A three day exhibition opens in Newbury Library today showing details of a proposed pavilion for Newbury’s Victoria Park, along with displays about potential future upgrades to the adjacent Wharf area. The exhibition will demonstrate how the project has developed following the public consultation carried out in 2007.

I thought it was going to be big - but its bigger and far uglier than I expected.  

Good points - the trees and boating pond seem to survive i.e. its not much like the concept everyone apparently voted for.

Is this all they are releasing?  What about the changing rooms building? How about internal layout? How is it supposed to work? No plan to show how much of the park it takes up?

Quoted from blackdog

Is this all they are releasing?  What about the changing rooms building? How about internal layout? How is it supposed to work? No plan to show how much of the park it takes up?

Bloody ugly.  £6,000,000.00 for this vomit.

At a media briefing on Tuesday, the councillor responsible for the project, Pamela Bale (Con Bangbourne) said that residents views expressed at the three-day exhibition would be taken into account “where possible”, but that consultation results showed most people wanted a building in the park.

In other words, once funding is secure it will be built.

Well, the most popular parts of the park seems to have disappeared, The children's play area and the skateboard area.

What a monstrosity, "Thunderbirds are go". We should be pleased that Scott and Virgil have moved their headquarters from Tracy Island to Newbury. I look forward to Lady Penelope opening the complex if they get planning permission as no doubt they will.

An architect well entrenched in the sixties by the style of the design although he may be a cricket fan and spent too much time at Lord's cricket ground.

What a surprise, it's only largely going to take up the some of 15 foot of bank and muddy area that are currently unused.

Looks like the new objection to it will be "I don't like the look of it".

The lucky thing for the vocal few against any sort of progression in Newbury seems to be that they're out-of-towners who never set foot in the park so they won't ever see it.

Quoted from user23.3

What a surprise, it's only largely going to take up the some of 15 foot of bank and muddy area that are currently unused.

Looks like the new objection to it will be "I don't like the look of it".

The lucky thing for the vocal few against any sort of progression in Newbury seems to be that they're out-of-towners who never set foot in the park so they won't ever see it.

A 'townies' (there, lets get all playground about it) post like yours is hardly surprising either.  By the way, I do visit there and it is not muddy, but I suppose townies like you are scared of a bit of soil.

Realise this, I went to the little exhibition in the town hall entrance sometime back and I largely supported the idea, but not this hideous pathological carbuncle.

Newbury - the home of the incongruous, ugly and tacky.

Yuck. Compltely out of place anywhere in the park. It would fit in perfectly with the Vodafone building at Shaw, but in the park, no. If it had to go into the centre of Newbury, next to the library would be best.

Just my tuppence worth.

Quoted from user23.3

What a surprise, it's only largely going to take up the some of 15 foot of bank and muddy area that are currently unused.

You obviously haven't looked at the plans carefully enough. Try superimposing a view using Google Earth and you will see that your impression that it fits the muddy bank is somewhat incorrect

Quoted from user23.3

Looks like the new objection to it will be "I don't like the look of it".

A very good reason.

Quoted from user23.3

The lucky thing for the vocal few against any sort of progression in Newbury seems to be that they're out-of-towners who never set foot in the park so they won't ever see it.

You are so wrong there.

Hmmm....beginning to wonder if Sutton Griffin are all designed-out after the punishing schedule of the racecourse, Stirling Skycraper, Faraday Folly, The People's Glorious Shopping Centre of Cartergrad, St Barts, Camp Hopson (revamp and furniture store), BT Tower (yes, I know....you'd think they've got some discount cladding from Travis Perkins)

That's the only reason I can think of why someone would want to build an airport departure lounge on a park.

I've made up my mind that this project is to be cancelled....I want to see a design competition (monitored by the UN of course, WBC's results would make Hamed Karzai shudder)

I like it.

Here's the government's take on these kinds of things (Note 41 from PPG1).

One of the principles of sustainable development is to involve the community in developing the vision for its area. Communities should be asked to offer ideas about what that vision should be, and how it can be achieved.Where there are external constraints that may impact on the vision and future development of the area (for example, those that may arise from planning policies set at the regional or national level) these should be made clear
from the outset. Local communities should be given the opportunity to participate fully in the process for drawing up specific plans or policies and to be consulted on proposals for development. Local authorities, through their community strategies and local development documents, and town and parish councils, through parish plans, should play a key role in developing full and active community involvement in their areas.

Looks OK to me too, to be honest. Not entirely sure why we need it, but if the Greenham Common Trust free up some of their land and end up paying a fair chunk of the hefty bill it's OK with me.

I'm more concerned about what what happens to the Waterside, particularly in terms of replacing the existing facilities.  Provision for young people's activities in the town centre seems to be taking very much a second place to 'the arts'.  

It's going to happen, though, and the dire quality most of the complainers' comments here so far will simply persuade the council that the usual and handful of anonymous nerds, nutters and anoraks are reacting in their usual predictable and unrepresentative way.  Just saying.

Quoted from noobree

I'm more concerned about what what happens to the Waterside, particularly in terms of replacing the existing facilities.  Provision for young people's activities in the town centre seems to be taking very much a second place to 'the arts'.

Take another look at the plans, the youth facilities are there - apart from a canoe store in Northcroft this building is the new youth facility.  If this is built the Waterside is doomed to be replaced by another block of flats.

Quoted from blackdog

If this is built the Waterside is doomed to be replaced by another block of flats.

Executive Waterside Apartments, you mean?

Well, I try and keep an open mind when it comes to WBC, but the idea of building this in the park is a disgrace. Where is the childrens play area and the skate park going to go? They are easily the two most used features of the park at present, and are used all year round.

I can't see this building fitting in anywhere looking the way it does, let alone having it in the park. Shameful.

Quoted from Administrator

An enlarged view is available by clicking on each of the images

Are the Town Council signed up to this?  Removal of the play area and skateboard ramps, the new building intruding into their part of the Park, a boating pond where they were planning to build facilities?

The building is at least twice the footprint that I had envisaged - as well as being impressively ugly.  I have also become accustomed to viewing artists impressions with immense suspicion - it will look a lot bigger still when it is built. [And User - it doesn't use any of the bank.]

Thre green area east of the A339 is labelled 'Victoria Park Extension' - its always been part of the park, until they built the A339 through the Park it was an integral part.  But it can't survive as the green space shown, they have coloured over the access road from the end of Faraday Road to the new building.

The overall plan has also changed - the Stone Building seems to survive, but only as an annex to a pub.  The new museum is still there, what is it going to hold?

One has to admire Patrick Griffin's patience though - he designed the Waterside replacement 20 years ago.

Quoted from noobree

It's going to happen, though, and the dire quality most of the complainers' comments here so far will simply persuade the council that the usual and handful of anonymous nerds, nutters and anoraks are reacting in their usual predictable and unrepresentative way.  Just saying.

Of course, but the fact it is big and ugly (and bears no architectural resemblance to its environment) still remains and we should be entitled to voice our opinion.

The facilities look great - it is a shame that it looks like a giant shanty-town shed from the outside. And there is absolutely no reason why it should be built on the town's precious (and dwindling) green space.

Let's hope this "monstrous carbuncle" come to nowt, and an open competition takes place to design a more pleasing replacement for the Waterside and New Greenham Arts.

Right, I'm off to the library to see if they have any books on John Poulson and T Dan Smith.

I like the idea of that facilities that are utillised in this monster building but the size of it is somewhat of an issue.

Looking at the overhead view, it has the same length an apporx 75% of the width of the NWN warehouse on the other side of the A339.

As fo rthe extension to the park, what a joke!. How nice it will be for people to frolic in the extension surrounded by industrial units

6 million! what a waste of money - who's paying for it ?

Quoted from blackdog

Thre green area east of the A339 is labelled 'Victoria Park Extension' - its always been part of the park, until they built the A339 through the Park it was an integral part.  But it can't survive as the green space shown, they have coloured over the access road from the end of Faraday Road to the new building.
.

According to the representative at the library, the green area to the east will involve taking over some of the allotments. This will create a "peacefull river walk".

Is this the best they could come up with? It just looks lazy. Perhaps we could see the other designs that WBC rejected?...... What's that you say?.....No?....and why not? he asked. (already knowing the answer)


However, since it seems to resemble a clinker-built wooden ship, contains little that is new, and the cafe looks as though a boat has crashed through the ceiling, we should hence forth refer to it as "The Ark"


Threep.

Quoted from blackdog

Thre green area east of the A339 is labelled 'Victoria Park Extension' - its always been part of the park, until they built the A339 through the Park it was an integral part.  But it can't survive as the green space shown, they have coloured over the access road from the end of Faraday Road to the new building.
.

According to the representative at the library, the green area to the east will involve taking over some of the allotments. This will create a "peacefull river walk".

Anybody know where the swings and slides for the kids are now going to go?  This is currently a very popular, if run down, feature of the park.

Quoted from Threepwood

Is this the best they could come up with? It just looks lazy. Perhaps we could see the other designs that WBC rejected?...... What's that you say?.....No?....and why not? he asked. (already knowing the answer)


However, since it seems to resemble a clinker-built wooden ship, contains little that is new, and the cafe looks as though a boat has crashed through the ceiling, we should hence forth refer to it as "The Ark"


Threep.

Ark in the Park then? Hang on....this is starting to sound OK

Ark in the Park?

Sold.

Copyright Meddler and Threep 2009

Don't, you are granting this project too-much kudos!  

Quoted from booboo

According to the representative at the library, the green area to the east will involve taking over some of the allotments. This will create a "peacefull river walk".

Another victory for WBC's green policy - allotments, who needs them?  You couldn't make it up!

Well, boys and, er, boys I dropped in to the exhibition earlier and - you won't like me for saying this - I really don't think this is a bad thing.  To my mind the important question is, does this add to the town or take away?  I think it adds.  OK, we 'lose' a small part of Victoria park but we also lose the awful kiosk as well and I can see the Newbury Ark being a real draw: pulling more people into the park, rather than driving them.  

To those who are concerned about losing some of the town's green space, I know what you mean and would be concerned about that myself.  On the other hand, Viccy park isn't - as you may have noticed - not the only green space in Newbury.  We also have the barely used Northcroft and Goldwell Parks. Wonderful green spaces, only a minute or so from Northbrook Street. Unlike you, I walk through them every day and there's hardly a soul to be seen.

I think the real problem here is that every bloody Tom, Dick and Harriet feels they have the 'right' to be consulted about this stuff.  Bollocks.  Did the Victorians - town developers extraordinaire - 'consult' every time they changed anything? (Answers on a post card please.)

Amusingly, when I was in the libary, I overheard three local councillors exchanging views about Marcus Franks' and newbury.net's views about all this. Don't ask.

If you really want to attack this plan, go for the ongoing running costs.  I gather that it's possible that some at WBC are working on the basis that budgets will be reduced by up to 30%, given the dire state of the economy.  30% is a lot.  Think about it. Also, if you're keen to knock things, there's  planning abortion that is our new Vue Cinem.....ah, too late.  

Quoted from noobree

Well, boys and, er, boys I dropped in to the exhibition earlier and - you won't like me for saying this - I really don't think this is a bad thing.  To my mind the important question is, does this add to the town or take away?  I think it adds.  OK, we 'lose' a small part of Victoria park but we also lose the awful kiosk as well and I can see the Newbury Ark being a real draw: pulling more people into the park, rather than driving them.

I was a fan of the original idea, but this is simply ugly and out of place.

Quoted from noobree

To those who are concerned about losing some of the town's green space, I know what you mean and would be concerned about that myself.  On the other hand, Viccy park isn't - as you may have noticed - not the only green space in Newbury.  We also have the barely used Northcroft and Goldwell Parks. Wonderful green spaces, only a minute or so from Northbrook Street. Unlike you, I walk through them every day and there's hardly a soul to be seen.

Being used 24/7 isn't the point.  These places provide almost traffic free areas in town, helping with keeping pollution in check.  Not withstanding habitation for wildlife.

Quoted from noobree

I think the real problem here is that every bloody Tom, Dick and Brenda feels they have the 'right' to be consulted about this stuff.  Bollocks.  Did the Victorians - town developers extraordinaire - 'consult' every time they changed anything? (Answers on a post card please.)

Whether they did or didn't is besides the point.  Public green spaces are shrinking, not growing or moving.  I also don't think everyone thinks that they have the right to be consulted, only that these issues are consulted properly and openly.  They way that this Vision has been handled has been underhand.

Quoted from noobree

Amusingly I overheard three local councillors exchanging views about Marcus Franks' and newbury.net's views about all this. Don't ask.

They are entitle to think what they like, but to coin a phrase, 'bollocks' to them as I will not be voting for them, or their parties.

Quoted from noobree

If you really want to attack this plan, go for the ongoing running costs.  I gather that it's possible that some at WBC are working on the basis that budgets will be reduced by up to 30%, given the dire state of the economy.  30% is a lot.  Think about it.

Exactly.  What is built, or not, must be sustainable and on a minimal budget.  This looks like another expensive white elephant in the making, but by the time this is realised, the people responsible will be long gone.

Quoted from noobree

Well, boys and, er, boys I dropped in to the exhibition earlier and - you won't like me for saying this - I really don't think this is a bad thing.  To my mind the important question is, does this add to the town or take away?  I think it adds.  OK, we 'lose' a small part of Victoria park but we also lose the awful kiosk as well and I can see the Newbury Ark being a real draw: pulling more people into the park, rather than driving them.

To those who are concerned about losing some of the town's green space, I know what you mean and would be concerned about that myself.  On the other hand, Viccy park isn't - as you may have noticed - not the only green space in Newbury.  We also have the barely used Northcroft and Goldwell Parks. Wonderful green spaces, only a minute or so from Northbrook Street. Unlike you, I walk through them every day and there's hardly a soul to be seen.

A nice new arts centre would be an asset - but there is plenty of space to build it in Newbury without using Victoria Park - I don't like the building but I am not adverse to its function. I just hate the positioning.

Quoted from noobree

I think the real problem here is that every bloody Tom, Dick and Harriet feels they have the 'right' to be consulted about this stuff.  Bollocks.  Did the Victorians - town developers extraordinaire - 'consult' every time they changed anything? (Answers on a post card please.)

It's not that I expect to be consulted more often, just that I expect consultation to involve more than we get.  Some sort of choice would be nice from time to time; the thought that those doing the consulting hadn't made their minds up beforehand would be good. The Library event is all about selling the design to us, not consultation.

Quoted from noobree

Amusingly, when I was in the libary, I overheard three local councillors exchanging views about Marcus Franks' and newbury.net's views about all this. Don't ask.

Keeps them occupied, when I was there it was newbury.net and Newbury Society / Garry Poulson that were the subject of conversation.

Quoted from noobree

If you really want to attack this plan, go for the ongoing running costs.  I gather that it's possible that some at WBC are working on the basis that budgets will be reduced by up to 30%, given the dire state of the economy.  30% is a lot.  Think about it. Also, if you're keen to knock things, there's  planning abortion that is our new Vue Cinem.....ah, too late.  

The finances seem to be a huge hole in the plan - they might have some real trouble raising it all.  Makes it seem odd that they go for what seems to me to be an expensive building in terms of its function (anyone know what an equivalent building using conventional building techniques would cost).

What I an unable to work out is how the lorry loaded with sound gear or the cafe delivery van can get close to the pavilion without driving across the grass.

Quoted from brian

What I an unable to work out is how the lorry loaded with sound gear or the cafe delivery van can get close to the pavilion without driving across the grass.

They will drive down Faraday Road and then use a trolley to take stuff under the A339 to the pavillion.  Probably okay for the cage deliveries but I can see a band's transit getting closer than planned.

More interesting is how they build the place without wrecking half the park driving deliveries across.

Of course they could always ask for delivery by narrowboat.

Quoted from noobree

I think the real problem here is that every bloody Tom, Dick and Harriet feels they have the 'right' to be consulted about this stuff.  Bollocks.  Did the Victorians - town developers extraordinaire - 'consult' every time they changed anything? (Answers on a post card please.)

Well done Jerry, another red herring.

In Victorian Newbury, I wouldn't have a vote for who represents me in Parliament. As a dissenter, I would be on my way to a sheep farm in Australia, and if I did find a moment to go and speak to the secret club running Newbury at the time, I most likely would have asked when my street would be lit up.

In business, I thought it was normal practice to go out to tender for work, especially in the case of major expenditure.  I might have missed something before this report but did any other architects get the chance to put their ideas forward?  Were there any other designs from the architect that designed this one? I'm not against a small development on the park if it is for the good of the community (the majority) and there are aspects of this design that are good but I'm not so sure it's 'the one'. I listened to what Mr. Griffin had to say on the radio and he spoke about giving Newbury it's own identity, or words to that effect. I couldn't help thinking it was more an identity for the architects.

I do hope this has not been decided already. If the majority of local people,assuming they voice their opinions, are truly  *emphasis on truly* happy with, first of all, building on the park and secondly are totally happy with this design, then so be it. The outcome will certainly be interesting.

Quoted from blackdog

They will drive down Faraday Road and then use a trolley to take stuff under the A339 to the pavillion.  Probably okay for the cage deliveries but I can see a band's transit getting closer than planned.

No, they can't do that because if you look at the plan, that has been designated as a extension to Victoria Park and shown green. Presumably there will be footpaths but they are not shown and will therefore turn into a muddy area so that User can approve building there.

The big coloured mural on the face I assume is a screen. Not much use between about 1:00 pm and 10:00 pm in the summer as it faces West and will have the sun shining directly on it. Is this our contribution to the Olympics, no doubt the royalties will not be a problem.

Ah well, if PPG1 doesn't grab you, maybe the WBC constitution will.

Here's section 2.4.2 (if you'd like to quote it at WBC).


There should be a presumption in favour of decision-making being open and transparent, with members of the public being afforded effective access to relevant information and the processes by which decisions are taken.

Due consultation should take place with those likely to be affected by a decision. So far as practicable, decision-taking should be planned in advance nd the public given due notification of forthcoming decisions.

Where a decision is likely to have wide-ranging or significant impact on the community, additional time and emphasis should be given to consultation and members of the public actively encouraged to contribute their views.

Decisions must be taken with regard to all relevant considerations and ignoring all irrelevant matters.

Decisions should be taken on the basis of the Council's corporate aims and values, and have regard to any approved policies or procedures of the Council.

Quoted from Meddler

Ah well, if PPG1 doesn't grab you, maybe the WBC constitution will.

Here's section 2.4.2 (if you'd like to quote it at WBC).


There should be a presumption in favour of decision-making being open and transparent, with members of the public being afforded effective access to relevant information and the processes by which decisions are taken.

Due consultation should take place with those likely to be affected by a decision. So far as practicable, decision-taking should be planned in advance nd the public given due notification of forthcoming decisions.

Where a decision is likely to have wide-ranging or significant impact on the community, additional time and emphasis should be given to consultation and members of the public actively encouraged to contribute their views.

Decisions must be taken with regard to all relevant considerations and ignoring all irrelevant matters.

Decisions should be taken on the basis of the Council's corporate aims and values, and have regard to any approved policies or procedures of the Council.

Well, I think they have actually done the things that you have said are in 2.4.2. There has been a proposal published months ago and in comparing what was suggested then and what is on offer now, apart from the design of the pavilion, it pretty much lines up with what is in the library today.
The exhibition is fairly clear on what is proposed, the public have the opportunity to comment on the designs and according to the man on the stand, the planning application will not be submitted until all the interested parties views are known. The theme today seemed to me to be around the fact that it is purely a concept at this stage. (I was told this twice by two different people)
It doesn't make it right in my view as I believe the whole park thing is oversized and will almost certainly cost a fortune to run with nothing, apart from a little cafe, to generate any income. I find it a little difficult to understand where the six million or so is coming from. The answer I got was the Town Council, WBC, The Greenham trust and the Pavilion partners. The latter group seem to be an anonymous group of "local traders". I asked was that in fact the Town Centre Partnership and after a bit of shuffling of feet, was told 'Yes'. I asked where a few shopkeepers would find that sort of money for a project that wasn't going to provide them with one jot of income, I was told that grants are available.  Goodie I thought.

Quoted from blackdog

Another victory for WBC's green policy - allotments, who needs them?  You couldn't make it up!

There are now no plans to take away any allotment space. It's green on the plan but only because it is a concept.

Wow what a building ..... however a lot of the local public won't like this sort of inspired object (its a bit like Marmite). Also the term pavilion isn't really correct any more - its an Arts / Cafe Centre.
I like the design, but its in completely the wrong location, who on earth thought we could put it there? Aren't trees going to be chopped down? If not what about the roots of other trees? Aren't the tree officers going to object especially as its in the park. I think the images show greenery behind the building but that can't be realistic as there aren't trees behind it on the plan. The servicing accessunder the bridge is unrealistic, my hands almost touch the ceiling when I walk there, how on earth will emergency vehicles get there? Disabled access is another one , no sign of parking, even the parking on the other side is being filled in with water.
Also the park is shown extended over the other side - this area is already green so thats a fake statement.
Why didn't the Town Partnership raise these queries afterall they are supposed to have been reviewing the work, (blindfolded I guess)?
How about just putting it on the site of the buses car park and extend the park there. Then move buses behind the museum, or better still locate it parallel with the granary building and then link it with the museum.
Same design just a different sensible location.....wake up Newbury have your say.

Quoted from brian

There are now no plans to take away any allotment space. It's green on the plan but only because it is a concept...

...ruse to make the pavilion foot print appear smaller.


One thing I was thinking of...£50,000.00 was paid just for concept art?  To coin a phrase once more... 'bollocks'.

I read in the Newbury Weekly that some councillor said its the same old hardcore objectors - I think he might find he's wrong over the next few weeks as I am a new objector to current proposal. I also don't believe its cost £50,000 - surely its more like £5000? Still its Greenham Common wotsits money! This project may cost millions but I sure someone in the Newbury Town P knows someone at the Bank of England and do some quantative easing towards the project......

Quoted from Saveourpark

I read in the Newbury Weekly that some councillor said its the same old hardcore objectors...

Yes, it was upon hearing a councillor speak like this that lost them my vote for their party sometime ago.

It seems they will take the vast majority of the potential electorate's utter apathy (read, couldn't give a flying ferk) as a mandate to do as they please and vandalise the town's assets.  Meanwhile, we as tax payers, directly or indirectly, fund it.

Quoted from brian

No, they can't do that because if you look at the plan, that has been designated as a extension to Victoria Park and shown green. Presumably there will be footpaths but they are not shown and will therefore turn into a muddy area so that User can approve building there.

There are already footpaths there - the greens swathe is shown as a red herring to suggest there will be a lot more public green space that at present - in reality it is just the same space as is there now as park/allotments. One aspect of the planning requirements is that they have to replace any public green space they build on with a similar amount of space elsewhere.  If they can get away with suggesting that the new space is in this area I would be amazed (and so would they).  The real plan is to relocate the football club and turn part of it into the 'new' green space.

Quoted from brian

The big coloured mural on the face I assume is a screen. Not much use between about 1:00 pm and 10:00 pm in the summer as it faces West and will have the sun shining directly on it. Is this our contribution to the Olympics, no doubt the royalties will not be a problem.

I did wonder why they thought that watching tele was a good activity to promote in parks.

Quoted from Confused of Newbury

In business, I thought it was normal practice to go out to tender for work, especially in the case of major expenditure.  I might have missed something before this report but did any other architects get the chance to put their ideas forward?

No.

Quoted from Confused of Newbury

Were there any other designs from the architect that designed this one?

A concept in 2005, about half as big again as this one and far more prominently placed within the park - protests to date have had some effect.

Quoted from brian

Well, I think they have actually done the things that you have said are in 2.4.2. There has been a proposal published months ago and in comparing what was suggested then and what is on offer now, apart from the design of the pavilion, it pretty much lines up with what is in the library today.
The exhibition is fairly clear on what is proposed, the public have the opportunity to comment on the designs and according to the man on the stand, the planning application will not be submitted until all the interested parties views are known. The theme today seemed to me to be around the fact that it is purely a concept at this stage. (I was told this twice by two different people)

It may be conceptual but it is, reportedly, going to be the subject of a planning application in the new year - so a fairly advanced concept.

Quoted from brian

It doesn't make it right in my view as I believe the whole park thing is oversized and will almost certainly cost a fortune to run with nothing, apart from a little cafe, to generate any income. I find it a little difficult to understand where the six million or so is coming from. The answer I got was the Town Council, WBC, The Greenham trust and the Pavilion partners. The latter group seem to be an anonymous group of "local traders". I asked was that in fact the Town Centre Partnership and after a bit of shuffling of feet, was told 'Yes'. I asked where a few shopkeepers would find that sort of money for a project that wasn't going to provide them with one jot of income, I was told that grants are available.  Goodie I thought.

New Greenham Trust (NGT) will put up some money  - which will be used to generate more cash from grant bodies.  The running costs are much more problemmatic as NGT will not fund it entirely (more like the a diversion of the funds they send New Greenham Arts' way each year). WBC will stump up some, probably the sort of money they currently spend running the Waterside.  

This will probably leave a large shortfall which some creative accountant will imaginatively state will be the profit from the cafe, facilities hire etc and everything will go ahead.  Just like Shaw House - they are still trying to work out why they are not getting the thousands more visitors each year who were supposed to plug the gap in their budget.

We have had a suggestion to solve the lack of car parking for the new pavilion:

Quoted from Administrator

We have had a suggestion to solve the lack of car parking for the new pavilion

It does have the look of a car park doesn't it.  All they need is an access road from the A339.

Quoted from blackdog

Just like Shaw House - they are still trying to work out why they are not getting the thousands more visitors each year who were supposed to plug the gap in their budget.

Fairly simple, it's vrtually an empty house so it certainly won't attract the tourist trade. Suggest they cut their losses, move the Newbury museum there, call it the West Berks Vision Museum, find a new use for the cloth hall posssibly in place of the longboat/workbarge museum that is proposed for the wharf. (Bit off topic I know)

Quoted from brian

Fairly simple, it's vrtually an empty house so it certainly won't attract the tourist trade. Suggest they cut their losses, move the Newbury museum there, call it the West Berks Vision Museum, find a new use for the cloth hall posssibly in place of the longboat/workbarge museum that is proposed for the wharf. (Bit off topic I know)

I'm told the new waterways museum on the Wharf has already gone - even though it is on the old 2005 drawings they are still using as a backdrop to the current pavillion 'consultation'.

I would suggest a waterways function for the granary - cafe, museum and tourist information.  The Cloth Hall could become a small museum of Newbury.  Then a West Berks museum service and museum in Shaw House.  Won't happen, no one in charge is prepared to consider it. They would rather shoehorn a West Berks museum into the current museum space after demolishing the 1930s bit in order to provide local architects with a fancy bit to put in their portfolio. I would put a lift into the 1930s bit to give access to the upper floors of the Cloth Hall and Granary and create a local history centre combining the museum and library resources in a single space. It would free up a bit of space in the library for more PCs (seems to be the main function of a library these days).

To be fair the Shaw House issue is partly one of finance, the rooms that would need to be used for a museum are currently let as meeting spaces - money that would not be recouped from a museum.

Quoted from blackdog

No.

A concept in 2005, about half as big again as this one and far more prominently placed within the park - protests to date have had some effect.

That would suggest further protests could halve the size again. It's hard to tell from the pretty pictures but does anyone know the actual size of the building, square footage that sort of thing? Sorry if this has been discussed already but Im not up to speed on the detail.

Quoted from Confused of Newbury

That would suggest further protests could halve the size again. It's hard to tell from the pretty pictures but does anyone know the actual size of the building, square footage that sort of thing? Sorry if this has been discussed already but Im not up to speed on the detail.

There's a lot about it on the West Berks website (the information panels shown at the library). The pavillion design is 22,000 sq ft in area, 8m high (the latter I was told by the architect, not sure if its in the information panels).

A really ugly building. I think it will look tatty in quite a short time. Looks like Sainsbury,s car park design. Did Sutton Griffin do that as well? Some confusion as to the access to the building for equipment (musicians) and delivery of goods (cafe) arts etc. Seem to get the impression that all would have park in Park way and carry everything over the new bridge or park in Faraday Road. Also Pamela Bale did say access was going to be from under the road bridge, but the canal is there. Do you think they are going to knock NWN down and create a tunnel?  What about disable access? What about access for the elderly that cannot walk over bridges and through parks? These questions need to be answered else it will be just a facility for the able bodied and the young, and I am not a old codger as I heard one of the advisors at the display in the library call the Newbury public more advanced in years.  

Quoted from polo

A really ugly building. I think it will look tatty in quite a short time. Looks like Sainsbury,s car park design. Did Sutton Griffin do that as well? Some confusion as to the access to the building for equipment (musicians) and delivery of goods (cafe) arts etc. Seem to get the impression that all would have park in Park way and carry everything over the new bridge or park in Faraday Road. Also Pamela Bale did say access was going to be from under the road bridge, but the canal is there. Do you think they are going to knock NWN down and create a tunnel?  What about disable access? What about access for the elderly that cannot walk over bridges and through parks? These questions need to be answered else it will be just a facility for the able bodied and the young, and I am not a old codger as I heard one of the advisors at the display in the library call the Newbury public more advanced in years.  

There is already a 'tunnel' under the A339 used by pedestrians and cyclists - an arch of the road bridge. This is the route they expect goods to be delivered on trolley from delievery vehicles.  Its not clear of they plan to extend Faraday Road towards this bridge to shorten the trolley path.

Dont forget the "hotel plan" for faraday road,which is supposed to have an overhead walkway to the shopping/park area.

As someone who suffers from a crhonic illness and loves the arts how can we access it. Any ideas, and I am not an old codger.

Quoted from polo

As someone who suffers from a crhonic illness and loves the arts how can we access it. Any ideas, and I am not an old codger.

If you are unable to walk a few hundred yards from the nearest car parks (Football club, Wharf and Park Way) you will need to use a wheelchair or electric scooter - the new bridge is planned to be a low gradient for ease of use by these means.  

Since they have dropped the idea of opening up the auditorium to an open air audience there is no real reason to site the arts facilities in the park at all. And there never was a good reason to put the youth facilities there.

I know about the access under the A339 as I am a original generation of Newburian unlike some of the outsiders (cons) I met recently(last 48 hours) who can go home 20 miles away and shut the doors.

If you are unable to walk a few hundred yards from the nearest car parks (Football club, Wharf and Park Way) you will need to use a wheelchair or electric scooter - the new bridge is planned to be a low gradient for ease of use by these means.  

Have you ever pushed a wheel chair. How long is the walk way. Vehicle access is required to access the youth facilities and the arts centre for ALL, else certain people are being excluded in this community. Is it a community? We have a lot of money around Newbury but remember COMMUNITY. That is for all to enjoy, contribute, take part in. Young middle age and the elderly. How many of WBC. TCP live in Newbury and within 5 miles to really care. Else it becomes just a artistc statement and an achieb=vement on their cv.

Quoted from polo

If you are unable to walk a few hundred yards from the nearest car parks (Football club, Wharf and Park Way) you will need to use a wheelchair or electric scooter - the new bridge is planned to be a low gradient for ease of use by these means.  

Have you ever pushed a wheel chair. How long is the walk way. Vehicle access is required to access the youth facilities and the arts centre for ALL, else certain people are being excluded in this community. .

I think you'll find this is all taken into account at the planning stage to ensure that provisions are made for people with a disability

Quoted from polo

.... and I am not a old codger as I heard one of the advisors at the display in the library call the Newbury public more advanced in years.  

Not very professional was it? Are you sure it wasn't a term for anyone that didn't like the the plans?

Building looks like UFO in the park. Or shall I say a WBFO or a TPCFO. Get the design right, could be more acceptable. Work it out for conservative Newbury. Think comtempary Victorian , AND I am not an old codger! (Extreme respect for the elderley). Not the place for inner city design. Looks like a rectangle with kindling wood. What is with the big screen.  We have a new cinema!! Look at the buildings in the enviroment. A bit of green grass on the walls is not an enviromental deal. A bigger mature architectural vision is needed. Really suburban at the moment. Some junior architect is trying to  make their name or does controvesy make a bigger company name!  That is a two way gamble and at the moment it does not work. I think this community network will have problems with the server soon, like the last time I wrote something!! Or I suspect all will be well as someone said to me it is a done deal. There is more issues to address else WBC will end up with a WHITE ELEPHANT. so short sighted.

Fact file sorry but as a Newburian it was a major representative of the biggest retailer in the town. I am not mistaken.

Factfile   tell me about the provision of access for disabilities. Not sure at the moment. I am sure someone on Newbury.net is connected well enough to explain, or have all the well managed able bodied answers!

What time and date is the planning application meeting. Does anybody know.

Quoted from polo

Fact file sorry but as a Newburian it was a major representative of the biggest retailer in the town. I am not mistaken.

Oh dear! It's easy to offend if you speak openly in a public area, you never know who is listening!

Quoted from polo

Factfile   tell me about the provision of access for disabilities. Not sure at the moment. I am sure someone on Newbury.net is connected well enough to explain, or have all the well managed able bodied answers!

There is some (70 pages to be exact) information here http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/156681.pdf

Quoted from polo

I know about the access under the A339 as I am a original generation of Newburian unlike some of the outsiders (cons) I met recently(last 48 hours) who can go home 20 miles away and shut the doors.

Sorry - I assumed you were unaware of it - following your comment:

Quoted from polo

Do you think they are going to knock NWN down and create a tunnel?

Quoted from polo

What time and date is the planning application meeting. Does anybody know.

No planning application has been made yet - they are talking about submitting the plans in January.  I am sure it will come before a planning meeting (most applications don't) - I guess there will be plenty of publicity nearer the time.

As part of the proposal is to extend the park into the Faraday Road area, would it not be rather more sensible to locate the pavillion there.  All the necessary services exist, no disruption and it would tidy a shabby area of the town.

Quoted from 40

As part of the proposal is to extend the park into the Faraday Road area, would it not be rather more sensible to locate the pavillion there.  All the necessary services exist, no disruption and it would tidy a shabby area of the town.

The arts centre could easily go there but it would certainly require the football club to be relocated. That would mean that the building in the park would have a smaller footprint and perhaps, with a more sensitive design, be acceptable.

One of the WBC representatives at the library assured me that a transit van is able to drive under the A339 using the existing tunnel. I think there would need some excavation to get that height clearance but probably not impossible. All the disabled 'old codgers' that polo seem to be concerned about will be able to drive in but not sure where they would all park on 'old codgers' night.

I'm not sure if Polo has read the thread through properly as most of his concerns are already asked and or answered.

I went to the exhibition yesterday and the general atmosphere was rather hostile.  The scaled model showed the development as a larger concern than is seen by the drawings.  It was loud and clear how people were concerned about the secrecy that has surrounded the project up to now.  It seemed to me that the younger the person, the less worried they seemed about the development.

Those that spoke negatively seemed to say...

Too big
Unattractive
Not viable
Expensive
Poorly located
Questioned the motivation behind the project

I heard very few voices, if any, of support so cannot say what those comments were.

Quoted from brian

The arts centre could easily go there but it would certainly require the football club to be relocated. That would mean that the building in the park would have a smaller footprint and perhaps, with a more sensitive design, be acceptable.

They are intending to relocate the football club anyway. In order to get planning permission for the pavillion they have to demonstrate they are providing an equivalent amount of new open space.  They plan to take this from the football club area.  As yet I have not heard what they plan for the rest of the football club area.  Parking?  More open space/park?  Or another building site?

The only functions in the pavillion that could not relocate to the other side of the A339 is the cafe.  And that would be better situated where the existing kiosk is - centrally located between the children's play area and the sports facilities. Include the changing room and toilets and you would have a far less obstrusive and far more acceptable solution.

Quoted from Greenham Common

.....  It seemed to me that the younger the person, the less worried they seemed about the development.

You are right there but I think the majority, and this may be an incorrect generalisation, do not bother too much with detail and take the view that buildings and their content have priority over open space, especially if the building has some vague reference to band practice rooms. This only applies until such time as they start courting and find the shade and seclusion of the park somewhat advantageous to their activities. They may also change their minds again when they marry and move into a gardenless box and need somewhere to take the kids to let off steam.

Quoted from blackdog

The only functions in the pavillion that could not relocate to the other side of the A339 is the cafe.  And that would be better situated where the existing kiosk is - centrally located between the children's play area and the sports facilities. Include the changing room and toilets and you would have a far less obstrusive and far more acceptable solution.

Isn't this what Newbury Town Council (who actually own the park) were proposing to do in the park and was part of their plan submitted for a grant. This, even though they had laid out a large amount of funding to pay for the proposal for that grant, was scuppered by WBC because they wouldn't come clean on what they wanted to do in the park. No wonder NTC seem to have given up on the park at the moment.

Quoted from brian

Isn't this what Newbury Town Council (who actually own the park) were proposing to do in the park and was part of their plan submitted for a grant. This, even though they had laid out a large amount of funding to pay for the proposal for that grant, was scuppered by WBC because they wouldn't come clean on what they wanted to do in the park. No wonder NTC seem to have given up on the park at the moment.

Reading this thread has made me consider what is important in my town (user, note that I live in Newbury). Putting a massive building on the park and inviting activities that are fundamentally indoor pursuits means to me that the park will be overtaken. I like Victoria Park because it doesn't have centrally organised events and lets the public use for the space it is now.

I have replied to the comments on the West Berkshire web site (http://www.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=18467) and suggest that anyone else with concerns does the same.  

According to this web site 2000 people were asked their opinions and were previously in favour of some sort of development. What I'm not sure of is what the questions were and how they were interpreted. There are some anomolies with the percentages in the results so if anyone has the full questions and results, I'd be interested to seem them.

For the survey.

http://consultationfinder.westberks.gov.uk/uploaddocs/Consult274/070113%20-%20Web%20Q'aire.pdf


For more details.


http://consultationfinder.west.....ria=I&url=search

Hope this helps.

[size=18]As a resident of Newbury this building does nothing for me and IF it does go ahead it would only provide me with toilet facilities and an indoor cafe ONLY.  (The rest of it for the benefit of Greenham Arts (which currently use - from time to time -(the Corn Exchange)).  A rather oversized building for much needed hygenic facilities.  What about enhancing the rest of the park?  
I visited the exhibition and found many mixed messages of what is being offered.  There were park enhancment plans with Lottery Funding signage  that I understand was turned down,  I counted at least four different 'footprints' for this pavilion, not including the model.  No other designs from other architects were on show just Sutton Griffin were others invited to tender?  At a cost of £50,000 for the design work I am surpised no other suggestions were offered to us residents.  
As for the position, nothing could be worse. As I was informed at the exhibition the nearest public parking would be on the east side of the A339 by the football club of which there are no plans to increase or enhance or in the Parkway underground car parks.  As mentioned in previous posts no direct access for those who need assisted access  unless in the course of the planning revision(s) a road across the park with parking will be added.  
Newbury is a traditional market town fortunate to have a large green space close to the shops lets keep it that way and let Green Arts have their 'new home' elsewhere.  

Quoted from brian

Isn't this what Newbury Town Council (who actually own the park) were proposing to do in the park and was part of their plan submitted for a grant. This, even though they had laid out a large amount of funding to pay for the proposal for that grant, was scuppered by WBC because they wouldn't come clean on what they wanted to do in the park. No wonder NTC seem to have given up on the park at the moment.

I thought that NTC only leased the park from WBC, when did this all change ??

Quoted from booboo

For the survey.

http://consultationfinder.westberks.gov.uk/uploaddocs/Consult274/070113%20-%20Web%20Q'aire.pdf


For more details.


http://consultationfinder.west.....ria=I&url=search

Hope this helps.

Thanks for that. There are some interesting assumptions and interpretations in this.

Looking at the questions, it seems that the Wharf development and the "Pavilion" are intermixed and it is difficult for me to see how the conclusions about solely developing Victoria Park comes out of this.

"82% are in favour of the overall proposal to develop the Wharf Area" isn't a mandate, in my opinion, to only build on Victoria Park. There is a specific question on whether there should be a building on the park but this was not reported in the findings.

Dos anyone know if this is this the only reponse that was issued? Or were other figures and conclusions issued elsewhere?

Quoted from brian newman

I thought that NTC only leased the park from WBC, when did this all change ??

Yes, that's right - NTC do lease the park.  I think Brian was making a very good point, see earlier posts, where he points out the park was owned by Newbury District Council and so morally at least, the park should be the property of the Town.  Can anyone else remember the lengthy and wholly unnecessary squabble that broke out between WBC and NTC when the lease was originally set up. Made the officers responsible look rather silly.

These are the points that stood out for me when I read the documents ..

Most people didn't want the Wharf retained as a car park – this doesn’t stack up with the constant complaints of lack of parking

Most of the respondents were ‘old codgers’!

It does state
…the relatively small number of responses, prevent us from being able to place too much weight statistically on the results.(For many reasons the public aren’t always very good at responding to questionnaires, they usually only say what they think when it’s too late)

Question 8 asked categorically, ‘On the basis of the information provided, how would you describe how you feel about the proposed development overall’.

Is this the leaflet that accompanied the questionnaire for them to form an opinion?  
http://www.newbury.gov.uk/VPexhibition/Vic%20Park%20exhibition%20draft%20revB.pdf

If it is, the respondents would think the pavilion to be much smaller than the boating pond (I think most of us would have agreed to this wouldn't we?) Which, in reality, doesn’t appear to be the case.  I can see why people think there’s something odd about it all.

Quoted from brian

Isn't this what Newbury Town Council (who actually own the park) were proposing to do in the park and was part of their plan submitted for a grant. This, even though they had laid out a large amount of funding to pay for the proposal for that grant, was scuppered by WBC because they wouldn't come clean on what they wanted to do in the park. No wonder NTC seem to have given up on the park at the moment.

It is indeed along the lines of NTC's proposal. However, you are mistaken in thinking that NTC own the park, the freeholder is WBC (inherited via Newbury District Council from Newbury Borough Council on its dissolution in 1974).

It would be nice to see a campaign for such properties (there are/were many) to be handed back to NTC as the obvious reincarnation of the Borough Council.  Perhaps they would be less inclined to persuade developers to cover them with concrete (no I'm not that convinced they would't do the same as WBC).

Quoted from 133

These are the points that stood out for me when I read the documents ..

I came across an NWN article on an earlier consultation in 1998.  In this consultation they determined that 89% of the 300 respondents were keen to see open air events (concerts, theatre) in the park.  A specific question and clear answer - though a small number of responses.

In 2007 the Wharf consultation offered open air events staged in the new pavillion.  And a lot of people liked the idea.  

In 2009 they present us with a design where the only open air events would be watching TV. They have removed an extremely popular feature of the pavilion and yet they will still base their planning application on the huge popular support they calculate they received in 2007.  As they have removed such a popular feature can they still use the 2007 figures?

One of the points I made was that I thought the 'pavilion' should have a covered stage, rather than, maybe, the café.  Also, the foot print of the building with the outside perimeter, makes the development bigger than illustrated on the aerial plan.

Quoted from blackdog

As they have removed such a popular feature can they still use the 2007 figures?

You wouldn't think so would you? They may as well use the same results for any future developments.

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable

I've just studied the first image in this thread and I'm wondering if the trees in that area are giant ones, only the 2 storey building is only half the height of them.

Quoted from 133

Is this the leaflet that accompanied the questionnaire for them to form an opinion?  
http://www.newbury.gov.uk/VPexhibition/Vic%20Park%20exhibition%20draft%20revB.pdf

If it is, the respondents would think the pavilion to be much smaller than the boating pond (I think most of us would have agreed to this wouldn't we?) Which, in reality, doesn’t appear to be the case.  I can see why people think there’s something odd about it all.

If this is the leaflet then it doesn't seem to show the pavilion! I suspect that this was what Newbury Town Council were proposing before the current proposal by West Berks. I must say that I think this leaflet is much more in tune with usage of a park.

Quoted from Bartholomew

If this is the leaflet then it doesn't seem to show the pavilion! I suspect that this was what Newbury Town Council were proposing before the current proposal by West Berks. I must say that I think this leaflet is much more in tune with usage of a park.

It shows a pavilion (tucked in the corner) on the last page.

Quoted from 133

It shows a pavilion (tucked in the corner) on the last page.

It was so small that I didn't notice it!. What it does say is "Construct a park pavilion to provide a kiosk, toilets, information point, park warden facilities, changing rooms, boat and seating storage, minor equipment storage and an indoor classroom"

The size and scope of the pavilion seems to have changed a lot.

I still find the whole consultation process confusing as what is proposed now is on a different scale to the original questions in the survey. Originally the pavilion in the questionnaire was taken as part of a wider development of the Wharf and Victoria Park. Where are the plans for the Wharf development and is it likely to happen or is the pavilion the end of the process?

It is all here...

http://www.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=18467

Quoted from Greenham Common

It is all here...

http://www.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=18467

I realise that I keep on about the kids play area (it is the part of the park I use most as my children love it), but the link above seems to make no mention of it at all, just an "activity area" around the boating pond which, I assume, can't be it. Do they think that by ignoring it completely, other people will forget about it, and the loss of a popular facility, also? It seems a bit mad to me to just make no mention of it at all and hope no-one will notice.

When I was at the exhibition on Friday, a West Berks rep stated that the youth centre was to be relocated to Northcorft - which is why the youth facilites are so meagre. I thought they were touting the youth centre activities be relocated in the pavilion in all the earlier PR or have a been reading things wrong?

Quoted from massifheed

I realise that I keep on about the kids play area (it is the part of the park I use most as my children love it), but the link above seems to make no mention of it at all, just an "activity area" around the boating pond which, I assume, can't be it. Do they think that by ignoring it completely, other people will forget about it, and the loss of a popular facility, also? It seems a bit mad to me to just make no mention of it at all and hope no-one will notice.

The play area and skatepark are retained and will be near the pond and seated area from the pavilion (the North end).

Quoted from Greenham Common

The play area and skatepark are retained and will be near the pond and seated area from the pavilion (the North end).

Is that retained, as in they'll be demolished, but rebuilt, or retained as in the development wont touch them? Looking at the plans, the pavilion sits right on top of where the play area is.

Quoted from massifheed

Is that retained, as in they'll be demolished, but rebuilt, or retained as in the development wont touch them? Looking at the plans, the pavilion sits right on top of where the play area is.

I don't know, except that there will be a play area and a skate park.

Quoted from blackdog

Are the Town Council signed up to this?  Removal of the play area and skateboard ramps, the new building intruding into their part of the Park, a boating pond where they were planning to build facilities?

The building is at least twice the footprint that I had envisaged - as well as being impressively ugly.  I have also become accustomed to viewing artists impressions with immense suspicion - it will look a lot bigger still when it is built. [And User - it doesn't use any of the bank.]

Thre green area east of the A339 is labelled 'Victoria Park Extension' - its always been part of the park, until they built the A339 through the Park it was an integral part.  But it can't survive as the green space shown, they have coloured over the access road from the end of Faraday Road to the new building.

The overall plan has also changed - the Stone Building seems to survive, but only as an annex to a pub.  The new museum is still there, what is it going to hold?

One has to admire Patrick Griffin's patience though - he designed the Waterside replacement 20 years ago.

why no stick the new building in the 'Victoria Park Extension'?

Answered on reading the rest of the thread.......

Quoted from blackdog

It is indeed along the lines of NTC's proposal. However, you are mistaken in thinking that NTC own the park, the freeholder is WBC (inherited via Newbury District Council from Newbury Borough Council on its dissolution in 1974).

Yes, sorry, I did know that but the Town Council are the tenants for want of a better word. As they seemed to be taking responsibility for the grant application and also maintain it, my assumption was, possibly wrongly, that they would have the lions share of the decision making. Once again, the grant was scuppered by WBC not coming clean about their plans, this after NTC had invested a fortune in both the design and application for that failed grant

Quoted from massifheed

Is that retained, as in they'll be demolished, but rebuilt, or retained as in the development wont touch them? Looking at the plans, the pavilion sits right on top of where the play area is.

Demolished and rebuilt. I couldn't get a feeling for what they really propose but the model showed three circular areas at the northern end of the pavilion with the first circle closest to the outdoor cafe seating for the toddlers, the next circle play stuff for the juniors and the last most northerly circle containing the skateboard area. I don't think the skateboard area is not nearly big enough but I didn't want to drag my tape across their lovely white concept model.

This is the reply about how they, WBC, arrived at their statistics.....

In terms of the approach we adopted for the survey, we employed a probability (ie. random) sample methodology: the results are based on just over 2,000 completed, returned questionnaires (50% response rate). As a result of this sampling methodology, we are able to extrapolate out the findings to the wider population, within an overall confidence interval (margin of error) of less than 2.25%. Please see section 3 of the report for more detail.

In terms of the replies the statistics were based upon a received 2,000 replies. Of these if you search through the statistics,..

535 respondents visit the park freqeuntly.
1,274 visit infrequently or never.

So, their statistics are based on a whole group of people who don’t use the park.

I'm not sure if some of the earlier posts are referring to this original plan which started the ball rolling.

Why don't they just re-excavate the original wharf? Pound to a penny it is still all there.....

Quoted from brian

In terms of the replies the statistics were based upon a received 2,000 replies. Of these if you search through the statistics,..

535 respondents visit the park freqeuntly.
1,274 visit infrequently or never.

So, their statistics are based on a whole group of people who don’t use the park.

In one way it makes sense - most of the respondents don't use the park - so how can we make it into a facility they will use.

However, that supposes that these 1,274 represent a group of potential park users and not a random selection of West Berkshire residents many of whom live in places like Tilehurst, Burghfield and Pangbourne and have only visited Newbury a few times in their lives. A new pavillion will not atract these to Newbury, they live in the Reading area and are already well served by the facilities provided by Reading Council.

Quoted from Bartholomew

It was so small that I didn't notice it!. What it does say is "Construct a park pavilion to provide a kiosk, toilets, information point, park warden facilities, changing rooms, boat and seating storage, minor equipment storage and an indoor classroom"

The size and scope of the pavilion seems to have changed a lot.

I still find the whole consultation process confusing as what is proposed now is on a different scale to the original questions in the survey. Originally the pavilion in the questionnaire was taken as part of a wider development of the Wharf and Victoria Park. Where are the plans for the Wharf development and is it likely to happen or is the pavilion the end of the process?

The document you have been looking at was Newbury Town Council's plan for the park as proposed to the Lottery people. This was totally scuppered by WBC's failure to put their pavillion plans together in time to be included in NTC's proposal for lottery funding.  NTC made the mistake of believing WBC's planned schedule would be met.

There have been earlier plans for the park - here's one from 1998.

Quoted from brian

I'm not sure if some of the earlier posts are referring to this original plan which started the ball rolling.

I love the perspective on this one - makes the pavilion look no bigger than the library, rather than twice the size or bigger.

Quoted from brian

I'm not sure if some of the earlier posts are referring to this original plan which started the ball rolling.

I was referring to this one which was on the same leaflet

Quoted from 133

I was referring to this one which was on the same leaflet

I think that the picture/map you are showing was what NTC were promoting in order to get a parks grant and wasn't on the leaflet which was the initial Wharf proposals.

This is part of the Lottery grant proposal in 2007 and runs to six pages. Where it all went nails up was the bit around the pavilion which was a small replacement building for the existing cafe in the centre of the park and not the giant edifice that WBC ego vision committee want. Thus the loss of the grant.

http://www.newbury.gov.uk/victoriaparkupdate121107.htm

Quoted from brian

I think that the picture/map you are showing was what NTC were promoting in order to get a parks grant and wasn't on the leaflet which was the initial Wharf proposals.

Right that makes sense. Does anyone know what was on the leaflet that accompanied the questionnaire that we have been discussing?

Newbury Town Council made a statement which explains their part of the deal and obviously refer to the WBC prevaricating which meant they had to pay back the £50,000 donated in order for them to put together the proposals. This money was lost and so the finance came from the Town Council coffers (Yours and my tax ).

http://www.newbury.gov.uk/News/victoriaparkupdate.htm

Here is the link to the original WBC document that went with the plan in my earlier post.

http://consultationfinder.west.....Wharf%20Brochure.pdf

This is the 2002 survey which wasn't what they wanted

http://www.westberks.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=4279&p=0

(Statement 24 and 25)

This is very confusing. Was there more than one questionaire?
If so, what was the latest proposal based on?
If not which leaflet was tied to the the questionaire pointed out in this thread?

Quoted from brian

Here is the link to the original WBC document that went with the plan in my earlier post.

http://consultationfinder.west.....Wharf%20Brochure.pdf

This is the 2002 survey which wasn't what they wanted

http://www.westberks.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=4279&p=0

(Statement 24 and 25)

Thanks for that Brian. I thought it was all becoming clearer but what I don't understand is how can a few years make such a difference in the results of a survey. The question in 2002 "All of Victoria Park must be retained as a public open space" had an overwhelming Strongly Agree and Agree response. I notice the age group was more varied on the 2002 survey as well.  The minority were over 65 and yet on the later one they were the majority.  Unless I'm getting mixed up again, which isn't difficult with this issue!

This is the later survey
Summary of results.....
http://consultationfinder.west.....esults%20Summary.pdf

The questionnaire
http://consultationfinder.westberks.gov.uk/uploaddocs/Consult274/070113%20-%20Web%20Q'aire.pdf


The main findings
http://consultationfinder.west.....0Main%20Findings.pdf

Supporting tables
http://consultationfinder.west.....porting%20Tables.pdf

Not boring you am I but you did ask.....

Just looked at this for the first time.   As User 23 seems upset my any negative comments I will try to be positive.
The only good thing I can see is they have given a job to a blind architect!