IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Council's core strategy is sound..., ... what are the implications for Sandleford?
Sherlock
post Jul 6 2012, 12:56 PM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 359
Joined: 12-January 12
Member No.: 8,467



http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2012/sandlef...-is-found-sound

The report says that housing will be limited to the north and west of the site. Anyone know what this means in terms of numbers?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Jul 6 2012, 01:02 PM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



Sadly, the most important question - how many houses - is not reported. I also wonder if the alleged park will be created.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Jul 6 2012, 01:22 PM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



The worrying bit is "Mr Emerson has also told the council to review its housing provision of 10,500 homes by 2026 within three years."

Does this mean that 10,500 will not be enough to satisfy the government?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Jul 6 2012, 03:05 PM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (blackdog @ Jul 6 2012, 02:22 PM) *
The worrying bit is "Mr Emerson has also told the council to review its housing provision of 10,500 homes by 2026 within three years."

Does this mean that 10,500 will not be enough to satisfy the government?

Yes, the NWN report raises more questions than answers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Jul 6 2012, 06:44 PM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



Nothing on the WBC web site, that's disappointing.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Jul 6 2012, 06:47 PM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



Nothing on Say No to Sandleford's web site either. Actually I don't see any changes there since May so maybe the limp dems have lost interest.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Jul 6 2012, 11:27 PM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Jul 6 2012, 07:44 PM) *
Nothing on the WBC web site, that's disappointing.

There is now: http://www.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4021

The document setting out the inspector's changes to the plan runs to 70 pages!

Notable is:
Insert text to first sentence as follows: To deliver at least 10,500 homes …

WBC are not going to get away with turning down developments simply because they have met the 10,500 target set by the last government.

All in all the new planning 'framework' (we used to have planning law, now we have a framework) is aimed at reducing local authorities power to say no to developments, and tries to ensure they say yes more quickly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Jul 7 2012, 06:08 PM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jul 6 2012, 02:02 PM) *
I also wonder if the alleged park will be created.

I quite understand the cynicism, but I'm still hopeful. I think it needs a community trust to own and run the country park in perpetuity without any state involvement. Even if the park is gifted to the community the running costs will still need funding so it might be appropriate for WBC to support it, but maybe GCT would support it, or maybe it could support itself if it was allowed some limited commercial development on the site by way of an endowment. My concern is that NTC will demand control so that they can milk it for yet another pretext to load the precept, and that they'll do what they're good at and make a complete **** of the whole thing. We'll have a country park in name, but it'll be a right arm pit. The problem is that there are not many credible alternatives to NTC. I'd be surprised if GCT would want to manage it directly and it's not really their thing anyways, WBC might, but they're hardly that much better than NTC. The National Trust is an option, but they do like to charge so that might not work out too well. The best option for me a an independent community trust, but getting that off the ground from scratch is a big big challenge.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Jul 7 2012, 06:53 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



The biggest problem will be how to fund the maintenance of the new park - while I would far prefer to see ownership in the hands of a trust, I suspect that maintenance will have to be funded out by WBC or NTC out of taxation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Jul 7 2012, 09:16 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (blackdog @ Jul 7 2012, 07:53 PM) *
The biggest problem will be how to fund the maintenance of the new park - while I would far prefer to see ownership in the hands of a trust, I suspect that maintenance will have to be funded out by WBC or NTC out of taxation.

That's really the problem. NTC would make it a bean-feast and bung another quater of a million on the precept for a couple of extra officers and a bit of grounds maintenance and they'd dine out on it at the Community Services Committee for the next ten years. Of course they'd make a mess of developing and maintaining it so it would attract antisocial behaviour and become a right dive, then when some bright spark of a councillor suggests they save the tax-payer all that maintenance money and sell it for development it'll be trebbles all round at the town hall.

But from the developer's persepctive they can't develop the thing themselves and they're being generous enough already by gifting the site to the community, so all they want is a suitabe organisation to take it on, and it's a struggle to see an alternative to NTC.

A community trust might possibly develop it without public funding if it recruited enough voluntary support and got some revenue support from the GCT, and it might also generate some small revenue in much the same way that GCT does if it could comercially develop a corner of the country park, but that kind of thing takes some accomplished organising and I don't see such organisation coming together without some serious establishment help. Thing is it's that same establishment that would want NTC to get it so I'm not hopeful.

It might be possible for a community group to make a success of it but I don't see how such a group could come together with a credible business plan, stability, legitimacy, and influence in time to win the gift of the park.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Jul 7 2012, 09:18 PM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (blackdog @ Jul 7 2012, 07:53 PM) *
The biggest problem will be how to fund the maintenance of the new park - while I would far prefer to see ownership in the hands of a trust, I suspect that maintenance will have to be funded out by WBC or NTC out of taxation.


That's a fair point, but arguably the potential residents could reasonably expect some of their local taxation to be spent paying for the upkeep of green space in their immediate vicinity. Just as happens for the rest of us - where I live in 1960s splendor, our local parks are maintained by the Council.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Jul 8 2012, 07:57 AM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (On the edge @ Jul 7 2012, 10:18 PM) *
That's a fair point, but arguably the potential residents could reasonably expect some of their local taxation to be spent paying for the upkeep of green space in their immediate vicinity. Just as happens for the rest of us - where I live in 1960s splendor, our local parks are maintained by the Council.

I wouldn't object to public funds maintaining what would be a great community asset - but I do feel that ownership by a public trust would offer more long term protection from development. However, the first step is to get the current owners to agree to give the land away.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Jul 8 2012, 10:46 AM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (blackdog @ Jul 8 2012, 08:57 AM) *
I wouldn't object to public funds maintaining what would be a great community asset - but I do feel that ownership by a public trust would offer more long term protection from development. However, the first step is to get the current owners to agree to give the land away.

Spot on - both points!


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Jul 8 2012, 11:31 AM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (blackdog @ Jul 8 2012, 08:57 AM) *
I wouldn't object to public funds maintaining what would be a great community asset - but I do feel that ownership by a public trust would offer more long term protection from development. However, the first step is to get the current owners to agree to give the land away.

Maybe I'm naïve but I take the developers at their word. They've indicated their intention to gift the town the land for a country park and I don't expect them to go back on that. The danger is that either NTC or WBC will get it and, either by ccck-up or conspiracy, will make a hash of it and end up selling it for housing.

I agree, public funcing for a public assest would be entirely appropriate, but the difficulty is how to secure that public funding in perpetuity. If one of the councils owned the park they'd eventually cut the funding on the pretext of cost-savings so that they could sell the park for development, and they're never going to agree to a long-term revenue-funding arrangement with a community trust because they want the park for themselves.

I think GCT is the only credible source of funding for a community trust.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Jul 8 2012, 01:24 PM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Jul 8 2012, 12:31 PM) *
Maybe I'm naïve but I take the developers at their word. They've indicated their intention to gift the town the land for a country park and I don't expect them to go back on that.

You have obviously seen something I haven't - all I have seen is the intention to turn part of the site into a country park. Nothing about gifting the park to anyone (the cynic in me worries that they intend to hang on to it for further development in 20 years time).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Exhausted
post Jul 8 2012, 02:22 PM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,722
Joined: 4-September 09
Member No.: 320



We do have to be careful that there is no trading off of the new green space which may appear at Sandleford against any development that WBC/NTC want to make on our existing green sites. The Pavilion in Victoria Park springs to mind.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Jul 8 2012, 02:45 PM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (Exhausted @ Jul 8 2012, 03:22 PM) *
We do have to be careful that there is no trading off of the new green space which may appear at Sandleford against any development that WBC/NTC want to make on our existing green sites. The Pavilion in Victoria Park springs to mind.

I never did understand what WBC wanted to do with the Pavilion, but thinking laterally for a minute: the country park is sure to need some kind of visitor centre so how about letting WBC build their Pavilion in the country park to satisfy both needs? The country park gets a nice visitor centre for no capital outlay and WBC get their Pavilion but without building in Victoria Park - everyone's a winner.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Jul 8 2012, 07:06 PM
Post #18


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Jul 8 2012, 03:45 PM) *
I never did understand what WBC wanted to do with the Pavilion, but thinking laterally for a minute: the country park is sure to need some kind of visitor centre so how about letting WBC build their Pavilion in the country park to satisfy both needs? The country park gets a nice visitor centre for no capital outlay and WBC get their Pavilion but without building in Victoria Park - everyone's a winner.

It falls outside the Vision.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Jul 8 2012, 07:19 PM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Jul 8 2012, 08:06 PM) *
It falls outside the Vision.

It's a half decent idea all the same and it does appear to have some merit. Sandleford might also be a very good place for an arts centre with the college so close.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Jul 8 2012, 07:22 PM
Post #20


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Jul 8 2012, 08:19 PM) *
It's a half decent idea all the same and it does appear to have some merit. Sandleford might also be a very good place for an arts centre with the college so close.

I agree.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 05:49 AM