Back to our main Maltings page
What is planned for the Maltings?
How do I view the plans and comment?
How was the architect chosen?
What's the timeline for the project?
What will it cost?
What will the effects be on historic Berwick?
How does the proposed design violate planning guidelines?
Do we object to everything in the proposal?
Just how revolted are people by the design?
Are we NIMBYs?
Has the application been approved?
What groups and individuals are involved?
What is Historic England's role in this?
What is planned for the Maltings?The original 1990s building, designed rather well to fit into the Berwick townscape, will be demolished and a 75% bigger building constructed with facilities including:
"Build and fit out a new state of the art 400 seat theatre as an extension to the existing building, with a significantly enhanced stage and backstage area, fully equipped with industry standard digital projection, and significantly enhanced accessibility front of house and back stage. Suitable for a diverse live programme, large meetings/conferences, and film screenings.
Repurpose the existing theatre and back stage areas into a dedicated and fully soundproofed 2 screen cinema facility, potentially one ‘boutique’ 80 seat space and one larger 150–200 seat auditorium.
Reconfigure and upgrade the studio theatre, meeting rooms and public spaces to be as multi-functional and flexible as possible, countering the many ‘pinch points’ which currently exist, taking maximum advantage of the site’s spectacular and unrivalled views of the mouth of the River Tweed, and locating the venue distinctively in its location whilst maximising visitor and commercial appeal."
Although the heights of the current and new buildings differ slightly along their length, the highest segment of the new building will be about 4.45m above the current building. This can be obtained by comparing the elevations in "EXISTING N AND S ELEVATIONS" and "PROPOSED N AND S ELEVATIONS" on the portal, measuring the elevations, and comparing it with the key given (0-10m).
For more information, see the Maltings consultation page, the Maltings site, and the planning application 25/00792/CCD.
How do I view the plans and comment?On March 12th 2025, the application went live on the planning portal. The application was permitted on August 5th 2025, but comments can still be viewed on the portal. Please see 25/00792/CCD.
How was the architect chosen?RIBA organised a competition with no public scrutiny. Included in the brief were these paragraphs:
"Maintain the town centre position and related footfall and visibility, whilst also creating an architectural beacon overlooking the River Tweed and visible from the Royal Border railway bridge (and East Coat Mainline train route)."
"This project will provide a landmark building and high-profile visual symbol of the impact of the Borderlands Inclusive Growth Deal."
So there was an explicit goal to be highly visible, with the implication that this would override all other aesthetic considerations and be a flag-waving opportunity for the funders of the Borderlands initiative.
The panel choosing the architect consisted of: Ros Lamont (Executive Director, The Maltings Trust), Megan Mullarkey (Project Manager, Advance Northumberland), Euan Macdonald (RIBA Architect Adviser and Partner Hawkins/Brown), Andrew Mowbray (Head of Project Management Advance Northumberland), Damon Barnaby (Project Manager Northumberland County Council). There were no conservation representatives.
The shortlist comprised: Allford Hall Monaghan Morris (AHMM), Burrell Foley Fischer, Carmody Groarke, Mica Architects, Space Architects. All of these architects produce the same genre of uncompromisingly modern designs.
The competition was not public, the shortlist did not offer a sufficient variety of approach, and none of the judges had expertise in choosing a sympathetic design or represented the wider interests of Berwick.
For information, please see our timeline page.
What's the timeline for the project?The history of the project so far is detailed on our timeline page. The application was recommended for acceptance by the planning officer, Jon Sharp, as of 25th July 2025, and the decision to permit the application was made at an NCC strategic planning meeting on 5th August 2025.
What will it cost?The original cost was put at £17.7m. On January 30th 2025, the Maltings put up a press release stating that the cost of the new Maltings is now a staggering £28.3m.
What will the effects be on historic Berwick?Devastating. Countless views will be ruined, and Berwick will no longer be able to claim to be 'unspoiled'. Our heritage offer will be harder to market, impacting our tourist trade. The captivating view of Berwick from the train will be dominated by a huge, blocky mass with plant on top.
Our conservation area will be substantially and irretrievably harmed, and a precedent will have been set for further inappropriate development.
There will be considerable carbon costs incurred by the new building, compared with renovating and adding to what's already there, which is much more in keeping with current conservation and ecological thinking. In addition, the larger internal space will increase the heating system's carbon footprint compared with a refurbished building. This makes a mockery of their sustainability claims.
You can find more detailed arguments in our objection page.
How does the proposed design violate planning guidelines?This is an assessment by Assistant Professor Ray Elysee of the Department of Architecture and Built Environment, Northumbria University.
Policy STP1 of the Northumberland Local Plan (NLP) sets out the spatial strategy for development in Northumberland. It is my opinion the proposal contradicts this policy and as such should be scaled down. The flat roof box shaped profile should include a more sympathetic roofline using matching or contrasting pallet of materials reflecting the vernacular architectural styles within a historical asset.
Scale, Design and Visual Impact: Policy QOP 1 of the NLP sets out a number of design principles, one of which is that development proposals should not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of existing and future occupiers of the sites and its surroundings. Quite clearly the humongous box design fails to acknowledge the roofscape and its impact of the neighbouring buildings or how it is viewed, plus the materials specified ignore the principles of the historic values and conservation policies. One could say it’s a cut and paste job of the 1970s Sports Direct building.
Impact on Heritage Assets: Policy ENV 9 of the NLP seeks to ensure that within a conservation area ‘that development enhances and reinforces the local distinctiveness of the conservation area’. Development must respect existing architectural and historic character and cultural associations by considering ‘the design, positioning, grouping, massing, scale, features, detailing, and the use of materials in existing buildings and structures’. This has been ignored, bar the small concession to divide a large box into smaller ones and lip-service to the choice of materials (which was still not finalised in February 2025).
You can find further detail in our objection page.
Do we object to everything in the proposal?No, our complaints are mainly about the unsympathetic, bland, depressing exterior design that makes no serious attempt to reconcile itself with its surroundings. There are countless examples of interesting modern buildings, so it's baffling why this is so dire.
Just how revolted are people by the design?Support measured by NCC's own survey plummeted from 82% to 63% from the pitched-roof design to the flat-roof design.
Over 160 people have strongly objected on the planning portal, many heartbroken by what is planned for Berwick.
Over 1,000 people have signed our petition.
The Victorian Society has objected to the proposal: "The introduction of such a disruptive building would completely unbalance this conservation area, harming significance and a key view of Berwick looking East. The design is inappropriate to the Conservation Area; it is not a responsible answer to the character and appearance of Berwick-upon-Tweed. In conclusion, the Society recognises the need for an updated and accessible community hub, but objects to the design and form of the proposal. It is both inappropriate and harmful to Berwick’s Conservation Area."
The Georgian Group have said that the proposal "has the potential to cause considerable harm to the integrity of the historic character of the Berwick upon Tweed Conservation Area".
Are we NIMBYs?No. Everyone who loves Berwick, now and in the future, will be affected. We cannot let the charms of this unique town be chipped away - more than ever, we must preserve our irreplaceable heritage. We would be amenable to a sympathetic development that properly respected the uniqueness and charm of Berwick.
Has the application been approved?The decision to permit the application was made on August 5th 2025 at Morpeth County Hall by the NCC Strategic Planning Committee, after just a few minutes of perfunctory debate. See the meeting details, our speech at the committee, and our statement.
What groups and individuals are involved?The owner of the building, Northumberland County Council.
The Maltings management and trustees.
The architects, MICA.
Advance Northumberland, who are managing the project. Advance is NCC's arms-length development company.
The Borderlands fund.
The Berwick Town Council in an advisory role.
Berwick Civic Society in an advisory role. Their planning committee is in favour of the flat-roof design. The chair of their planning committee, Brian Gowthorpe, is a former property developer and modernism enthusiast who dislikes what he calls 'pastiche' (apparently dismissing any traditional design in new buildings).
Berwick Conservation Area Advisory Group (CAAG) in an advisory role, including Brian Gowthorpe.
An 'informal advisory group' to the Maltings comprising unidentified members - and Brian Gowthorpe.
Historic England as a consultant, in particular Martin Lowe, who vetoed the pitched roofs design.
Conservation officer.
Members of the public.
What is Historic England's role in this?According to gov.uk: "Historic England is the government’s statutory adviser on the historic environment, championing historic places and helping people to understand, value and care for them." They are taxpayer funded.
Historic England (specifically, Martin Lowe) have been involved in pre-application discussions. The architects, MICA, have asserted that Historic England rejected the more sympathetic plan with pitched roofs, and have not (apparently) informally objected to the current, highly intrusive design. If so, it appears that their input conflicts with statements on their website describing their role and mission, as described on their web site, to:
Understand historic places
Help people 'care for and enjoy the historic environment’
Consider settings and views and safeguard settings in a wider landscape
Support innovative schemes that protect and enhance the significance of buildings and historic places
Historic England's conservation principles are set out in detail here. See also this PDF document: The Setting of Heritage Assets: Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning.
If Historic England has been influential in promoting an exterior less sympathetic to Berwick’s historic environment and iconic views, then it has surely done the opposite of what, as a taxpayer funded organisation, it is supposed to do.
UPDATE 1: I have been discussing this with my contact at Historic England. His statement is:
"Theatres have particular requirements for space, and particularly for height, which designers have to contend with. In Berwick, as in many historic towns, the challenge posed is also one of creating a building with some standing and visibility, to draw people to it, but which also harmonises with its context. In the case of the Maltings, we think that the architects have worked successfully to balance all of these requirements, and are happy with the design proposed.
The proposal does indeed avoid a pitched roof but, given the height required, I think this would look incongruous. Although earlier drafts did feature some pitched roof elements, these didn’t work visually, appearing tokenistic and at odds with Berwick’s intricate roofscape, where the well-designed and well-detailed proposal can be accommodated.
In our view, it was inappropriate for Historic England to have such an influence over an aesthetic decision for the whole of Berwick for generations to come. The Historic England employee who was consulting on this was Martin Lowe, Principal Inspector, Historic Buildings and Areas North East.
When questioned further, he elaborated:
"When I say that a pitched roof would be incongruous, I mean in the context of a building of the height and volume required to deliver the theatre and other facilities required for the Maltings development. The scale of a single (pitched roof) building, particularly given the additional height required, would work against both the general height of buildings in the town, but particularly the intricate roofscape which is one of Berwick’s defining features.
Earlier iterations of the design attempted to avoid the issues of scale by including some pitched roof elements to break up the mass of the building. In our view these weren’t successful, ending up with single pitched elements designed to be viewed from specific directions, and roofs which became visual elements divorced from their function as part of a functional building. As you’d expect, I also wouldn’t agree with your assessment of the proposed building as bland. In our view the building is well-detailed and designed in a way which draws on its context, avoids a monolithic, unrelieved, bulk, whilst providing a strong identity appropriate to a facility which will be critical to Berwick’s cultural offer and to the sustainability which preserves its remarkable historic environment."
I asked how exactly he thought the design is well-detailed, and how it draws from its context. He responded with:
"Well-detailed – the well-considered details of elevational treatment and materials, which allows the mass to be broken up, and does a great deal to help the development fit within that very intricate roofscape, without ending up with arbitrary or ugly divisions.
Contextual factors include a palette of materials which largely draws on those predominant in Berwick’s streetscape. Perhaps just as interesting is the question of height – as a simple elevation, one might be worried about how the height proposed will sit within Berwick, but when you think about the intricate changes in level across this part of the town, and the significant use of height, in warehouses, the Dewar’s Land granary and other industrial/quayside buildings, then the issue of height becomes much less concerning."
Finding this reply unsatisfying and lacking in detail, I tried to summarise the elements of this apparently careful design for him to correct:
1. It's being divided into several boxes instead of one big box.
2. Materials are being used, some of which may be similar to ones already used in Berwick.
Unfortunately at this point he thought I was over-simplifying and declined to engage further. It seems he was unwilling to discuss just which elevational details he thought were drawn from the context of Berwick. Presumably not the vertical stripes or big picture windows, which are pretty much all the details I can see at the back.
I would like to know why the pitched roofs were not thought to be sufficiently functional. One function might be to hide the plant; another, to help the building blend into its surroundings; and yet others, to disperse rain and deter birds from nesting on the roof, which will be a massive problem at the new hospital.
The conclusion I draw from this interaction is that Historic England does not have sufficient grounds to back up claims that the Maltings design is sensitive to its context.
A Freedom of Information request has been submitted for the relevant correspondence between Historic England, Advance, MICA, and the Maltings.
UPDATE 2, 19th February, 2025: Martin Lowe of Historic England has responded to my question asking how they could approve of the incongruity of the new design. Shockingly, he used the purist ideology of "form follows function" to excuse the design. The icing on the cake is citing the new hospital (already hated for its ugly intrusion into Berwick's views) as a gleaming example of good design.
From Wikipedia: The phrase "form (ever) follows function" became a battle cry of Modernist architects after the 1930s. The credo was taken to imply that decorative elements, which architects call "ornament", were superfluous in modern buildings.
Local resident Jack Handscome comments: "At its core 'form follows function' is indeed true, architecture is a materially grounded art. It was Louis Sullivan who said Form Follows Function, but what he did not mean was a debasement of architecture to mere utility. His designs show one of the greatest late flourishings in architectural design, profusely and beautifully detailed in a way that no-one could possibly call pastiche."
This ideology, that has blighted so many of our towns and cities, is contradicted by scientific studies (1), which show that traditional buildings outperform modernist designs when it comes to the well-being of the observer. Essentially, Historic England's position is that because the building is so big, and there has to be plant on top, it gets a free pass (leading to a suspicion that "form follows function" is simply a post-hoc justification). Lowe says: "Berwick has styles of architecture across the centuries and modern buildings have a place in continuing that theme, particularly so public cultural buildings." This stance could justify pretty much any modernist design, however awful, and fails to account for the negative impact on the building's surroundings. His letter reads:
"Design is best considered in how it responds to its surroundings, both modern or historicist approaches can achieve this in theory. However, with large schemes such as the Maltings, or indeed the Infirmary a contemporary approach is better suited to dealing with a scale and requirements roof mounted plant machinery. In essence, the form better represents the function of the building, making for a better design.
As I understand the Maltings has been presented to the public on at least two occasions and whilst its design has changed it has always been a contemporary building. Considering the aspect from the south, this will make it noticeable within the traditional panorama of the estuary. Traditional reference is supplied by the brick and the way the building is broken up, rather than one monolithic block.
Adding further references such as roof slopes or traditionally sized window openings would produce a false looking building, possibly of a height greater than proposed and so more prominent. Furthermore, Berwick has styles of architecture across the centuries and modern buildings have a place in continuing that theme, particularly so public cultural buildings."
This acceptance of untrammeled, ugly modernism in historic settings has destroyed the charm of many environments, in the UK and abroad. It's sad to see it espoused by a body that is supposed to be protecting our historic settings. Conclusion: Historic England is a highly compromised organisation that does not do what it promises in public. It's now a rubber-stamping setup offering post-hoc justifications for terrible designs.
Why might this be? One theory is that Historic England doesn't want to be controversial or negative: supporting grand schemes might increase the chances of the Historic England CEO getting his 7.5% bonus (of a £145,000 salary). There is also a question over the involvement of Historic England on the board of the Hadrian's Wall Partnership Board. Given that they are helping to oversee receipt of substantial Borderlands funds - the same source as the Maltings' grant - just how independent are they?
UPDATE 3, 10th March, 2025: the Freedom of Information request has yielded an initial letter sent by Historic England in March 2022 to (redacted - presumably the Maltings Trust/Maltings CEO/NCC) from (redacted). No other correspondence (such as the letter advising the architect to remove the pitched roofs) was forthcoming. The lettter offers perfectly reasonable advice, but something went badly wrong after that.
It's fascinating to see that H.E. advises removing the goal to be a beacon visible from the train, and urges the chosen architect to work within the character and context of the town. Not only does the current design contradict this, so does the Maltings Trust chair, by titling his newsletter update of February 2025 "A beacon for a confident Berwick". It seems he didn't get the memo.
The letter reads as follows:
From: (redacted)
Sent: 24 March 2022 14:57
To: (redacted)
Cc: (redacted) ; (redacted) ; (redacted) ; (redacted)
Subject: Berwick - The Maltings
Dear (redacted)
The Maltings
Thanks very much for sharing the competition brief for the Maltings site in advance of our meeting. I think we need to be clear that, in addition to all its other benefits, this project represents a great opportunity for the heritage of the town. Clearance of buildings around the present Maltings has left quite a hole in the intricate and characterful townscape of Berwick. The opportunity exists then to stitch this area back together, both through the building itself and the public realm and other spaces around it, as well as delivering the centre envisaged.
We welcome the use of an architectural competition to stimulate creative responses to this space and excite a wider interest in the placemaking potential of the development. The competition brief also has lots of good things in it, and we particularly welcome the inclusion of the need for competition entries to respond to the historic context of the site and also avoid visual competition with the town hall. My feeling is that the brief would be strengthened if it could avoid the use of the word landmark, and with it the desire to maximise views, and particularly the requirement for the building to be clearly visible from the railway bridge as an architectural beacon.
Our major concern is how the building would relate to the intricate townscape of the historic core of Berwick, and key buildings such as the town hall mentioned above. Several different approaches are available to this site which could produce a successful design. To us this is not about a need to avoid architecture with a strong visual identity, but it is about working within the historic character and context of the town. The aspirations for a landmark building and visibility from a distance could end up working against this context, so we would very much like to work positively with you to help develop an approach and design which avoids this.
Thanks again for meeting us, and look forward to working with you.
All best wishes,
(redacted)
Development Advice North East and Yorkshire – Regions Group
Historic England | Bessie Surtees House
41-44 Sandhill | Newcastle upon Tyne | NE1 3JF
(1) For example: a Norwegian study using virtual reality (NMBU, 2020, Landscape and Urban Planning), demonstrates that traditional forms - such as pitched roofs - enhance well-being and coherence, outperforming modernist designs. Environmental psychology further supports this, with Kaplan and Kaplan (1989, The Experience of Nature) showing that coherent, traditional settings reduce stress compared to starkly functional ones. In the context of Berwick, these findings add to evidence that the proposed form inflicts substantial harm on the townscape's significance, contravening NPPF paras 202 and 203.