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]

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.

Not sure exactly where on the Andover Road the Woodpecker is, but South Newbury would definitely benefit from a direct link between the A34 junction and the Basingstoke Road/old A34 roundabout. Naïvely I assumed that would be an integral part of the Sandleford development.

[Simon Kirby]

Naïvely I assumed that would be an integral part of the Sandleford development.

The Woodpecker is on the junction of the Washwater road and the Andover road. It makes the southern-most extent of the suburban settlement boundary.

No, Sandleford is not currently going to deliver any strategic routes. It's not really a Sandleford issue, I mentioned it because it's just another example of how both lack strategic leadership, and how as a society we don't take responsibility for our strategic development and tend only to act out of direct self-interest - the curse of the Thatcher generation - "there is no such thing as Society".

[Andy Capp]

The Woodpecker is on the junction of the Washwater road and the Andover road. It makes the southern-most extent of the suburban settlement boundary.

No, Sandleford is not currently going to deliver any strategic routes. It's not really a Sandleford issue, I mentioned it because it's just another example of how both lack strategic leadership, and how as a society we don't take responsibility for our strategic development and tend only to act out of direct self-interest - the curse of the Thatcher generation - "there is no such thing as Society".

What a load of cobblers. The 'no society' was about people taking responsibility for their lot.

" I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it: 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society.

There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."