Sandleford row erupts again following letter to Wash Common residents Options

[Andy Capp]

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

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

[Andy Capp]

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'.

[Simon Kirby]

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

[Andy Capp]

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.

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.

[Simon Kirby]

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. Paying over the market value for something precious is made to sound generous, but that won't be understood until the actual offer is made, by which time some would have already 'spent it' I suspect. The authors response to the NWN suggests they have touched nerve too.

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.

[Lolly]

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.

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!)

[Simon Kirby]

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!)

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.

[Andy Capp]

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.

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

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.

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.

[Simon Kirby]

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.

Like I say, as a tactic it's fair enough, I'm just not swayed by the argument.

My assumptions might be completely wrong, but what I think is that:

• The developer wants to make money and has no other motivation than that.
• The majority of the "No" campaign are reactionary Nimbies who don't want change and aren't interested in the benefits, either to the environment or to people other than themselves.
• The "No" campaigners who front the access road and currently live on a quiet lane are going to live on a reasonably busy road and that will change their homes for the worse.
• The Lib-Dem politicos who are agitating against Sandleford are mostly not motivated by ideology but just grandstanding
• The few Lib Dems who are ideologically motivated are the hair-shirted dog-banning self-flagellating ascetic cyclists who'd have the majority of us living in town-centre high-rises whether we'd like to or not.

I'd like to have a Country Park, and I'd like Sandleford to be a well-designed suburban environment with plenty of green space and no traffic worries, and all of that is possible but it needs our local politicos to ensure we get it, and the Tories have a poor track record.

[Andy Capp]

My assumptions might be completely wrong, but what I think is that:

• The developer wants to make money and has no other motivation than that.

I doubt there will be any disagreement here.

The majority of the "No" campaign are reactionary Nimbies who don't want change and aren't interested in the benefits, either to the environment or to people other than themselves.

I see the majority of the 'no' campaigning exercising their freedom to to fight for what they want. Seeing as you would sell up for £50k and sod anyone else says it all.

The "No" campaigners who front the access road and currently live on a quiet lane are going to live on a reasonably busy road and that will change their homes for the worse.

Quite.

The Lib-Dem politicos who are agitating against Sandleford are mostly not motivated by ideology but just grandstanding

Agreed.

The few Lib Dems who are ideologically motivated are the hair-shirted dog-banning self-flagellating ascetic cyclists who'd have the majority of us living in town-centre high-rises whether we'd like to or not.

And the Simon Kirby party would have a sod everyone, the market talks. I think that stinks too.

I'd like to have a Country Park, and I'd like Sandleford to be a well-designed suburban environment with plenty of green space and no traffic worries, and all of that is possible but it needs our local politicos to ensure we get it, and the Tories have a poor track record.

Agreed.