Application 25/00391/FULMAJ for 317 flats and associated works at the Kennet Centre, Newbury RG14 5EN (including the demolition of much of the existing Kennet Centre)
We support the change in character of these proposals, and the designs of the internal parts of this “Old Town” scheme, which we think will be an asset to Newbury and to the town centre conservation area. Much thought has clearly gone into the preparation, the resulting internal views, and into the building facades.
We have no objection to the substantial reduction in retail space, nor to the loss of much of the north-south street from the previous ‘Eagle Quarter’ schemes. We welcome the new elevation for the Bartholomew Street street-frontage as a whole, which is a significant improvement on the previous scheme.
We do retain concerns about some of the external elements of this ‘Old Town’ scheme. In particular, we consider that the thin six-storey building proposed in Cheap Street (between the former ‘Save the Children’ and the cinema) is too high in relation to its surroundings (NB This has increased in height from the previous “Eagle Quarter” scheme). In terms of the whole scheme, reducing this would be a relatively small-scale change; and it should be possible to add the lost residential units at a suitable location inside the development, to compensate.
There are other changes which we would prefer. We have reservations about the Market Street facades, now shown as rising in places to seven storeys, double the height of the facing three- and four-storeys of the Weavers Yard street-frontage opposite. Reducing these even by one storey would make a real difference; alternatively, setting back the top storey(s) would reduce the impact at street level.
Once again, this proposal contains no affordable housing at all. We understand there are financial issues involved, but we would like to see at least an element of this, even if it fails to reach West Berkshire Council’s policy target of 95 flats. How much would it cost Lochailort to include a small number of affordable units, say 10 or 20?
As far as parking is concerned, with a total of 557 spaces proposed for 317 flats and houses, this is a significant improvement on the ‘Eagle Quarter’ plans. The 557 total includes 80 scattered throughout the development, and 477 in an extended Kennet Centre multi-storey car park (with the insertion of extra spaces (+27), the proposed additional floor (+101), and the demolition of adjacent spaces (-66), the plans propose a net extra 62 spaces).
The WBC requirement for parking spaces in an area such as the town centre (calculated according to the number of bedrooms) gives a total of 364.25 spaces required for residents, plus 42 for visitors (for flats only); rounded up to a total of 407 spaces.
This plan therefore requires a WBC policy target of 407 spaces, while making 557 spaces available (including all of the multi-storey car park spaces); leaving the surplus of 150 spaces available for other users.
While this is a very significant improvement on the previous scheme, this 150 spaces is short of our assessment of the minimum required public-access spaces in the multi-storey car park (c.200 spaces); and would still require additional capacity elsewhere, such as in the railway station multi-storey; particularly throughout Saturdays and at other times of high demand from both residents and other town centre users, such as late afternoon/early evening and in the long run-up to Christmas. If this application is to be approved, we would therefore ask for a financial contribution towards the necessary work to the railway station multi-storey and signage, as previously outlined by WBC.
This mitigation needs to be considered in the light of the developments in and around Newbury including those at Shaw-cum-Donnington/ north Newbury (in progress) and at Sandleford/ south Newbury (expected in the near future); which will increase the demand for town centre parking.
We welcome the integration of trees and shrubs in this scheme, and think it should be possible, at certain key points within the development, for the trees/ landscaping to be established in the ground, rather than for the landscaping to be entirely planter- and pot-based.
In spite of our reservations, it is clear that this is a massive improvement over the previous proposals, and we welcome the improved character of the scheme.
The Newbury Society,
31 March 2025.