Welcome to Newburytoday.co.uk’s message boards where you can have your say and share your views on any number of issues.
Anyone can read messages, but only registered users can post messages, reply to messages or create new topics. As part of the free and simple registration, you will be asked to read and conform to the house rules.
To register, click here ……Enjoy the debate. Newbury Today Forum > All posts by a member
2 Pages
1 2 >
|
Posted on: Nov 10 2009, 10:44 AM |
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 24-September 09
Member No.: 362
|
QUOTE (Iommi @ Nov 9 2009, 10:18 PM) I went to the Pavilion/wharf exhibition at the weekend. One issue that came back repeatedly was the the use of a sole architect.
I understand that the architect is a member, in some form, of the Newbury Town Centre Partnership. One has to ask, therefore, is it proper for a situation to exists like this? While I have no reason to doubt the integrity of the architect in question, but shouldn't developments in public spaces go out to tender?
While there might not be any wrong doing in what has gone on up to now, it does, I think, raise suspicion amongst the public. I did read that a local architect recently raised this issue with the NWN. However there is no issue with feasibility work being commissioned by West Berks, as long as the planning side of a project is tendered. Currently this project is being funded by Greenham Common Trust, so West Berks have no control in theory. However if GCT is on the board of West Berkshire Partnership maybe they need to question their motivation for not having some sort of competition for the final design once feed back is received on this proposal. Maybe the project is this big so that it is worth Sutton Griffin doing it, else if it shrinks the fee shrinks. |
|
Forum: Newbury News
· Post Preview: #10789
· Replies: 4
· Views: 6,873
|
|
Posted on: Nov 3 2009, 10:39 AM |
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 24-September 09
Member No.: 362
|
QUOTE (JeffG @ Nov 2 2009, 03:35 PM) You don't listen, do you? That is bang in the middle of a residential area. Do not see why having a youth centre temporarily located in this area is a problem when it would be next to the new massive school with children who are there for sevral hours of the day - in a residential area. Anyway its not going to happen..... |
|
Forum: Random Rants
· Post Preview: #10567
· Replies: 33
· Views: 36,912
|
|
Posted on: Nov 2 2009, 01:44 PM |
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 24-September 09
Member No.: 362
|
QUOTE (JeffG @ Oct 28 2009, 11:33 AM) And where do you live? Anyway, Luker won't be emptied until the new school is finished (Wormestall closes at Christmas), so that's some way in the future. And who is going to go all the way up there? Any youth centre needs to be in a central, non-residential location - tell you what: where it is now, is ideal. Whats the rush with the pavilion? Wait till new St Barts completed, decamp from existing youth centre to empty Luker (or could have been Wormstall - too late now), build new replacement on existing site. Problem with Newbury Vision group is that they don't seem to use much vision but adopt plenty of local business clout via NTP to influence local matters. Just an idea, maybe someone can come up with a better one as I am not a politician. |
|
Forum: Random Rants
· Post Preview: #10548
· Replies: 33
· Views: 36,912
|
|
Posted on: Oct 28 2009, 11:21 AM |
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 24-September 09
Member No.: 362
|
QUOTE (JeffG @ Oct 21 2009, 11:07 AM) Sorry, can't work out what you intended to say here. Would there be room? What happens to the old wharf building? Or do you mean a different opposite (there are 3). Seems like a good idea - but where does the Youth Centre go? But isn't the whole idea of the underground car park for it to be connected to the new shopping development? Engineers and the environment agency obviously have proved you can dig a big gaping hole into a low water table without displacing the water elsewhere - (lets wait and see) - thus why not do it at the wharf? There would be room if it wasn't 20,000 sqft - or why not go taller - not stopped them with the park way development. Youth centre temporarily housed elsewhere ie - luker building when its emptied and before its redeveloped - or how about the greenham arts centre - must be loads of options besides these. I did not mean relocate the new basement car park I meant use it as a precedent for more basement car parking. Personally I do not think I will park my car there when there is heavy rain forcast - remember what happened at Vodafone HQ? |
|
Forum: Random Rants
· Post Preview: #10436
· Replies: 33
· Views: 36,912
|
|
Posted on: Oct 26 2009, 01:04 PM |
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 24-September 09
Member No.: 362
|
QUOTE (JeffG @ Oct 21 2009, 11:07 AM) Sorry, can't work out what you intended to say here. Would there be room? What happens to the old wharf building? Or do you mean a different opposite (there are 3). Seems like a good idea - but where does the Youth Centre go? But isn't the whole idea of the underground car park for it to be connected to the new shopping development? Just maybe it was a bad idea for St Bartholmew School gaining permission to change use to residential for Wormstall building - could this not have been used as a youth centre? Or better still - whilst Luker school is still standing convert that to a youth centre? The St Bartholomew School Foundation would then make some money from the council rather than sell all their assets to speculators.....why don't the NTP think of such ideas? |
|
Forum: Random Rants
· Post Preview: #10360
· Replies: 33
· Views: 36,912
|
|
Posted on: Oct 26 2009, 12:58 PM |
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 24-September 09
Member No.: 362
|
QUOTE (blackdog @ Oct 22 2009, 08:04 PM) Good question, the Waterside is due to be given to developers - the idea of a youth centre in Newbury will soon be a thing of the past. # Who says its going to developers, is it not owned by the council? If we are council tax payers which one of us agreed to sell it ? Another case of public land being flogged off without a proper debate. |
|
Forum: Random Rants
· Post Preview: #10359
· Replies: 33
· Views: 36,912
|
|
Posted on: Oct 9 2009, 11:53 AM |
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 24-September 09
Member No.: 362
|
QUOTE (user23 @ Oct 8 2009, 09:14 PM) The "boating" pond is awful and the corner they're talking about building on is usually muddy and unused. Not that muddy when I played football with my son recently, else maybe this area needs to be taken care of by the grounds people. If it was banked up and had more planting less water would sit around here possibly. I still feel the park is currently a disappointment, so surely it would benefit from a serious rethink as a landscaped park rather than as a building site. Can we not all propose this instead when the exhibition takes place? |
|
Forum: Random Rants
· Post Preview: #9980
· Replies: 33
· Views: 36,912
|
|
Posted on: Sep 30 2009, 12:34 PM |
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 24-September 09
Member No.: 362
|
QUOTE (blackdog @ Sep 28 2009, 03:13 PM) How do you decide which businesses to protect from competition? How would you propose that we regulate the retail trade to ensure that the smaller businesses survive? Retail shopping is democracy in action, people vote with their wallets and go where they can shop more cheaply or more conveniently - is it the government's business to go against what the people evidently want? Sadly the politicians are failing to deal with the problem that large successfuk companies often easily have the finances to do what they want, alot of small traders seriously struggle to pay the leases on the units in this town which are well known to be very high. I know what our office pays in rent and council tax, its scary. So how do you regulate - maybe a portion of the business rates that large companies pay such as Vodafone, Tesco, Waitrose etc needs to be redistributed to reduce council tax on small business premises under a certain size. A windfall tax on the banks that are starting to make a lot of money again (before they dish it out in bonuses)? If there are empty units (offices and shops) in the town why not encourage a reduction in the council tax to increase occupancy. I just think its time the pendulum swung the other way a bit. Afterall the more trade the town can bring in, this will create increased footfall for the big shops too - is that not fair and democratic ? |
|
Forum: Newbury News
· Post Preview: #9720
· Replies: 70
· Views: 124,690
|
2 Pages
1 2 >
New Replies No New Replies Hot Topic (New) Hot Topic (No New) |
Poll (New) Poll (No New) Locked Topic Moved Topic |
|
|
|