The Western Area planning commitee, at the meeting last night confirmed the recommendation from the Principal Planning officer (Michael Butler) to refuse the planning application as proposed by the site owners.
The refusal was mainly based on the height and bulk of the two 39m (12 storeys) accomodation blocks. This was the main point offered by the members of the public allowed to speak in opposition to the scheme. There was also some concern from the members that this development would be acceptable in London but not Newbury. It was felt that it was not the type of home that should be provided for local prospective residents 30% of which would be affordable housing. There were in the application, 51 one bed, 134 two bed and 4 three bed apartments.
Part of the application was the commitment, as part of the development, to provide a new road through the estate from the SCATS end to Kings Rd which would have made the bulk of Kings road a cul de sac and remove through traffic from that road and also alleviate the traffic down the very narrow Mill Lane. The highways officer was in favour of this with some reservations regarding the Boundary Rd and Hambridge Rd junction.
It is known that the site is heavily contaminated as a result of previous heavy industry on the site (Gas Works and Sterling Cables) and was identified as the worst contamination in the local area. This has resulted in polluntants including heavy metals which are of concern to the Environmental Health Department. As part of the development, the site owner, although not responsible for the contamination, would clear the site and remove the contamination to the level required by the department. As this was part of the application, refusal means that this will not happen and it was suggested that if the Environmental Health Department are sufficiently concerned about contamination it may fall to the public purse to remediate.
I think the local authority now needs to work with the landowner to come up with a suitable solution for this site. There are benefits in regenerating this part of Newbury, and the landowner obviously wants to sell. Get them all round a table and make something happen. Otherwise it will be West Berks who end up picking up the bill for decontamination.
I think the local authority now needs to work with the landowner to come up with a suitable solution for this site. There are benefits in regenerating this part of Newbury, and the landowner obviously wants to sell. Get them all round a table and make something happen. Otherwise it will be West Berks who end up picking up the bill for decontamination.
The presentation from the architect and the applicant's agent Steven Smallman indicated that that is just what had happened prior to the application and the design, including a discussion with the WBC chief executive and meetings with the planning and highways department. A considerable amount of money has been invested by Nelson Land Investments into a design of which the building style, materials and quality was favoured by the planning department and also into the considerable number of aspects such as determining the level of site contamination. It is unfortunate that the costs to decontaminate the site and in particular dismantle the Newbury eyesore, the tower require a heavy burden in the number of apartments required to make the development viable. Mr Vickers did manage to use the word "bicycles" but only once. I will give him that.
If this process has been conducted with WBC and been allowed to go to application, why was it reccommended for refusal? If I was the developer I would be very unhappy this morning!!!
If this process has been conducted with WBC and been allowed to go to application, why was it reccommended for refusal? If I was the developer I would be very unhappy this morning!!!
refused - Because the height of the blocks was too high. Methinks they have grown to offset the high costs involved with the site.
It is unfortunate that the costs to decontaminate the site and in particular dismantle the Newbury eyesore,
My understanding is that the top of the tower (the corrugated iron clad bit) was condemned as unsafe some years ago - and that it is the owner's responsibility to demolish it or make it safe. If I have been informed correctly then this should have happened already - and should not depend on WBC providing funding either directly or through approving a planning application that would make the site worth so much more.
The road through it, which makes the site less valuable as it takes up land that could be built on, was once planned to go from Scats to the Racecourse station, the decision to shorten it looks ever more shortsighted.
Really do not understand how we can be asked to pay for this decontamination. The owner let the land to companies who contaminated it, albeit legally, therefore it is his responsibility to clean it up. He took the rent money off these companies, it didn't come to us. If our garden is overgrown, the tax payer doesn't pay for it to be weeded.
Really do not understand how we can be asked to pay for this decontamination. The owner let the land to companies who contaminated it, albeit legally, therefore it is his responsibility to clean it up. He took the rent money off these companies, it didn't come to us. If our garden is overgrown, the tax payer doesn't pay for it to be weeded.
No, you are wrong in your supposition. The current owner has not rented the buildings to businesses that contaminate. The contamination came from the old Newbury District gas works and probably Sterling cables. The gas works belonged to the Borough and Sterling cables no longer exist. I think, if you read the application documentation, the site owner would clear up the site even though he has no legal responsibility so to do and he would fund that from the development.
My understanding is that the top of the tower (the corrugated iron clad bit) was condemned as unsafe some years ago - and that it is the owner's responsibility to demolish it or make it safe. If I have been informed correctly then this should have happened already - and should not depend on WBC providing funding either directly or through approving a planning application that would make the site worth so much more.
You could be right about the tower but I have not been able to find any records of the owner being instructed to do that. It is looking a little unsafe but I am not a structural engineer so cannot comment. The developer has not asked for any funding to demolish the tower, that and the site clear up would be included and financed by the value of the new flats. What WBC might have to pay for would be the clear up of the contamination as they by default are responsible for the contamination.
I have no idea who this photographer is but his website has some of the best photographs I have seen for a long time. He must look at Newbury.net as he has used one of the posts on his page for the Sterling Industrial Estate. Called "Stirling"and the "Sterling Garage" site in this weeks NWN by the way.
The set of photographs just show how derelict and ugly the site and the tower really are. All those people who perhaps have a rose tinted view of what is really there might want to revise their viewpoint.
The set of photographs just show how derelict and ugly the site and the tower really are. All those people who perhaps have a rose tinted view of what is really there might want to revise their viewpoint.
Your post suggests that should the Estate not be there in all its 'glory', you would have not been privileged to have seen these photos you admire!
This makes for an interesting point, that under certain circumstances, even industrial decay may have a beauty to it. Modern buildings might be clean and tidy, but are they really interesting? Are the expedient designs we have today something to be admired and proud of: Vue cinema, Parkway, St Bartholomews School, etc?
As a kid I used to enjoy exploring dereliction (there was a lot more back then). There was a certain wonder about it. A history, a record. One of the great playgrounds of the 70s being the old mill in Kennet Road.
Your post suggests that should the Estate not be there in all its 'glory', you would have not been privileged to have seen these photos you admire!
This makes for an interesting point, that under certain circumstances, even industrial decay may have a beauty to it. Modern buildings might be clean and tidy, but are they really interesting? Are the expedient designs we have today something to be admired and proud of: Vue cinema, Parkway, St Bartholomews School, etc?
As a kid I used to enjoy exploring dereliction (there was a lot more back then). There was a certain wonder about it. A history, a record. One of the great playgrounds of the 70s being the old mill in Kennet Road.
I detest graffiti, but can see the art and skill that goes into it. I am anti hunt, but can still appreciate the brush work of a great artist. You don't have to like the subject to enjoy the skill and technical camera work of this photographer.
You can't take a picture of something that isn't there.
That's true, but the piccies have been done and very nicely too. No point in leaving the buildings just in case another photographer wants to try his hand.
The next derelict photographic subject could be the old Enborne Road bit of St Barts once the students have moved out before the developers move in. It's a pity the internals of the old Newbury District Hospital weren't commited to somebody's digital camera. I was going to say commited to film but of course that's well out of date with today's 50megabit cameras.
Male
Logged
