Back to our main Maltings page
Here is a timeline of the key moments in the new Berwick Maltings development plan.
Fire destroys much of the derelict early-19th century Maltings, which had been purchased by Berwick Borough Council for housing. Three boys are arrested.
The Maltings (Berwick) Trust is formed (a charity).
After a public campaign to build a professional arts centre in Berwick, the Maltings venue in Eastern Lane is opened. Designed by Graham Law and Colin Ross of architects Law and Dunbar-Nasmith, the new building sits well in its context, without overpowering the skyline and its terracotta roofs melding with the historic architecture of the town.
The Maltings building wins a RIBA Regional Award. On 22nd November 1991, The Newcastle Journal states: "At the Maltings in Berwick, the Law and Dunbar-Nasmith Partnership designed an arts centre within a building which had been a multi-storey maltings and grain store. The opportunity was taken to use this centrally located site to provide a 330-seat theatre with fully equipped stage. The judges said: 'This is a scheme of great imagination and positive conservation.'"
The Henry Travers Studio was updated and improved, creating an additional theatre space transforming it into a "state-of-the-art black box studio theatre" with retractable seating for 74 (PDF).
Elected council leaders form a group to co-operate for the good of the historic Borderland region and lobby central government for regeneration money.
“The Partnership is a coalition of five councils representing Cumberland, Dumfries and Galloway, Northumberland, Scottish Borders and Westmorland and Furness. The first Borderlands summit was held in April 2014 in Peebles where regional leaders met for the first time to discuss shared economic opportunities and challenges. These included areas including tourism, energy, forestry, education and training.
The authorities continued to work in partnership and in 2017 the Borderlands Inclusive Growth Proposition was submitted to both the UK and Scottish Governments. After years of further development work the Borderlands Inclusive Growth Deal was signed in March 2021 bringing up to £452 million of fresh investment to the Borderlands area. The Partnership make up changed following Local Government Reorganisation in April 2023 with Cumberland Council and Westmorland and Furness Council replacing the former Carlisle City Council and Cumbria County Council.”
(From www.borderlandsgrowth.com/the-partnership)
Northumberland County Council commissions a report into the condition of the building.
A Berwick-upon-Tweed Economic Plan (PDF) is published. The refurbishment and expansion of the Maltings is suggested as a goal, at a cost of £250,000. This would allow for 350 more performances a year.
Borderlands partnership secures the first large funding committment. The Berwick Conference Centre and Theatre is stressed as a priority.
“To support the visitor economy and local growth in the town, UK Government will invest in Berwick Theatre and Conference Centre to facilitate culture led regeneration and economic development in the area.”
The Maltings Trust then spends £121,274 on a “feasibility and scoping study” for an ambitious capital project. Money was given by the Borderlands Partnership. The Maltings Trust, NCC and Advance Northumberland are all refusing to show the outputs of this study to the public.
A £17.7m redevelopment plan is announced for the Maltings, with £15m from the Borderlands Regeneration Deal and the rest contributed by Northumberland County Council.
An architectural competition to select a design and an architect is launched under the auspices of the Royal Institute for British Architecture (RIBA).
An architectural brief is published to guide submissions. It states:
“This project will provide a landmark building and high-profile visual symbol of the impact of the Borderlands Inclusive Growth Deal. The new Maltings will also act as a key driver for the culture-led regeneration of Berwick-upon-Tweed — and a significant catalyst for economic growth, job creation, renewed civic pride, destination tourism, creative and commercial development.”
Also stated was an aspiration for the building to be “an architectural beacon overlooking the River Tweed and visible from the Royal Border railway bridge and East Coat Mainline train route” (taken from the Maltings web site).
So an explicit goal was 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.
An evaluation committee is formed to judge the competition. How the make-up of this judging committee was determined is not known. It consists of:
No elected representatives were appointed to the committee, nor any members of heritage organisations.
The new Maltings design becomes controversial when the president of RIBA Simon Alford’s own architectural firm, AHMM, is shortlisted.
Experienced competition organiser Malcolm Reading of Malcolm Reading Consultants said: 'This situation is a classic conflict of interest issue and organisations should have policies in place to manage this. It should never have happened. Fixing it is easy. AHMM should withdraw, the RIBA should apologise to the client for poor governance and wasting time, and then put policies in place to prevent a recurrence.'
AHMM did not withdraw.
Reading also questioned the make-up of the final five. 'Why is the shortlist made up of well-established firms?’ he asked. 'It's a modest project yet would be perfect for smaller practices and new talent.'
Historic England send the Maltings and/or NCC a letter advising 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.
The architects MICA are appointed from a shortlist of five: Allford Hall Monaghan Morris (AHMM), Burrell Foley Fischer, Carmody Groarke, MICA Architects, Space Architects.
The competing design proposals are not made public.
Northumberland County Council asks for £5m more for Maltings Project from the Borderlands Fund. The cost of the proposed rebuild will now be over £22m.
MICA is awarded a £2,180,426.67 contract, roughly 10 percent of the proposed cost.
Apart from an interior image, the winning design is not made public. We do know that the very first design was L-shaped and lower than either of the later designs.
A Town Hall meeting is convened, with Maltings Trust chair Scott Sherrard presenting an update and taking questions. In response to our questions, he claimed that the goal of an "architectural beacon visible from the train" was the phrasing of the funding organisation, not the Maltings. He also assured us that the building would be "gorgeous", and "not a shed". Most remarkably, he claimed that the height of the building would not be higher than the existing 1990 building.
All of these claims would be contradicted in 2024 and 2025.
Northumberland County Council (the Maltings applicant) seeks a screening opinion (24/01683/SCREEN) from a planning consultant about the necessity of an Environmental Impact Assessment in relation to the rebuild of the Maltings. From the consultant's letter:
“In light of these considerations, the intended application proposals do not exceed the relevant thresholds or meet the criteria in the Column 2 of Schedule 2, and as the site is also not wholly or partly in a sensitive area it follows that the proposal is not Schedule 2 development and that an EIA is not required.
I trust that you can agree with this analysis and duly provide formal written confirmation that there is no requirement for an EIA for the development that is proposed.”
The planning officer feel that it will not be necessary but notes:
“Berwick-upon-Tweed Conservation Area Character Appraisal suggests that the existing Maltings building is regarded to have certain merits in terms of how its design echoes traditional local features, such as roof vents and the use of pantiles. Whilst no information has been submitted at this stage, keeping the scale and massing of the proposed extensions in proportion with the surroundings would likely mean that any impacts arising would be limited.
The site is located within the Berwick Conservation Area and within the setting of a number of listed buildings. There is potential for the proposed development to have an impact on existing heritage assets, including potentially having a significant effect on the archaeological assets and cultural heritage of the site area. Keeping the scale and massing of the proposed extensions in proportion with the surroundings would likely mean that any impacts arising would be limited and opportunities should be taken to ensure the development preserves or enhances the surrounding heritage assets.”
Although given the knowledge at the time (no sight of the plans!) the planning officer considers there to be no requirement for an EIA, he cautions:“The LPA (local planning authority) reserves the right to alter this screening opinion if further information becomes available to demonstrate that the environmental impacts of the proposal are likely to be significant in the terms specified in the Regulations.
This assessment does not imply any consideration of the planning merits of the proposals or indicate the likely success or otherwise of the application for planning permission.”
The EIA regulations include impact on cultural heritage and the landscape, and so given the impact on Berwick, this could be seen to be an attempt by the applicant to avoid due scrutiny. The planning officer acknowledges the potential for harm.
A brief public consultation of the proposed design is held. It takes the form of an exhibition at the Maltings which was open for a total of five hours, over two sessions on the 20th and 24th of July. The proposals were also made available in the form of a 6 page PDF which could be downloaded. People were invited to submit comments between August 2nd and August 19th. The building proposed had pitched roofs in places, as a small concession to the exceptional setting.
Historic England is brought in to consult on the suitability of the design. MICA is told to redesign the external appearance so as to appear less contrived and with flat roofs. The architect states that Historic England asked for “a building that looks modern” (a remark to Julian Smart during the second public consultation) and that the choice of a roof style was not his responsibility.
All county councils are required to devise and make public a Statement of Community Involvement (PDF). This includes consultation with local conservation groups and Historic England when applicable. Our opinion is that for this to be legitimate, local conservation groups have to be accountable to residents and take into account their opinions, especially on a plan that affects everyone.
Scott Sherrard, chairman of the Maltings Trust writes in the brochure covering the August to December 2024 season at The Maltings about the proposed redevelopment:
“Any design must live happily within its heritage location and the Berwick skyline, and we believe we can better exploit the panoramic views of that surrounding beauty.”
A second public consultation is held, again with limited hours (seven hours in total). The event takes place in the bar at the Maltings but is not signposted when viewers arrive at the event. Feedback forms are provided, but no pens or places to sit and write. The proposals are displayed on boards with very few exterior images. The impact of the building and the changes since the last public display are however still notable. It is described on the website as a “pre-planning consultation”. The 2024 and 2025 public consultations have now been available in physical form for a combined 12 hours.
As shown in the comparison above, the roofline of the new design is even higher than the old one.
Public have until 7th February 2025 to make their feelings known, including online.
MICA makes a presentation to CAAG (Conservation Area Advisory Group) to which Julian Smart is kindly invited by CAAG's chair. The extra visualisations shown are shocking in their impact on Berwick views. The architect suggests an electricity substation may be needed for the building. He also reiterates that they are not ideological about pitched or flat roofs but that Historic England (specifically, Martin Lowe) suggested pitched roofs would be 'incongruous'. There is no mention of a huge flat-roofed building looking incongruous in its historic setting. Julian Smart requests that visualisations from the railway bridge be included (especially given the plant on the building's roof) as this is an important view and an introduction to Berwick for many. The architect says he will try to include this view (unfortunately there is no such visualisation in the application).
At the end of the presentation, the representative from Advance Northumberland (a rebrand of its predecessor, scandal-riddled Arch) fixes the CAAG chair with an intense stare and emphasizes the size of the project and therefore the importance of it going ahead. The chair promises to give CAAG's answer soon on whether the new design would put off more visitors than it would attract.
Our contact in Historic England is unable to give a satisfactory answer to the question of why they think the current design is sensitive to its location within Berwick. We submit a Freedom of Information request to Historic England for the relevant correspondence where they advise the architect to remove the pitched roofs.
Berwick Heritage begins a campaign to change the design. A change.org petition is started to gather objections, and many people also make their feelings clearer on the feedback form for the second public consultation.
CAAG is expected to give their verdict on the plans shortly.
The Maltings put up a press release stating that the cost of the new Maltings is now £28.3m. The original cost was put at £17.7m.
Shortly after the second public Consultation, Scott Sherrard writes to the friends of the Maltings. In an email titled "The New Maltings: A beacon for a confident Berwick," he states that the Trust will vacate the current building by May 31, 2025, with site clearance next, construction starting summer 2025, and a reopening slated for 2027. The new venue—backed by the Borderlands Partnership and Northumberland County Council (NCC)—promises a flexible theatre, two cinemas, community spaces, a river-view terrace, and an expanded café/bar, all to boost Berwick’s economy and confidence.
It defends the rebuild by citing the 2016 NCC condition report (millions in repairs needed) and the current building’s inefficiencies—skyrocketing energy costs, poor accessibility, and outdated facilities. Important changes include modernized spaces and a new Shoe Lane/Bridge Street entry, though details stay broad. The chair justifies the bold, modern design (by MICA Architects and Charcoalblue) as a necessary "beacon" for a thriving Berwick, dismissing "pastiche" (i.e. any other style but modernism) and embracing its boxy, assertive look despite its size and prominence.
Key phrases to justify the plan are "We believe Berwick's cultural centre should not be afraid to stand out" and "a dramatic addition to views".
Delays are blamed on scrutiny of public funds, inflation (e.g., Ukraine war steel costs), and site challenges like archaeology, with an £8m shortfall forcing redesigns. Economic perks—like the £500k Lowry exhibition uplift—are touted to sell the project, alongside jobs and community access. Q&As aim to address concerns, but the tone suggests a fait accompli, urging acceptance of a done deal over open debate.
The tone is quite different from earlier, more conciliatory statements such as "Any design must live happily within its heritage location and the Berwick skyline".
The Northumberland Gazette posts an article 'Planning application for the new Maltings venue in Berwick is imminent'. Council leader Glen Sanderson reveals that nearly a third of the 336 respondents reacted badly to the plan.
Martin Lowe of Historic England responds to our question: how is the new design not incongruous in its setting? His reply reveals a disturbing lack of independence, starting from the assumption that the building must exist in this form, and the ideology of purist modernism ("form follows function"). 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.
"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.
In a letter to David Smith MP, the Berwick Civic Society planning committee endorses the latest Maltings design, singing its praises and excusing the flat roof on various pretexts. Mr Gowthorpe reveals that there is an informal advisory group to the Maltings, whose makeup has not been made public apart from his participation.
Mr Gowthorpe claims: "Complex modern buildings generally require flat roofs to accommodate extensive mechanical and electrical plant, essential for energy efficiency, ventilation and temperature control. Much of this plant requires fresh air."
And yet the previous design had a much more interesting roofline. We are told that it was Historic England that requested the flat roof out of the wish for a "modern design" - not that it was functionally necessary. Did MICA present a completely unworkable design in 2024? Surely such a large and experienced firm could not be so incompetent. So this has the flavour of a post-hoc justification.
Berwick Heritage strongly indicate to Mr Smith their views on the heritage destruction to be caused by the plan, despite all reassurances.
The Berwick Heritage petition reaches 336 signatures: the same number as the total number of respondents to the NCC survey.
Our Freedom of Information request to Historic England yields a letter written to the Maltings team in 2022, urging for restraint in the language used to call for a 'architectural beacon' in the brief. It mirrors our own concerns as expressed in the 2024 Town Hall meeting. 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
The application is submitted for validation.
The application is made available to the public for viewing and comment: 25/00792/CCD. We begin our objection page with links and advice.
A special meeting of the Berwick Town Council takes comments from the public. The word "abomination" was used by one resident to describe the scheme, and over 70% of speakers were against the design.
The Victorian Society objects 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 has similarly warned of the "potential to cause considerable harm."
Berwick Town Council vote unanimously in favour of the Maltings proposal, for their advice to the strategic planning committee. This advice consists of 13 words, with no mention of unease amongst residents or any concerns about the impact on the conservation area.
Berwick Heritage release a video and song, 'Spirit of Berwick', about the Maltings proposal.
Historic England have supported the Maltings proposal - predictable after their demand for pitched roofs to be banished. They add a caution about the manner in which the signage on the south side is illuminated.
Royal Mail starts delivery of over 9,000 Berwick Heritage leaflets to Berwick and the surrounding area. Hysteria ensues, with some irate residents taking to social media and email to paint Berwick Heritage as a sinister and/or unqualified organisation out to harm Berwick. However, more people are emboldened to post objections on the planning portal, as not everyone has been aware of the application or the extent and nature of the rebuild. There are soon over 100 objections, almost certainly a record for a planning application here.
In response, the Maltings Trust chair, Scott Sherrard, sends out a newsletter speaking of the 'campaign' against the design, before renewing his own campaign by asking for more supporting comments on the portal. The chair also belittles heritage concerns as "nostalgia", apparently unaware of the irony that nostalgia features in much of the Maltings' own programming.
The Northumberland Gazette publishes the story Berwick Maltings design debate stepped up as more than 300 people submit their views.
The Northumberland Gazette publishes the story Berwick Maltings redevelopment planning decision set to happen soon.
The application has been recommended for acceptance by the planning officer, Jon Sharp, in his report. This means the application will almost certainly be permitted.
The NCC strategic planning committee has decided to permit the application, with just a few minutes of debate.
See also our speech at the committee, and our statement.
A building contractor is expected to be chosen (or may have been chosen earlier in the year).
Various recommendations to progress the project are made by the NCC cabinet. These include: delegating authority to the relevant executive directors to submit the Full Business Case (FBC) and finalise the award to the council of £25.5million from the Borderlands Inclusive Growth Deal with the organisations involved; allocation of £500,000 from the council’s Climate Change Capital Fund, increasing the council’s total budget allocation to £2.8million, to significantly reduce the building’s carbon emissions from current levels; agreement for an extra amount of just over £4million to be allocated for works to the Gymnasium building at Berwick Barracks and to enable submission of the FBC on the understanding that this would be fully reimbursed following FBC approval.
Some of the funding is apparently required for the "construction contract price process, which is 'required to finalise and allow the submission of the FBC to Borderlands Partnership'. These are a series of extensive surveys of the existing building and 'completion of the design itself to a level detailed enough to enable a contract price'".
The Maltings will present a business plan for final approval.
Building work is expected to commence.
Planned completion of the building.