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

[Turin Machine]

Banners, signs, petitions, website, action committee. It's a field, no trees, no wildlife, nothing of much apart from the occasional circus. But hey, may damage their property values. But, hey ho.

[Andy Capp]

Well, notwithstanding the rudeness of your reply, you're right. I was mistaken and I didn't understand the context of her quote. As it happens I agree with what she said (though not particularly about the obligation/entitlement thing), and I think I could actually have quoted what she said to support my own position here.

I'm sorry Simon, the misuse of the 'no society' comment (often conflated by the left with the fictional Gordon Gekko 'greed is good' comment) is a pet hate of mine. Mind you, while it might have been inaccurate I think you were unwittingly half right in that due to policies promoted by her government we are now a nation of home owners and this is bound to cause problems with planning matters which is quite understandable when you consider that there is little value in anything else we can invest in.

Banners, signs, petitions, website, action committee. It's a field, no trees, no wildlife, nothing of much apart from the occasional circus. But hey, may damage their property values. But, hey ho.

I doubt very much that is true.

By the way, I am not against Sandleford development. I just don't trust the way it has come in to being.

[On the edge]

....
By the way, I am not against Sandleford development. I just don't trust the way it has come in to being.

That's fair enough, but how would you see it come into being? It's happened in the normal way as far as I can see. That is someone had an idea and works up a proposal. The only other way I can see would be for the planners (i.e the Council) to come up with schemes. I must admit, that would fill me with dread.

[Andy Capp]

That's fair enough, but how would you see it come into being?

Through due process.

[On the edge]

Through due process.

But they've been following process? Which bit causes you concern? Frankly, if I was a developer, I'd want to cover all eventualities before I applied for planning permission; to do otherwise means it hasn't been thought through.

The first stage of planning permission is 'outline' - where you'll see what you are up against politically. Outline means you'll have a rough workable scheme, but you clearly won't have invested in the full monty.

Yes,means also means talking to the likely anti's up front, what's wrong with that?

[Andy Capp]

But they've been following process? Which bit causes you concern? Frankly, if I was a developer, I'd want to cover all eventualities before I applied for planning permission; to do otherwise means it hasn't been thought through.

The first stage of planning permission is 'outline' - where you'll see what you are up against politically. Outline means you'll have a rough workable scheme, but you clearly won't have invested in the full monty.

Yes,means also means talking to the likely anti's up front, what's wrong with that?

*deep breath* I have not argued against what has happened except to say I think the language of the letter is inappropriate. You, Simon et al. seem to be picking an argument about something few if any are against.

[On the edge]

*deep breath* I have not argued against what has happened except to say I think the language of the letter is inappropriate. You, Simon et al. seem to be picking an argument about something few if any are against.

*look of stunned amazement* arguably it was a private letter between two parties. It wasn't meant for public consumption and was simply trying to engage a legitimate discussion. Arguably, if I really wanted to be pedantic, I'd say the recipient was being inpolite in showing it to the press. For my part, I can't see his that coloured your view of the process, but never mind.

[Andy Capp]

Arguably, if I really wanted to be pedantic, I'd say the recipient was being inpolite in showing it to the press.

I understand that the letter was unsolicited and privacy should therefore never be assumed, so I don't know why you would feel that. It would be daft to send private letters to people with whom you have no relationship, or are not known.

For my part, I can't see his that coloured your view of the process, but never mind.

My views have already been aired previously. I'm not saying that the process has been coloured, I simply think the letter was clumsy, however, others seem to think that the authors actions are extraordinary.

[Simon Kirby]

I understand that the letter was unsolicited and privacy should therefore never be assumed, so I don't know why you would feel that. It would be daft to send private letters to people with whom you have no relationship, or are not known.

Perhaps we were brought up differently, but if I received a private personal letter I would understand that it would be rude to publish it. I'm not saying I wouldn't publish it, but I'd understand that publishing it would violate a moral code and change the dynamic. Like I said, I think it was fair enough, all's fair etc, but it was somewhat rude all the same.

[Lolly]

Perhaps we were brought up differently, but if I received a private personal letter I would understand that it would be rude to publish it. I'm not saying I wouldn't publish it, but I'd understand that publishing it would violate a moral code and change the dynamic. Like I said, I think it was fair enough, all's fair etc, but it was somewhat rude all the same.

Being pedantic, it was the NWN that published extracts from the letter, not a resident (unless you know different?) Presumably it was passed on by one of the residents but we don't know that for sure, and we can only speculate as to motive.

Referring back to the article the bits that concern me are:

"The letter was dated May 20, 2014 and signed by Mark Norgate"

The quote: “I appreciate that you may have been very much against the development at Sandleford Park, but the question as to whether or not it will happen has now been answered.

“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.”

And: "Mr Norgate also says that he had held discussions with West Berkshire Council, which told him that Warren Road would need to be widened.

He added that as a result, he and the council had agreed to ask homeowners in Warren Road if they wanted to sell enough land to accommodate the new road"

My first instinct would be to check with the Council regarding the extent of their involvement, and given that the letter was sent in May you would have thought that they would have been able to clarify that by now. If I was concerned about due process, worried about compulsory purchase, or even wanting to push the price up,I'd probably ask to see his agreement with the Council. And yet there is no comment in the article from the "council spokesperson". Equally we don't know when ( or in what context) Mr Norgate made his "It's the lowest form of journalism" comment.