The developer behind the proposed Eagle Quarter at Newbury has offered a vigorous response to opposition to the scheme after planning permission was refused by West Berkshire Council.
The authority issued its delegated decision on November 4, giving nine reasons for refusing the scheme of 367 homes, 30 flexible retail units and either a tech incubator hub or 91 retirement homes, which would replace the ailing Kennet Centre.
The council called it ‘an over-powering and dominant feature within the town centre’ and referred to flood risk, insufficient affordable housing, amenity space and public open space along with a number of highways concerns.
Hugo Haig, director of developer Lochailort, a Thames Tap partner, has given us his exclusive view of the council’s decision.
He said: “Truly, I think it is disgusting that these public servants charge £175,000 for the privilege of submitting an application and then, when having addressed their concerns and having got them to say ‘it’s fantastic’, do a volte face and issue a delegated refusal because the Newbury Preservation Society (some unelected minority purporting to be the mouth piece of the town) have managed to persuade someone at Historic England to say that he actually quite likes the existing 70s concrete box and that our scheme is too high (it happens to be lower than the recent Parkway Shopping Centre redevelopment in the town). The way we are made to go about this is fundamentally wrong.
“We are supposedly in a climate emergency, we should be reusing and redeveloping brownfield sites first, ones that are the most sustainable; in town centres, near railway and bus stations, shops, offices etc; ones exactly like the Kennet Centre, with good – no, the best – architecture, so we have two top architects in their field, Robert Adam and Roy Collado of Collado Collins.
“We will be building back, beautiful. We have the latest technologies at the heart of our sustainability work, saving 3,000 tonnes of carbon a year. Surely, in all the sites in all the world, this one is most suitable for accommodating as high a density as possible.
“But no, they go and refuse it and the first reason for refusal was that it has failed the sequential test. Really?
“And they will grant a planning permission on some greenfield development on the edge of town everyone will have to drive to so you end up with 10 families per acre rather than a hundred.
“So, to match our scheme, 35 acres of greenfield would disappear.
“Not on your nelly – they are just a bunch of box tickers making the same mistakes they did last time around and not one of them is brave enough to grasp the bigger picture and make the right decision for the future of the town and for those who come after us.
“I drove past the Tower of London today, it is taller than our Newbury scheme, surrounded by skyscrapers – and it’s a World Heritage Site.”
© Thames Tap (powered by ukpropertyforums.com).
Sign up to receive your free weekly Thames Tap journal here.
Ah diddums! Did his toy get thrown out of his pram then!
What an idiot. The council acts for the benefit of ALL not the developers.
Too many builders recently are getting their nicks in a twist, at some point the core of a town had to be attractive and useful, not just a money pit for the builders.
Good on Newbury..and more of it is needed.
If a builder wants to help then they MUST stop inane and ugly architecture! They MUST provide – WITHOUT ARGUMENT – PROPER AFFORDABLE HOUSING and stop trying and all too often succeeding-weaseling out of such demands.
Go build elsewhere if you don’t like being rejected.
Steve Harwood
Hi Steve , I hear what you say.
There is a lot that goes into the mix that will make or break a project such as this.
Happy to meet / discuss , so do get in contact on hugo@lochailort-investments.com
Regards, H
If you want to see what Councils can do if left to their own devices you only have to look at Slough or Basingstoke. Both have allowed their councils to act as quasi property developers and both are now paying the price – Slough has gone bankrupt and is having a fire sale of its prime asset and Basingstoke, has no Grade A office space available (or under construction) and as a result has seen asset values in the town fall through the floor and risks more local jobs as major occupiers follow those who have already left. The AA will be next. What would West Berks prefer – a derelict shopping centre or a thriving new “quarter” attracting new businesses and affluent residents to the town – both needed to ensure the towns future. Unless we see more of this kind of scheme we’ll end up putting little boxes all over the beautiful countryside that surrounds Newbury destroying its natural assets as currently being witnessed in Donnington.
If any reader here has actually been to a planning meeting and listened to what passes for informed debate by Councillors many of whom can hardly remember their names let alone which decade they retired in, squabbling about building heights or development densities or whether a particular scheme fits the character of the town, then they should think very long and hard about who they vote for when given the next opportunity. No one wants the character of Newbury destroyed but that isn’t the same as not wanting any new development. Take a look at those town that have suppressed new development. Basingstoke now looks like a ghost town with only 1960’s blocks in its once prosperous town centre. Councils must embrace new design and new development ensuring that its fit for purpose with strong guidelines for what is allowed but not taking credit or pride for just thwarting development completely. If its good design then it should be allowed to replace what is very clearly passed its sell by date. Lets get some new blood in the Council and ensure they turn up to the office at least five days a week and do they job for which they aranhilae paid – planning control not planning annihilation!!
In this case, the proposal was so out of character with the Town it did not even make it for councillors to debate. However, the anonymous Sustain Newbury has made a point. Councillors (or rather those that serve on planning) are not experts. They are not meant to be. They most often get to judge edge cases where usually members of the public have called development in because of their objections. I know this proposed development and as I have said, in its current form, it is not suitable for the Town.
With regards to councillors being designers of plans then that’s never the case. Architects etc are hired to produce options that are considered. A local plan is always the backdrop to this which must look at the needs of the area for at least a couple of decades. That plan must be signed off by a higher body and developers can input into that process when it’s at a thing called dreg 19. Less planning controls has led to worse outputs, not better and there is ZERO evidence of lack of development because of councils. Meanwhile, there is lots of evidence of control over the supply of things like houses by developers. As a councillor I do not recognise any of what Sustain Newbury is complaining about in West Berkshire
Hi Adrian – forgive me but in my mind the Councillors at West Berks / Newbury are in charge of overarching planning decisions at a local level. If you collectively think that redeveloping a brown field site which consists of a semi derelict concrete box in the town center, and as such is the most sustainable site in the Borough, is more important that dishing out yet another consent on a green field on the edge of town, then it is up to you to take action accordingly. Reading your comments it was the height that you objected too ( and before we go into the debate as to the perceived or real harm that is a result of the height , and where the height manifests itself ) lets be honest we are in a Town Center you can see everything , we not trying to hide anything – and the inverse of the conversation is that if we had been able we to have gone higher we could have had included some affordable, as your consultants would have told you. As it was we were lower than Parkway which was built some 15 years ago, so most people might conclude we are going backwards.