-instated. Perhaps because the toilet block that may have served as a changing room was demolished for being too unsightly for Parkway's sensitivities?

We seem to be selling off school playing fields and doing away with sporting facilities in parks - no wonder there are so many more obese youths around these days.

The NFC pitch is another story entirely - though it too is doomed.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 21 2015, 04:32 PM

The real problem with amature football is that it's so very yesterday. There hasn't been any sustained objection to the loss of the pitches, which after all weren't served by changing rooms anyway. As to the Council lavatory; let's face it, at least there are two far cleaner and far better appointed facilities just across the road. Indeed, it's taken Parkway to show us how to run a lavatory. Victoria Park isn't the antidote to fat kids, there are even a couple of gyms near by. Frankly, reinstating the football pitches would make Victoria Park into even more of a semi industrial wasteland than it is at present. Still the AstroTurf adorned with plastic play kit will make a lovely unchanging landscape to look at from the cafe. windows. Real class Newbury!

Posted by: JeffG Feb 21 2015, 05:14 PM

Well, the pitch on City Playground is always well used, with both "proper" matches (on Sundays) and youngsters having kickabouts (most days). Doesn't seem particularly yesterday to me.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 21 2015, 05:27 PM

....and what about all the other pitches round the country. School playing fields were mentioned in an earlier response. Again, very under used and no real reason why they couldn't be properly exploited for the community at week ends; there would even be changing rooms.