Man behind controversial Kennet Shopping centre redevelopment warns original taller scheme could be resubmitted and left to Government decision
The developer behind plans to convert the Kennet Shopping centre into a high-rise, mixed-use development has warned it may resubmit its original 11-storey proposal for the centre if its downsized plans aren’t met with approval.
Last August, development company Lochailort reduced the scale of its Eagle Quarter scheme from 11 storeys to nine following criticism from councillors, residents and heritage groups.
Despite this, the scheme – which would see 381 flats built, as well as a GP surgery and medical hub and is expected to cost £115m – has continued to attract criticism.
Newbury town councillors described it as “overbearing” and that they didn’t want to see “Newbury turned into Basingstoke or Reading”.
The Newbury Society meanwhile, which describes itself as “protecting the architecture and promoting the history” of Newbury, said it has “too many flats” and is “out of proportion to the town centre and out of character for Newbury”.
The scheme also features a pedestrianised street through the centre of the development and retail units for local, independent and artisan retailers.
Writing in last week’s Newbury Weekly News, Lochailort managing director Hugo Haig said the current proposal is “modest in comparison” to other nearby town centre developments and warned that Lochailort was “considering our options” after continued objections to the scheme.
He wrote: “If a pragmatic solution can’t be reached we will either have to resubmit our original scheme or one that’s taller and let central Government decide rather than the district council.”
Mr Haig accused The Newbury Society of being against the scheme from the very beginning and called for it to see “the bigger picture”.
He added that the scheme was under pressure to be financially viable.
He continued: “I have spoken to a lot of people, and everyone is in agreement that Newbury desperately needs more people to live in the town centre – as many as possible.
“We believe that this site should be designed to accommodate as many people as possible, given its excellent sustainability credentials.
“The injection of people into the town centre will help sustain the shops all around the site.
“Without just giving lip service to the national housing crisis, or our country’s green agenda, let alone West Berkshire’s Climate Change Emergency – we all have a duty to deliver as many sustainable homes as possible on sites just like this.”
Responding in this week’s Newbury Weekly News, the Newbury Society’s chairman Dr David Peacock reiterates his belief that the scale of the development was “wrong for Newbury”.
He said: “We are not against changes to the Kennet Centre, but we think that the current Lochailort plans are on a scale which would be wrong for Newbury, and we do not see them as an improvement.
“Nor would they enhance the setting of the town centre’s listed buildings.
“The fact that over 200 letters of objection have been lodged to these plans suggest that many Newbury people share our view.
“The aims of The Newbury Society are not to prevent change, but to help make sure that future changes improve the town, rather than damage it; in other words, to promote higher standards of planning and architecture for Newbury.”
Mr Haig and Mr Peacock’s letters are printed in full below.
---
Hugo Haig: It has taken a lot of misrepresentation and divisive use of the facts that has made me put pen to paper.
Let’s start at the beginning – the Kennet Centre was put up for sale because it was losing money, and cost money to keep open. Nothing has changed.
It was put on the open market; any organisation could buy it.
West Berkshire Council considered it. Several companies offered.
We were chosen as the vendor’s preferred purchasers (as developers we were going to redevelop – rather than run it long term as a shopping centre).
Prior to buying the site we had several meetings with both the district and town councils to make absolutely sure that our proposals were in line with their expectations.
We discussed all aspects of our initial plans, including height, scale and massing.
In fact, our scheme was praised for being very much along the lines of the aspirations of the council and the scheme was commended.
The building of the Sainsbury superstore, the Parkway Shopping centre, the Tesco Superstore and Newbury Retail Park and various other schemes have all amounted to a surfeit of space in the town which has sadly caused the fatal demise of the Kennet Centre.
Everyone, and even the Newbury Society, agree that the Kennet Centre must go, and the site must be redeveloped.
I have spoken to a lot of people, and everyone is in agreement that Newbury desperately needs more people to live in the town centre – as many as possible.
We believe that this site should be designed to accommodate as many people as possible, given its excellent sustainability credentials.
It’s the perfect place to deliver a residential-led mixed use development.
It has everything all around it, all in walking distance. Transport, trains and buses, car parking, bike storage, you name it, it is all there, either on site or adjacent to it.
There are also parks, the Kennet and Avon Canal and as much AONB as you could shake a stick at on your doorstep.
The injection of people into the town centre will help sustain the shops all around the site.
Without just giving lip service to the national housing crisis, or our country’s green agenda, let alone West Berkshire’s Climate Change Emergency – we all have a duty it deliver as many sustainable homes as possible on sites just like this.
This should not be up for debate.
I am familiar with a number of nearby town centre developments and truly they are all at least double our density or more.
The current proposal is modest in comparison.
So, from our perspective we have listened to what people have said and reduced our scheme.
We did so reluctantly, but with a view to trying to accommodate the Newbury Society’s views.
It is a shame that a positive response was not forthcoming.
We are now going a step further and have asked Professor Robert Adam PhD, RIBA, Hon RIAS, RSA, to review and re-elevate the architecture and appearance of the proposed buildings which front on to Market Place and Bartholomew Street.
We want to ensure that the proposed development better reflects the character of Newbury, which we have re-studied in depth, and we are very excited to be able to share an early image of how we might be able to enhance the historic fabric of the town.
Please note that this change is for the public-facing elements of the scheme to the Market Place and Bartholomew Street, together with the facades of the tallest elements, the rest remains the same.
We will put all the sketches up on the Eagle Quarter website once they are ready – www.eaglequarter.com
As you would expect we are considering our options and if a pragmatic solution can’t be reached we will either have to resubmit our original scheme or one that’s taller and let Central Government decide rather than the district council.
In the meantime, we will have one final try of persuading those who, without sight of our proposals and with no information on the scheme, were frustratingly against us from the outset.
We all agree that I am sure the Newbury Society means well – however they have objected to virtually every significant application that has ever been submitted in central Newbury.
The Market Street development imposed a castle wall on the town; the magistrates court development ‘would present as a monolithic block from the river’; West Street resulted in excessive development for the site and added to the ‘tunnel effect’ at the end of the street; and the Parkway Shopping centre was considered to be bland and uninspiring, for example.
They love preservation but sometimes it is like East meets West and, in this instance, we would ask them to see the bigger picture.
The council is well aware of the viability pressure the scheme is under, yet there is a huge list of public benefits, both for the immediate and wider community.
It will be a net zero carbon scheme – a first for the town (sorry I maybe behind the curve), but given its size it is certainly the most significant – and one of which we could all be proud.
Those of us who have known Newbury for some time, Newbs to those who are fond of it, have seen decision after decision being made that bit by bit has knocked the stuffing out of this pretty town.
We now need to be brave, bold and turn it on its head and look to the future and not the past.
Please can I reach out to you to support Lochailort’s proposals.
We’d welcome any comments – please feel free to let us know your thoughts on the application via West Berkshire Council’s public access page quoting reference: 21/00379/FUL or alternatively by emailing comments to info@lochailort-investments.com
---
David Peacock: On behalf of The Newbury Society, I would like to respond to the letter from Hugo Haig of developers Lochailort (Newbury Weekly News, February 3).
We welcome a debate on the quality of buildings going up in and planned for Newbury.
We are not against changes to the Kennet Centre, but we think that the current Lochailort plans (21/00379/ FUL and 21/00380/FUL) are on a scale which would be wrong for Newbury, and we do not see them as an improvement.
Nor would they enhance the setting of the town centre’s listed buildings.
The fact that over 200 letters of objection have been lodged to these plans suggest that many Newbury people share our view.
As for Mr Haig’s claim that the Newbury Society has objected to virtually every significant application that has ever been submitted, this claim shows that Mr Haig is unaware of the society’s track record.
To pick just two examples, the society did support the Parkway development; and more recently we warmly welcomed the regeneration of the Waterside Centre.
It is true that we have opposed a number of significant schemes; the plan to demolish the Luker building on the Andover Road, for example (a good building which has been saved); and we do think that a better development could be achieved on the canalside site of the former magistrates court than the one currently put forward.
This is a debate worth having – what kind of Newbury do you wish to see?
How do you wish it to develop? We agree with Mr Haig that now is a time to look to the future.
This is a crucial time for the town, as blueprints for future development will be mapped out over the coming months in the Vision for Newbury and in the Newbury Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP).
Guidelines for future development in the Newbury town centre conservation area, which have been absent for 50 years, may also be published.
Newbury has changed a lot over recent decades. The aims of the Newbury Society are not to prevent change, but to help make sure that future changes improve the town, rather than damage it; in other words, to promote higher standards of planning and architecture for Newbury.
PS. The Lochailort scheme (which rises to nine storeys) is not well represented by the illustration used with Mr Haig’s letter.
This sketch includes a number of Market Place buildings which are not part of the scheme at all; and those parts of the scheme which are included are proposals to which the Newbury Society has raised no objections.
We attach an illustration to give readers a better idea of what we do object to; the seven-storey flats proposed behind the Catherine Wheel pub (a listed building), for example.