'New' Parkway anchor store recommended for approval Options

[Iommi]

Another policy busting development for Newbury Town. It makes me so proud of West Berkshire Council.

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article...articleID=15596

[Cognosco]

Another policy busting development for Newbury Town. It makes me so proud of West Berkshire Council.

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article...articleID=15596

Come on then User lets hear your bit of spin on this one then?

[dannyboy]

I'll give you mine instead.

who cares!

Replacing 6 cafes with a furniture store is, based on the still empty units under the cinema, a good idea. No point in having a load of boarded up shops. No cafe culture in Victoria Place without the cafes!

[Richard Garvie]

I'll give you mine instead.

who cares!

Replacing 6 cafes with a furniture store is, based on the still empty units under the cinema, a good idea. No point in having a load of boarded up shops. No cafe culture in Victoria Place without the cafes!

It's very rare we agree, but I'll with you regarding some of what's said here. The council are being held to ransom by Parkway, not deliberately as some would suspect though. If the development was struggling to fill units, having a John Lewis homestore will add something different to Newbury, possibly making the town more attractive to those who would otherwise go elsewhere. A point I used the other night:

Parkway at present only has Debenhams, which is the same department store we already had in town. No new attraction for the town, so there is technically nothing "extra" to our retail offering as a town. John Lewis Homestore will be an attraction, and could now help SLI pull in other retailers. New people will come to town, benefitting the town centre as a whole. By having the food / refreshment offering in Market Place / Kennet Centre, it's encouraging people to go further south in the town centre and may just be what we need to keep the Market Place and Kennet Centre connected to Parkway. For this reason, the council can't turn it down because it is actually supporting other parts of town at the same time. Whether you support Parkway or not, this simply has to happen to make the development a success.

There is a loss of public space, and I believe that the compromises may have been made to cheaply. Parkway will be great for the town if it's a success, and for that reason we all need to support it now. The worst thing to happen to Newbury is if we ended up with a huge, empty retail facility. The circumstances in which it came about were wrong. It's possibly the wrong place, the bus station area may have been better for attracting retailers to the southern part of town. What we need to focus on now is a) supporting the small and independent traders to ensure that their businesses are protected and review the planning decisions made since 2004. As part of the review, we need to know why the Parkway site was sold for £1, who paid the £3m to Debenhams and why the affordable housing quota was almost completely removed. We also need to know why the infrastructe around Parkway was not significantly improved.

Parkway is here to stay whether we agree with how it has come about. What people need to decide now is whether they want a thriving retail area that brings additional people to town, or whether to fight the John Lewis homestore and risk Parkway becoming a White Elephant.

[Andy1]

I'll give you mine instead.

who cares!

Replacing 6 cafes with a furniture store is, based on the still empty units under the cinema, a good idea. No point in having a load of boarded up shops. No cafe culture in Victoria Place without the cafes!

Dito - who cares. The same objectors would then complain the shops were boarded up.

[blackdog]

I care.

The officers' report fails to cover the loss of Victoria Square adequately - they fudge the issue by accepting the red herring offered by SLI that Victoria Park is so close that the lost of this public space is inconsequential. This is b*****ks! Victoria Square offered a small paved public area between the shopping centre and the bus stops, a transition area where people could sit outside the cafes (that will now not appear) and wait for their bus, or to be picked up. This is a totally different function to that of Victoria Park.

The lack of take up of the space under the cinema is irrelevent. A development the size of Parkway is bound to have cafes (if SLI ever offer space at a reasonable rent).

Nor are they taking the reduction in parking seriously - apparently Newbury has plenty of parking without Parkway! However, the officer spends plenty of time stressing the benefits of John Lewis in attracting extra shoppers, which means more cars to park. Nor do they seem to take into account that WBC are planning to get rid of several existing car parks (Wharf, Market Street) as they pursue the Vision 2025.

In short the officer seems to have weighed up several negatives (loss of public space, loss of parking, degredation of the overall design, etc) against a single positive (John Lewis) - the negatives are all permament, is the presence of John Lewis?

Once again it seems as if WBC are being pressured into accepting whatever SLI want - regardless of the impact on Newbury. No one seems to be considering whether SLI could fit in John Lewis without the loss of Victoria Square. It's been the biggest failure of WBC planners for decades: accepting sub standard designs as if they are the only option rather than challenging developers to come up with better schemes.

[dannyboy]

why the affordable housing quota was almost completely removed.

Whether you support Parkway or not, this simply has to happen to make the development a success

I think PW also has a few other 'new to Newbury' tennants in addition to JL.

SLI paid the sweetner to Debenhams.

[Iommi]

Richard Garvie, your answer to anything controversial and after the fact is, we must have a review. A fat lot of good that is when we have this abomination stuck in the middle of a small town, an abomination endorsed by all in authority. It is big, ugly, and rides over local planning policy.

[massifheed]

The lack of take up of the space under the cinema is irrelevent.

Hardly. If no-one wants to take up a retail space under the cinema where the rents are likely to be lower, and where business would in all probability be brisk with people combining going to the cinema and going out for a meal, what makes you think that would-be cafe owners are going to be falling over themselves to take up space in Parkway?

[dannyboy]

Richard Garvie, your answer to anything controversial and after the fact is, we must have a review. A fat lot of good that is when we have this abomination stuck in the middle of a small town, an abomination endorsed by all in authority. It is big, ugly, and rides over local planning policy.

Standard oposition procedure.

waste time & money for the incumbents.

I feel rg has the 'Red Labour Cookbook'

[Richard Garvie]

Richard Garvie, your answer to anything controversial and after the fact is, we must have a review. A fat lot of good that is when we have this abomination stuck in the middle of a small town, an abomination endorsed by all in authority. It is big, ugly, and rides over local planning policy.

It's the planning policy that needs to be investigated. In 2004, the majority of planning responsibilities went to the officers. Since then, we've had PW land sold for a pound, affordable housing proposals diluted in nearly all local developments, pepper potting, a strategic site selected despite being the least sustainable and council officers alledgedly working with developers to ensure that planning consent is given on appeal if there is public opposition (Theale for instance and Pincents Hill). By objecting to John Lewis, it won't change the fact we have PW. Just increases the chances of having empty units.

What we need to do now is establish why certain decisions were made. The lack of infrastructure improvements for instance will come back to haunt us I'm sure.

[dannyboy]

It's the planning policy that needs to be investigated. In 2004, the majority of planning responsibilities went to the officers. Since then, we've had PW land sold for a pound, affordable housing proposals diluted in nearly all local developments, pepper potting, a strategic site selected despite being the least sustainable and council officers alledgedly working with developers to ensure that planning consent is given on appeal if there is public opposition (Theale for instance and Pincents Hill). By objecting to John Lewis, it won't change the fact we have PW. Just increases the chances of having empty units.

What we need to do now is establish why certain decisions were made. The lack of infrastructure improvements for instance will come back to haunt us I'm sure.

a strategic site selected despite being the least sustainable

have you actually read the report?

[Richard Garvie]

a strategic site selected despite being the least sustainable

have you actually read the report?

The original one in which Sandleford canme bottom with a score of minus sixteen??? Yes I have thanks.

[dannyboy]

The original one in which Sandleford canme bottom with a score of minus sixteen??? Yes I have thanks.

But you didn't see that it was biased. Funny that.

[Richard Garvie]

But you didn't see that it was biased. Funny that.

How so? The council did the report, so how was it biased against Sandleford? Who provided the criteria? I thought the report was well put together, but some of the answers were a bit flimsy. I think Siege Cross would have been a great site based on that report. It could have enabled an additional secondary school for Thatcham, which would have been handy as the only secondary school in Thatcham may soon be an academy. Parents woukld then have had a choice.

[dannyboy]

How so? The council did the report, so how was it biased against Sandleford? Who provided the criteria? I thought the report was well put together, but some of the answers were a bit flimsy. I think Siege Cross would have been a great site based on that report. It could have enabled an additional secondary school for Thatcham, which would have been handy as the only secondary school in Thatcham may soon be an academy. Parents woukld then have had a choice.

Sandleford scored badly for damaging a historic landscape (? - I guess the report means Sandleford Priory, which is err, a girls school and was damaged decades ago ) and for 'not being in the centre'. Yet it is on the doorstep of the college & Newbury retail park. Oddly developments to the N of Newbury didn't score as low for damaging the Historic landscape there, or for not being in the centre.

reducing the sustainability to mere points which can then be taken out of context is pointless.

The council was obliged to commission the report - I doubt any council actually want the bother of paying for one.

[Richard Garvie]

Sandleford scored badly for damaging a historic landscape (? - I guess the report means Sandleford Priory, which is err, a girls school and was damaged decades ago ) and for 'not being in the centre'. Yet it is on the doorstep of the college & Newbury retail park. Oddly developments to the N of Newbury didn't score as low for damaging the Historic landscape there, or for not being in the centre.

reducing the sustainability to mere points which can then be taken out of context is pointless.

The council was obliged to commission the report - I doubt any council actually want the bother of paying for one.

I agree about North Newbury, it isn't suitable in my opinion for a number of reasons. The sustainability study is part of the process for a reason. Some of the criteria is irrelevant in my opinion, but there has to be a reason for it's inclusion? The inspector was obviously concerned about the LDF to suspend the process for over six months.

[dannyboy]

I agree about North Newbury, it isn't suitable in my opinion for a number of reasons. The sustainability study is part of the process for a reason. Some of the criteria is irrelevant in my opinion, but there has to be a reason for it's inclusion? The inspector was obviously concerned about the LDF to suspend the process for over six months.

The requirement is an EU idea - they most likely drafted the criteria.

[Richard Garvie]

The requirement is an EU idea - they most likely drafted the criteria.

Do you think Newbury has been developed in an effective way over the past ten years or so?

[dannyboy]

Do you think Newbury has been developed in an effective way over the past ten years or so?

Yes.