What made councillors refuse a massive redevelopment scheme for Newbury? Alan Bunce examines the decision and questions the thinking of those campaigning to prevent regeneration of their own town.
The reasons for refusing Lochailort’s plans for the Eagle Quarter at Newbury are as puzzling as the decision itself.
Councillors talked for a total of 12 hours across three meetings to ultimately reach their decision to refuse the application on January 8, going against their officers’ recommendation.
There will probably now be a protracted appeal with more taxpayer money funding an inspector, a public hearing, consultations etc before a decision that will, in all likelihood, overturn that of West Berkshire Council.
The grounds for refusal were the impact on heritage due to height, scale and mass, lack of car parking, lack of affordable homes and lack of private amenity space. Let’s examine each of them.
From day one, the height issue has been a bugbear of certain locals. It seems to have unduly occupied their minds.
At a time when the economy is tanking, World War Three is threatened, pensioners are freezing, farmers are being driven out of business, NHS waiting lists are through the roof and we have an exploding population coupled with a housing crisis, I suggest some perspective would help.
Even if you can put all the dominant national and international issues to one side, it’s useful to remember this is the town where the BT building in the Google image below dominates the skyline.
Heights at Eagle Quarter have already been reduced but it seems some will only be happy when those heights are so reduced that the scheme is unviable. At Wednesday’s meeting, opponents showed ample images to illustrate their objections.
But I couldn’t help wondering the priorities of people who can spare the mental energy checking how it looks from this angle or that angle in order to find the ones that give them the most concern.
Those buildings will house the residents who will help make the shops viable so the higher they are, the more support they create for the small businesses seeking to make the town a more interesting place.
One councillor at the January 8 meeting talked extensively about ‘overshadowing’ when describing the effects of shadows, things I had always considered a fact of life.
Perhaps developers should work on designing buildings without shadows in future.
But the biggest cause for concern at Wednesday’s meeting was second reason, the ‘lack of car parking’. It was discussed at enormous length, which struck me as ironic.
On the one hand councils tell us there’s a climate emergency and the private car is killing the planet. West Berkshire has no shortage of councillors with that mindset, yet here they are arguing for more cars on the road.
This scheme simply keeps and updates an existing car park and creates undercroft spaces for a small number of the flats. And, as pointed out at the meeting, few BTR tenants have cars.
The ‘lack of affordable homes’ reason always makes me question councillors’ real motivation. It comes up at numerous council planning meetings. Is it because they are deeply concerned about people needing reasonably priced living space?  Or is it a way for councillors to throw their weight around so they can sound empathetic?
The same council cared little for the less well off when a hugely-supported plan for a new Lidl was refused in Tadley a few years ago because, West Berkshire councillors argued, it would erode the gap between settlements.
The hard pressed locals, striving every day to make ends meet, must be so grateful the council fought to keep that bit of scrubland for them. Thankfully, that one was overturned on appeal but cost and delay shouldn’t be forgotten.
‘Lack of private amenity space’ is a less common reason for refusal. But it seems, West Berkshire’s elected members are worried about the social wellbeing of the future residents, who as far as I’m aware, will not be forced to move there. In fact, judging by Lochailort’s Thames Quarter scheme in Reading, there will be ample demand.
The refusal of this scheme comes just as we are beginning to see how the economy is fast going south. Even if it the appeal succeeds, by that time we could be deep in recession and who knows what that will mean for Eagle Quarter?
Major mixed-use regeneration schemes of similar nature to the Eagle Quarter, proposed for the centres of Slough and Maidenhead, have gone nowhere for years. In Aldershot some progress has been made on its redevelopment schemes but it’s piecemeal and slow.
Newbury had an oven-ready redevelopment waiting to go ahead on a brownfield site near the station. Along with new public realm, artisan and independent shops, the sort everyone cries out for, were waiting to replace a grotty shopping centre that has no future.
Jobs would doubtless be created and small businesses would doubtless emerge but Newbury’s representatives have voted to keep its crumbling centre, crumbling away for many more years.
Given the state of the country, redevelopment of Newbury town centre could now be another decade or two away. It’s clear many of those campaigning against Eagle Quarter are people who are, let’s say, of a certain age.
As Cllr Tony Vickers pointed out, this scheme is for the next generation. Is it right that its refusal comes after pressure from a generation that may not even be around to see it?
There was one further irony raised when a councillor pointed out the prospect of more greenfield development being needed if Eagle Quarter is refused, since new homes will have to go somewhere to meet the council’s housing numbers.
By turning down 400+ on a brownfield site in the town centre, other precious land will be at increased risk. Perhaps gaps between settlements will now face more pressure.
This victory for the nimbys could come back to bite them.
© Thames Tap (powered by ukpropertyforums.com).
Sign up to receive our weekly free journal, The Forum here.
