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

[On the edge]

Lets try another way. When the developer first came up with their big idea, they would have spoken to the planners at the Council. They didn't need to, but it was sensible and prudent. Exactly the same as I would do if I decided to build an extra few rooms on the side of my office. The Council staff would have been independent and impartial, giving only advice. In the Sandleford case, we can safely assume that the planners may well have said that it would help the proposal if Warren Road was widened and that being the case, it would be prudent to get the agreement of the affected residents. All pretty obvious really. Easier said than done, but the developer then starts, or tries to start a conversation with those people. Of course, some are anti from the start. Of course, the proposal is still only a proposal. The developer sent a letter,he could have sent a letter - then we'd have had a 'Developers Heavies at my front door headline! The conversation about widening Warren Road is a commercial discussion and each side will do what it will to get the result they desire. What it doesn't do is demonstrate that the Council have shown any interest or partiality, demonstrate that Sandleford is right or wrong, or demonstrate the developer is acting inappropriately in any way. The only thing publication does show is that the resident is not going to be an easy call; but that's up to them and them alone.

[Lolly]

The developer sent a letter,he could have sent a letter - then we'd have had a 'Developers Heavies at my front door headline!

Do you mean 'could have knocked on doors'?

In that context, we might very well have had that headline, but in May, not in November and the nature of the agreement that the Commercial developer purported to have made with the Council might have been investigated further. Instead it appears that the NWN have lifted quotes straight from the letter, and this particular quote implies that the Council is involved in a commercial process:

"he and the council had agreed to ask homeowners in Warren Road if they wanted to sell enough land to accommodate the new road."

The way I see it, either someone at the Council has overstepped the mark, or the Developer has misinterpreted/overstated the advice he was given.

[On the edge]

Do you mean 'could have knocked on doors'?

In that context, we might very well have had that headline, but in May, not in November and the nature of the agreement that the Commercial developer purported to have made with the Council might have been investigated further. Instead it appears that the NWN have lifted quotes straight from the letter, and this particular quote implies that the Council is involved in a commercial process:

"he and the council had agreed to ask homeowners in Warren Road if they wanted to sell enough land to accommodate the new road."

The way I see it, either someone at the Council has overstepped the mark, or the Developer has misinterpreted/overstated the advice he was given.

Sorry, but that's really playing with words. The council had not entered any agreement and couldn't do so without due process. What was meant is that the developer agreed with the advice he'd been given by the Council officers. In any event, what was so wrong about the developer wanting to talk to the householder? If the developer hadn't and he would have been totally within his rights not to, when his plans were made public, we'd have had the resident complaining that it was the first he'd heard about it!

[Lolly]

Sorry, but that's really playing with words.

Not intentionally - I think it's just a difference of interpretation, based on incomplete information

The council had not entered any agreement

How do you know?

and couldn't do so without due process.

I agree they shouldn't do, but the quotes in the letter ( as presented in the article) suggest otherwise.

What was meant is that the developer agreed with the advice he'd been given by the Council officers.

Again, how do you know? That isn't what it says in the NWN. Have you seen the actual letter?

In any event, what was so wrong about the developer wanting to talk to the householder?

Nothing

If the developer hadn't and he would have been totally within his rights not to, when his plans were made public, we'd have had the resident complaining that it was the first he'd heard about it!

Not sure what your point is here? If a developer put forward plans to construct a road on your land without your agreement I think you'd have rather more to complain about than the fact it was the first you'd heard about it, especially if it meant demolition of your house!

[On the edge]

Not intentionally - I think it's just a difference of interpretation, based on incomplete information


How do you know?



I agree they shouldn't do, but the quotes in the letter ( as presented in the article) suggest otherwise.


Again, how do you know? That isn't what it says in the NWN. Have you seen the actual letter?


Nothing


Not sure what your point is here? If a developer put forward plans to construct a road on your land without your agreement I think you'd have rather more to complain about than the fact it was the first you'd heard about it, especially if it meant demolition of your house!

Whatever the planners may or may not have 'agreed' with the developer, there can be no contract without the authority of the council itself which would have been made public. Search as I might, there is no public record of any such arrangement. Of course, there might have been a secret arrangement but that would be a very serious and different matter.

I have been in the position where a developer was proposing to demolish a block of flats I was living in without making any reference to me. First I knew was an article in the local press. Actually, the only thing I was worried about was the need to have the decision taken quickly; so it had no effect on me selling. One of my neighbours almost begged our Councillor to go yes because she wanted the compensation, another wanted a no because he didn't want the disruption. This is all standard stuff for any new development.

[Cognosco]

Whatever the planners may or may not have 'agreed' with the developer, there can be no contract without the authority of the council itself which would have been made public. Search as I might, there is no public record of any such arrangement. Of course, there might have been a secret arrangement but that would be a very serious and different matter.

I have been in the position where a developer was proposing to demolish a block of flats I was living in without making any reference to me. First I knew was an article in the local press. Actually, the only thing I was worried about was the need to have the decision taken quickly; so it had no effect on me selling. One of my neighbours almost begged our Councillor to go yes because she wanted the compensation, another wanted a no because he didn't want the disruption. This is all standard stuff for any new development.

I think everyone is aware that it is all cut and dried long before anything leaks to the public?

The charade of the so called planning procedures occur only to try and alleviate the flack the local politicos will face from their electorate. Sweeteners are offered (like a country park) and depending on the reaction from the plebs other sweeteners are offered. Then, miraculously, when permission is granted some time elapses before the climate becomes not conducive to be able to actually produce the sweeteners for whatever reason and for instance the developer will have to pull out if he, or she, has to actually produce the sweeteners. Next comes the developers, because of the difficult financial climate, we wont be able to actually build the x amount of affordable housing as first proposed. This invariably means the precept payers have to give the developer a bung to build any affordable housing that is required. The promised country park, if actually supplied, ends up a very miniscule muddy patch of scrub land that of course eventually has to be built on because it actually is no use as a country park. If all this sounds so familiar I wonder why?

I believe the developers letter stated the truth and it says it all in the one statement:

“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.

Agree or face the financial consequences ultimatum?

This is Newbury of course so what else can we expect?

[On the edge]

I think everyone is aware that it is all cut and dried long before anything leaks to the public?

The charade of the so called planning procedures occur only to try and alleviate the flack the local politicos will face from their electorate. Sweeteners are offered (like a country park) and depending on the reaction from the plebs other sweeteners are offered. Then, miraculously, when permission is granted some time elapses before the climate becomes not conducive to be able to actually produce the sweeteners for whatever reason and for instance the developer will have to pull out if he, or she, has to actually produce the sweeteners. Next comes the developers, because of the difficult financial climate, we wont be able to actually build the x amount of affordable housing as first proposed. This invariably means the precept payers have to give the developer a bung to build any affordable housing that is required. The promised country park, if actually supplied, ends up a very miniscule muddy patch of scrub land that of course eventually has to be built on because it actually is no use as a country park. If all this sounds so familiar I wonder why?

I believe the developers letter stated the truth and it says it all in the one statement:

“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.

Agree or face the financial consequences ultimatum?

This is Newbury of course so what else can we expect?

Therein lies the rub. The answer lies with our dear local councillors, it's that political leadership bit again. If the process is being diverted, it can only be with their connivance. Let's see some real accountability - they should be the focus of the protesters attention. If they believe the development is in the public interest, then come out and say so. defend your employees.

The conditions on developments are surely mandatory? For instance, I can't see why the Council aren't telling their legal people to enforce the Parkway condition, rather than using heavy handed tactics on innocent prospective purchasers.