‘Newbury look like Basingstoke’ claims as Kennet Shopping centre planning inquiry adjourns for paperwork

The planning inquiry into West Berkshire Council’s rejection of the multi-storey Kennet Shopping centre redevelopment in Newbury town centre has now all but closed.

It has adjourned for two weeks for additional paperwork to be submitted.

Those for and against made their closing statements to the Government inspector today (Thursday, June 12).

The Eagle Quarter proposals, which would see 427 buy-to-rent flats built, and a new street linking the town centre to the station, were referred to by conservationists as “formulaic, filing cabinet architecture”.

“The eight-storey slab of a building would be the same height as the BT Exchange building in the town centre, which is the town’s architectural eyesore, permitted in the 1960s,” said Dr David Peacock of the Newbury Society, adding that the building should never be used as an architectural reference.

The developer’s heritage expert said Newbury had evolved from being a market town, referencing the BT building and Parkway as examples.

But the Newbury Society’s Dr Peacock went further, saying: “Newbury is not Basingstoke… the current proposals show a significant step change toward making Newbury look like Basingstoke.”

Both the conservationists and Newbury Town Council echoed their “serious concerns” about the significant and negative affect on the townscape of Newbury the height and scale of the proposed development would have and urged the inspector to dismiss the appeal.

“The amenity space is insufficient for future occupants. Street space is not amenity space,” said town council leader Gary Norman (Lib Dem, East Field).

“We ask the inspector to recognise that better alternatives are both possible and necessary.

“A more appropriate scheme, grounded in good design, local character and considerably more imagination, has already received broad support, not least from ourselves.

“The town centre deserves a scheme that enhances the public realm, supports a vibrant local economy, and responds sensitively to its unique historic context.”

He was referring to another proposal by the same developer, Lochailort, called Old Town, which gets rid of the shops and proposes a selection of mews houses.

That proposal has yet to be heard by the council, and the developer’s barrister made sure the inquiry understood that the plans are not, in any way, a given.

The council’s team said this is a “realistic alternative scheme” which does not harm the setting of the listed buildings and may represent a viable scheme, and the appeal proposal would not be the optimal use of the site.

The planning inspector said he would not be visiting the current Old Town plans on show in Newbury.

The district council’s own team seemed to need to balance the case for why the inspector should reject the appeal, despite its own officers having recommended the scheme be approved.

It was turned down by politically-elected councillors against their advice.

Democratically-elected councillors are entitled in law, and as a matter of planning judgement, to refuse to grant planning permission.

The council’s own heritage expert went, if a little awkwardly, against the previous officer recommendations, saying the development would “cause harm” to the character of Newbury.

“Overall the local planning authority contends that weight attributed to the acknowledged planning benefits of the appeal proposal do not outweigh the planning disbenefits and conflicts with the development plan policies as the proposal will be harmful to the future living conditions of future residents and will result in harm to the setting and appearance of listing buildings and will be harmful to the character and appearance of the Newbury Town Centre Conservation Area,” said Mark Beard for the council.

Lochailort summed up, saying the proposed development would significantly boost the supply of homes in Newbury, pushing the point that planning decisions should give “substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield sites within settlements for homes”.

They also fired a salvo at the council.

“The proposal here is one which was prepared following full and extensive pre-application engagement with the LPA about the earlier, taller scheme,” said Douglas Edwards KC.

“It received full throated support from officers at all levels following a thorough assessment and for reasons which are fully explained in three successive officer reports.

“This is a scheme which should have been approved.

“Although, for good pragmatic reasons, the appellant has not advanced a case of unreasonable behaviour on the part of members in refusing the application against the clear advice of the officers given on three separate occasions.”

Planning inspector Richard Aston will take a wad of paperwork with him to mull on the evidence, before making his ruling in August.