Isn't access one of the things covered in planning when developments are approved?

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2014/sandlef...ommon-residents

I think it's a consideration, but developers can find their way around most planning considerations...

In the case of Sandleford I don't think an application has been lodged yet. It's just been selected as a strategic site suitable for accommodating 2000? houses within a certain timeframe. The finer details such as access, infrastructure etc should be tied down when the application is submitted, and insufficient/inadequate access could be a reason for refusal, which is presumably why the developer has made this "offer".

I'm sure the residents of Warren Road are astute enough to see it for what it is. Whether they will succumb to the offer remains to be seen.

Deviating slightly from the thread, I think Mr Norgate might regret this comment:

“It is the lowest form of journalism to ask me to comment on a letter that was sent in private to a resident and I’m not interested in answering your questions about it.”

Well done Dan Cooper & the NWN!

As far as I see it the developer is doing just what they should be doing. Sandleford needs good access onto the Andover Road and the developer is making just the kind of approach they need to make. I can understand the consternation of the folk who live around Warren Road, but if the developer is willing to pay over the odds to buy their houses then to me that seems like a perfectly fair exchange.

I would have liked to see the local politicos taking some responsibility and showing some leadership over this rather than being evasive and vote-grubbing, so it's disappointing to see that neither Cole nor Swift-Hook had anything positive to say for themselves.

I'm not sure you can reasonably expect a politician to behave in a vote losing way, especially this close to an election.

It would suggest the usual thing has happened where we are shown a Beatrix Potter impression of the development, but of course, hidden from the detail is that access is a problem. I wonder what else is in store. Notwithstanding that the language in the letter is not of the most sensitive I have read.

"“As such, I would like to come and discuss with you the ways in which you could benefit from the development happening, as opposed to being a financial victim of it.”

It would suggest then, that if you are in close proximity but don't have land that would be attractive to the developer, you might find yourself being a 'financial victim'.

I expect virtually every politician to do precisely what you imply and say whatever it is they think people want to hear because they're only in politics for the power and they'd make a pact with Old Nick if it would give them what they crave.

But I'm still idealistic enough to want politicians to say what it is they believe in and make decisions that are right for society even if those decisions are locally unpopular.


The threats to the success of Sandleford have always been obvious. Access and traffic is one area, but quality design and the delivery of a sustainably managed and funded Country Park are other biggies. It's possible that Sandleford will be fantastic, but it's very unlikely unless our local politicians make it happen, and all that I see is the Tories saying nothing in the hope that the reactionary Conservative-voting Wash Commoners won't defect to the Lib Dems who are mopping up the Nimbies with their cynical rhetoric.


I don't see it like that. It's always going to be indelicate approaching someone who's antagonised by the thought of the construction of a proletariat spawning-vat on what they have come to think of as their green and pleasant land - if it happened to me I'd be terribly upset too. But if I was offered £50k over and above the value of my house to up-sticks and make way for the hyperspace bypass then, indelicate or not, I'm pretty sure I'd take the money.

Is that how much is on offer or just a guess? When you take into account stamp duty on a new house, removal costs etc plus the stress of moving it might not seem such an attractive offer. And it doesn't factor in the emotional investment in a home.

Complete guess.

We are continually talking about the politicians whenever these types of applications are put forward but I suspect that really they haven't got a clue between them. This statement goes some way towards confirming that for me.

The council’s portfolio holder for planning, Hilary Cole, said that she wasn’t able to confirm or deny whether discussions took place, as they usually occurred between developers and council officers rather than councillors.

However, she added that it wasn’t uncommon for developers to hold pre-planning discussions with a local authority.


Well done Mrs Cole for that gem.

That's the essence of the market; the home owner doesn't need to accept the offer no matter how much is pitched.

The emotional bit is an interesting point. Everyone seems to be screaming about solving our housing shortage. New ones have to go somewhere. Look round Newbury and us there just one site that hasn't attracted vociferous opposition? Ironically, even the 'brown field' one got a lot of stick from the very party promoting it! It's worth remembering that for most of us, the home we've invested emotions in was new once and must have disturbed someone.

In my view, this is exactly why we need some real political leadership and not the consensus of failure we have locally. Let's have a real plan and a real vision which is supported and defended, rather than crocodile tears about potential threats to Flopsy's fictional burrow!

Agreed.

I made no comment about the offer, only the language. I'm only taking the words in good faith as reported, but the language looks to me to be be tactless. The author's response to the NWN suggests they have touched nerve too.

Quite. A clear display of 'disingenuosity'.

We see it differently. I rather liked the directness of the developer's comment. One of the residents who received the approach went to the paper to make some mischief in support of their objection, and that's fair enough, but I see nothing inappropriate in the offer or the language that it's couched in. The development needs a decent access road off the Andover Road and Warren Road is an obvious candidate.

Actually what the south of Newbury needs is a segment of ring road cutting through from the Swan roundabout on the north bank of the Enborne and joining the Andover Road in a big roundabout at the Woodpecker, and the Sandleford estate needs access onto that, but until we get some visionary political leadership and as a community take responsibility for that vision then we'll continue to box ourselves in with piece-meal development and choke the town up irretrievably for lack of infrastructure.

Officially, there hasn't been any offer and language is a matter of choice, but if I were a recipient, I would be offended. I'd also be upset if I was an unfortunate neighbour who wouldn't benefit from the the 'bung' to sell land for a project we were all once united against. It is that line about being a 'financial victim', it is a clumsy comment.


Quite right. Sandleford, right or wrong, is going to happen one day, but I fail to see any suitable preparation for that or other likely developments.

Like Andy I see the approach (as reported) tactless. In fact I'd go further and say that it appears rather aggressive. I have no doubt that pre-planning discussions have taken place with West Berkshire Council officers and that using Warren Road as an access route is a sticking point, but there are (supposedly) democratic methods of a LA going about facilitating strategic development. Hence Ms Cole's attempt to disassociate herself from the issue, and Mr Swift-Hook's comment :

Regarding the letter sent to Wash Common residents, Newbury Town Council leader and West Berkshire councillor Julian Swift-Hook said: “It is certainly news to me that a developer becomes responsible for investigating West Berkshire planning policy.

“A lot of questions need to be answered.”

And I'm very surprised that you would call the person who passed the letter on to the NWN a "mischief maker", even if you did caveat it with a "fair enough".... I'm guessing that the objections to access via Warren Road must have some validity and are not just NIMBYiSM or the approach would not have been made in the first place. (And before you ask I don't live anywhere near Sandleford so am not directly affected!)

It's pretty naive to think that developers of any description don't do a fair bit of preparatory work with all potentially impacted parties before coming out in public. One of the biggest examples round here was Vodafone on the sold Showground at Shaw. Was the first time when anyone knew really when a rough plan was submitted to WBC? Err no! Similarly with our sparkly new Hospital, which suddenly appeared in the much vaunted 'green gap' between Thatcham and Newbury which the then in power political group had pledged to protect. Both were built in contradiction to the local strategic plan.

Someone is making play with the potential developer for Sandleford; but of course, so would I, to get any offer up. Yes, I'd be upset if I were a neighbour; just as much as I would be if my neighbour decided to build two massive sheds in his rear garden and turn his frontage into a caravan park. That's real life I'm afraid.

I'm not suggesting the resident went public with their letter to make mischief for its own sake, but I assume they wanted to embarrass the developer to serve their own interests, and I'm assuming that those interests are frustrating the development of Sandleford.

I think a better strategy for anyone receiving the letter is to thank the developer and name their price. The developer is likely to need to demolish the houses in order to secure planning permission, and while they can probably get the council to use their compulsory purchase powers it's a process that can soak up an awful lot of time and legal costs, on both sides, and the resident only ends up with the market cost, so a much better strategy is to be pragmatic and try to strike a decent bargain with the developer.

Someone tries to embarrass to get their way? Heaven forbid!


The divide and rule strategy. Perhaps the sender of letter has other motives that you haven't aired. Perhaps the sender of the letter is concerned about due process. Sometimes there are things that are more important than money, whether it is your home, public spaces or allotment.

That would be rather nice to think, but by their actions, wouldn't apply to our today's breed of politician and let's face it, the majority of their electors have followed suit, as you've evidenced before with Council house sales. Sadly, today, everyone (the vast majority) does seem to have their price.