Kennet Shopping Centre redevelopment appeal hearing ends
A planning inquiry into a council's rejection of a town centre redevelopment has been adjourned.West Berkshire Council's planning committee rejected the proposal for a residential and retail development with more than 400 flats at the Kennet Shopping Centre in Newbury, and an appeal into the decision began on 4 June.Those for and against made their closing statements to the inspector on Thursday, before it was adjourned for two weeks for additional paperwork to be submitted.Planning inspector Richard Aston will make his ruling in August.
The proposals would see 427 buy-to-rent flats built, as well as a new street linking the town centre to the station.Both conservationists and Newbury Town Council raised "serious concerns" about the effect on the townscape of the height and scale of the proposed development, and urged the inspector to dismiss the appeal.Gary Norman from the town council pointed out that an alternative scheme, which has not yet been heard by the council, had "received broad support"."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 said.The plans were turned down by councillors against the advice of officers - something they are entitled in law to do.The council's heritage expert also went against the previous officer recommendations, saying the development would "cause harm" to the character of Newbury.
You can follow BBC Berkshire on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
42 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Sorry parents, but your baby has no business being in the office
She was, explained entrepreneur Davina Schonle, 'humiliated'. She'd travelled for three hours to attend the Monday sessions of London Tech Week, a gathering of global leaders in technology at Olympia, a vast exhibition centre in Kensington, west London. Schonle had been looking forward to the day's agenda, which included Red Bull's Christian Horner discussing tech advances in F1, Baroness Lane-Fox explaining how AI can be a force for equality, insights into what investors are looking for in tech companies and a panel making the case for launching tech businesses in the UK. Schonle's business is a start-up called Humanvantage AI, and she was particularly keen on the prospect of networking with so many key figures in the industry. The problem was she didn't make it through the door, not even to registration. Monday would not be a day on which she could add to her collection of lanyards. The reason: her plus one, Isadella. Doubtless brilliant, a hoover of information, a magnet of human interest, very possibly with a great future in supply chain inventory management – but, unfortunately, just eight months old. Mother protested, baby babbled, and the pair were forced to turn tail and make the three-hour journey straight back home. Schonle has since complained about the refused entry, posting on LinkedIn (obviously) that: 'I should be able to build my company with [Isadella] by my side… Doesn't our future belong to the kids?' London Tech Week then put out a statement saying that one of its attendees 'wasn't able to attend with her baby because of the event's age restrictions. We're very sorry she had this experience and have reached out directly to apologise and discuss what happened.' The statement continued: 'We've listened carefully and we are going to review our approach to age restrictions and facilities ahead of next year's London Tech Week.' So while they might be sorry, they're not committing to allowing under-16s and neither should they. And not just because it's the tech-savvy young teens who are about to steal all their jobs and blow them out of the water. But because sweet and cute and cuddly, soft-skinned and lovely to sniff and gorgeous though they are, conferences, workplaces and offices are not the place to bring babies and small children. For they are the ultimate disruptors and they're designed that way so that we can't ignore them – so that we will feed for them, care for them and love them. Which is why when Ms Schonle said on LinkedIn that, 'I was excited to attend, connect, have meetings and contribute', she should have realised that Isadella would have been a gorgeous distraction. Indeed, there's a photo of her posted on Schonle's LinkedIn page at the front doors of Olympia. She's waving, smiling, her beautiful, bright eyes and wispy hair are an audition for a clothing, nappy or soap brand. Everything else in the photo is dull by comparison: suited attendees, the signage and various folk ambling around looking lost. With a baby in tow, how were Schonle or her intended networkers supposed to focus on discussing how Humanvantage AI empowers human excellence through conversational AI-powered role-play? And if she landed new clients on the strength of how gorgeous her baby was, well, that would be unfair and cause chaos. There are reasons we have offices and reasons why, post-Covid, many workers are being told to get back to them.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
The ‘experts' you've never heard of inspiring Rachel Reeves's disastrous economic policy
A little like the Chagos Islands giveaway and, more recently, the apparent Gibraltar sell out, it's almost impossible to work out the motivations behind each and every idiotic decision this Labour Government takes. There's a palpable sense of incredulity spreading across Britain as the Prime Minister and Chancellor continue to insist that everything is going swimmingly despite most key markers showing precisely the opposite is true. Take the economy. In Wednesday's Spending Review, Rachel Reeves boasted that she had 'wasted no time' removing the barriers to growth. Less than 24 hours later, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) revealed that UK GDP had shrunk by 0.3 per cent in April. Labour continues to splurge taxpayers' hard-earned cash despite the national debt sitting at around 96 per cent of GDP, the budget deficit more doubling in the past seven years, and public spending being on a par with the profligate Labour government of the 1970s, which almost bankrupted the country. Back then, taxes as a share of GDP were around 33 per cent. Forecasts suggest that, by 2027, they could reach 37.7 per cent. Unemployment is at its highest level in four years, UK payrolls have lost 276,000 employees since the autumn Budget, and a millionaire is reportedly leaving the UK every 45 minutes under Labour. Still, no one in the Cabinet appears able to rule out further tax rises, with Paul Johnson, the outgoing chief of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) concluding that 'council tax bills look set to rise at their fastest rate over any parliament since 2001-05.' Who is advising Reeves on tax policy, and her relentless assault on our wallets? Readers may not have heard of Arun Advani and Andy Summers, but these little known academics may have been the inspiration for Labour's seemingly never-ending tax grab. They run the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation (CenTax), which some credit for Labour's farm tax. Advani, who is associate professor in the economics department at the University of Warwick, called for inheritance tax 'loopholes' on farms to be scrapped in two reports for the Institute for Fiscal Studies, as well as writing a further report for CenTax making the same arguments for changes to both Agricultural Property Relief (APR) and Business Property Relief (BPR) last October. After Advani boasted at the Labour Party Conference that he was 'optimistic' because the Labour government is 'genuinely listening' to his ideas, Reeves announced in the Budget that the availability of 100 per cent relief for agricultural and business property would be capped at £1 million. So far, so predictable, you may argue. What's the harm in tapping up Left-wing think tanks for radical tax ideas? Do Conservative governments not rely on the research of free market institutes? Well, some have alleged the Treasury relied solely on CenTax's projection that the changes would raise £520 million, without doing its own calculations. As it conceded in response to a Freedom of Information request: 'H M Treasury does not hold a disaggregated cost projection for the revenue raised from the measure announced at Autumn Budget 2024 to restrict these reliefs. This is a combined policy across the reliefs, rather than separate policies for each relief.' Even more problematically, the £520 million figure has been challenged. The OBR itself said it was uncertain how much would be raised as a result of behavioural responses, whilst CBI Economics calculates that the new tax on both family firms and farms will actually cost the Treasury £1.9 billion over the next five years. Advani claimed that only around 500 farms would be affected by the tax. As the Adam Smith Institute points out, however, 'the government's much-quoted '500' a year is really 15,000 a generation.' The true number of farms could be more than 40,000. Separate research, commissioned by Ashbridge Partners, found that one in 10 farmers surveyed said they will face an IHT bill of more than £1 million due to the inheritance tax hike, with 31 per cent expecting to pay more than £500,000. Why didn't Labour listen? Treasury minister James Murray, who referenced back in 2022 how many Zoom meetings he'd held with Dr Summers, even hosted CenTax's official launch in Parliament last November when he declared his desire 'to make sure that collaboration between CenTax, Treasury and HMRC continues for many years into the future.' Advani and Summers also influenced Labour's pledge to scrap non dom status with Treasury ministers again seeming to unquestioningly swallow their claim that it would raise £3.2 billion, a figure repeatedly cited by the Government. The trouble is, that number was also based on some misguided premises, perhaps including Advani and Summers' quite ludicrous prediction that out of 70,000 non-doms, only 77 would leave. As other economists later pointed out, the projection did not take into account the impact of abolishing non-dom inheritance tax protections. Even the OBR assumed that the changes would likely lead to a loss of 25 per cent of non-doms with trusts, which could cost the UK more than £12 billion during the course of the parliament. Still the Government swallowed the £3.2 billion figure hook line and sinker despite some now estimating that 10 per cent of non-doms may have already left the UK. A report by the CEBR predicts the ongoing exodus could reach 40 per cent – costing the Treasury a self-defeating £7.1 billion over this parliament. This combined with the £1.9 billion revenue lost as a result of the farm and family firm tax could mean the Government is down £9 billion thanks to listening to these nitwits. CenTax also wrongly predicted that increasing the tax rate on carried interest to 45 per cent would raise additional revenue of £0.8 billion per year. Labour settled on 32 per cent – but a January 2025 estimate by the OBR suggests that only £100 million will be raised and since then Reeves has watered it down. Labour claim to be a 'party of business'. So why are they seemingly listening to two economists who are laying the intellectual groundwork for an expansion in taxation that could come to look like Corbynism on steroids.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
UK's Spectris rejects second KKR takeover approach in favour of Advent's $5 billion proposal
June 13 (Reuters) - Britain's Spectris (SXS.L), opens new tab said on Friday it has rejected a second takeover proposal from private equity firm KKR, days after the scientific instruments maker backed a possible competing $5 billion bid from Advent. Spectris did not provide details on KKR's proposal, noting only that it was the second proposal by the PE firm it had rejected. The company, which provides hardware and software solutions to sectors such as pharmaceuticals, steel and automotive, said on Monday it would accept private equity firm Advent's proposal of 37.63 pounds per share if a formal offer was made. Advent and KKR did not immediately respond to Reuters' requests for comment. The competing proposal by KKR was first reported by the Wall Street Journal on Friday. Spectris is the largest takeover target this year in Britain, a country that has attracted overseas buyers in recent years due to relatively cheap valuations. Under UK takeover rules, KKR has until July 11 to make a formal offer or walk away.
