Sustainable Development in Woolton Hill Options

[Simon Kirby]

The Newbury Weekly reports that Catesby Property Group are applying to Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council for planning permission on an eight acre site for between 50 and 70 houses.

I don't like the idea. I feel that development should be concentrated in urban and suburban areas where the jobs, facilities, and infrastructure are. Virtually everyone from the new development is going to come into Newbury or Andover for shopping and work, so it makes very much better sense to put the development there. Woolton Hill doesn't have the road infrastructure and it would be a poor strategic planning decision to allow development to happen there.

Maybe if it had a railway things would be different, but that's just makes it all the more obvious than planning decisions should be strategic.

[JeffG]

Perhaps they should put up a few tower blocks in the town centre.

[Simon Kirby]

Perhaps they should put up a few tower blocks in the town centre.

I never really did like Mary Mungo and Midge.

I would suggest that the best solution is to build quality urban and suburban environments for the different needs of different people. Building on this field in Woolton Hill would appear primarily to satisfy the needs of the landowner.

There may well be a need for more urban housing in Newbury, but there's a need for industrial development too so that we have somewhere to work without a long commute - it's a pity the way the east of Newbury has seen piecemeal development, mixing residential and industrial without any apparent strategic plan or addressing the rubbish state of the roads infrastructure, so that people have stinky great lorries trundling past their front doors, the heavy industrial users have rubbish access, and the light industrial and technology companies have disturbance from the dirt and noise.

If the politicos can pull their collective fingers out and insist on a quality development for Sandleford than Newbury will have done it's bit, so I think is B&DBC have need for housing then it's up to them to find somewhere sustainable to build it - but that isn't Woolton Hill.

[user23]

The Newbury Weekly reports that Catesby Property Group are applying to Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council for planning permission on an eight acre site for between 50 and 70 houses.

I don't like the idea. I feel that development should be concentrated in urban and suburban areas where the jobs, facilities, and infrastructure are. Virtually everyone from the new development is going to come into Newbury or Andover for shopping and work, so it makes very much better sense to put the development there. Woolton Hill doesn't have the road infrastructure and it would be a poor strategic planning decision to allow development to happen there.

Maybe if it had a railway things would be different, but that's just makes it all the more obvious than planning decisions should be strategic.

B & D can't grant planning permission in Newbury or Andover.

[Simon Kirby]

B & D can't grant planning permission in Newbury or Andover.

Which does make a bit of a nonsense of the planning system.

[user23]

Which does make a bit of a nonsense of the planning system.

It's a nonsense that Basingstoke can't approve the building of houses in Newbury or Andover? Seems sensible to me.

[blackdog]

It's a nonsense that Basingstoke can't approve the building of houses in Newbury or Andover? Seems sensible to me.

But Basingstoke could, should it so desire, approve plans for 10,000 houses in Newtown in the full knowledge that Newbury would have to cope with the infrastructure needs in terms of shopping, leisure facilities etc.

And that seems sensible to you?

[blackdog]

The Newbury Weekly reports that Catesby Property Group are applying to Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council for planning permission on an eight acre site for between 50 and 70 houses.

I don't like the idea. I feel that development should be concentrated in urban and suburban areas where the jobs, facilities, and infrastructure are. Virtually everyone from the new development is going to come into Newbury or Andover for shopping and work, so it makes very much better sense to put the development there. Woolton Hill doesn't have the road infrastructure and it would be a poor strategic planning decision to allow development to happen there.

Maybe if it had a railway things would be different, but that's just makes it all the more obvious than planning decisions should be strategic.

I have no opinion on this specific scheme but I disagree with the idea of concentrating development in urban/suburban areas, which will just suck the life out of the villages. For villages to survive as communities they need jobs, basic shops etc - which need people.

[Simon Kirby]

I have no opinion on this specific scheme but I disagree with the idea of concentrating development in urban/suburban areas, which will just suck the life out of the villages. For villages to survive as communities they need jobs, basic shops etc - which need people.

But that thing that you've just described - a community with shops and jobs - that's not a village, that's a town. 100 years ago - even 50 years ago - the critical size for a village was much smaller because people still had local agricultural and artisan jobs and shops were small-scale and could cater for villages of a few hundred people, but that world has gone. People drive cars now, and they drive to urban centres to shop and work.

Villages die because the village life dies, because we lost that Big Society. Building more anonymous houses is just going to make that worse. Get over it, we're not living in the 1920's with Miss Marple dead-heading the roses in the garden and the smoke rising from the chimney of the thatched cottage. It makes no sense to build more houses in villages that don't have the infrastructure or facilities and will never have the critical mass to acquire them.

[Sherlock]

It makes no sense to build more houses in villages that don't have the infrastructure or facilities and will never have the critical mass to acquire them.

I would imagine that towns have to be much efficient from every point of view, particularly energy use, but it would be interesting to know the relative costs per head of maintaining infrastructure and public services etc for town and rural dwellers.

Presumably WBC would have some say in the matter if Hampshire decided to build vast numbers of houses on our borders.

[Andy Capp]

I think villages die because of second home purchases and others being priced out.

[Simon Kirby]

Presumably WBC would have some say in the matter if Hampshire decided to build vast numbers of houses on our borders.

You'd hope, but I think not - though I don't know much about the planning system so perhaps someone can confirm, though I think that was the gist of what blackdog said too.

[blackdog]

But that thing that you've just described - a community with shops and jobs - that's not a village, that's a town. 100 years ago - even 50 years ago - the critical size for a village was much smaller because people still had local agricultural and artisan jobs and shops were small-scale and could cater for villages of a few hundred people, but that world has gone. People drive cars now, and they drive to urban centres to shop and work.

Villages die because the village life dies, because we lost that Big Society. Building more anonymous houses is just going to make that worse. Get over it, we're not living in the 1920's with Miss Marple dead-heading the roses in the garden and the smoke rising from the chimney of the thatched cottage. It makes no sense to build more houses in villages that don't have the infrastructure or facilities and will never have the critical mass to acquire them.

To follow this logic we should simply demolish villages and move everyone to towns. Many villages have a couple of shops without being anything like a town. Many have small employers. We need more of this - we certainly don't need every town to grow endlessly.

[blackdog]

Presumably WBC would have some say in the matter if Hampshire decided to build vast numbers of houses on our borders.

They would indeed - just like Basingstoke & Deane have over developments on our side of the border - they objected, for instance, to the adoption of Sandleford as a housing site. Didn't do them a lot of good though.

In the past towns have grown across county borders (eg Reading and Oxford) - it seems inevitable that Newbury will do so eventually. Back in the 1970s it was suggested that the Highclere/Kingsclere/Woolton Hill area should be added to Berkshire as part of Newbury District - which would make sense geographically - but the residents weren't having it.

[Simon Kirby]

To follow this logic we should simply demolish villages and move everyone to towns. Many villages have a couple of shops without being anything like a town. Many have small employers. We need more of this - we certainly don't need every town to grow endlessly.

Demolishing villages is hardly the logical alternative to growing them or the logical consequence of not allowing significant development. Villages already have sustainability issues because of their lack of scale, so let's just leave them as they are. The problems will only get worse as pressure on public services increases, so let's not have any complaining about rural public transport, poor health services, lack of public libraries, sports facilities, lack of rural employment, etc, but living in a village will still suit some and if they're willing to pay their way then fine.

Why exactly do we "need more of this"? You might take it as read that villages are good and towns are bad, but I don't. For me the solution is to identify what's good about village living and what's bad about town living, and then design in the good elements and design out the bad elements from urban and suburban design.

I'd like to hear your ideas, but for me it breaks down into two things: the quality of the suburban environment, and the health of the society. Neither of those things are automatically good in a village, and neither are necessarily bad in suburbia.

[James_Trinder]

I feel that development should be concentrated in urban and suburban areas where the jobs, facilities, and infrastructure are.

Woolton Hill is almost as suburban as Wash Common and has been for quite some time. With the addition of these new houses there is more of an argument for providing some more of the jobs, facilities and infrastructure that you propose. To my mind this is just a bit of infilling that was long overdue on a piece of unused land and certainly shouldn't be seen as a major development. Incidentally, having grown up in Woolton Hill I was personally always strongly in favour of moving the village and neighbouring villages into West Berkshire and see the decision not to do that as a missed opportunity.

[newres]

Incidentally, having grown up in Woolton Hill I was personally always strongly in favour of moving the village and neighbouring villages into West Berkshire and see the decision not to do that as a missed opportunity.

WBC is virtually Stalinist. Although we do have elected councillors, in reality it is run by unelected staff with a strange vision. The culture of the management is toxic in my opinion in that they have no regard for the population or their opinions. You only have to look at the posts of the employees that post here.

Due to circumstances beyond my control I can't move for another year or two, but intended moving to Woolton Hill or nearby precisely because it is outside of WBC. My work and schools dictate staying within a short distance of Newbury.

[blackdog]

Demolishing villages is hardly the logical alternative to growing them or the logical consequence of not allowing significant development. Villages already have sustainability issues because of their lack of scale, so let's just leave them as they are. The problems will only get worse as pressure on public services increases, so let's not have any complaining about rural public transport, poor health services, lack of public libraries, sports facilities, lack of rural employment, etc, but living in a village will still suit some and if they're willing to pay their way then fine.

If you prevent development in villages they will (where they haven't already) turn into places for wealthier folk to live and ignore each other. If you allow development the community can be sustainable supporting a convenience store, a pub, perhaps a doctor's surgery, and a range of local groups. Suggesting that you shouldn't allow development because they will dare to drive into nearby towns to do some shopping or visit the cinema implies that the current residents are bad because they drive into the local town etc. The logical extension of this thought is that we would be better off without villages and should consider demolishing them and forcing their residents to live in more convenient suburbia.

Why exactly do we "need more of this"? You might take it as read that villages are good and towns are bad, but I don't. For me the solution is to identify what's good about village living and what's bad about town living, and then design in the good elements and design out the bad elements from urban and suburban design.

I'd like to hear your ideas, but for me it breaks down into two things: the quality of the suburban environment, and the health of the society. Neither of those things are automatically good in a village, and neither are necessarily bad in suburbia.

I don't think villages are good and towns bad - I spent most of my life in villages before moving to Newbury so I have enjoyed living in both. It's modern suburbia I don't much like - if I can't easily walk into the town centre (say less than half a mile) I would certainly rather live in the country than on a suburban estate.

To me it's about community - a rather nebulous idea but one that revolves around people and their interactions. A village or housing estate full of folk who work, shop and socialise elsewhere is all but dead. I totally agree that there are good and bad examples of 'community' in villages and housing estates - I just feel that allowing villages to fade away by preventing development is not the optimum approach to improving 'community'.

[user23]

But Basingstoke could, should it so desire, approve plans for 10,000 houses in Newtown in the full knowledge that Newbury would have to cope with the infrastructure needs in terms of shopping, leisure facilities etc.

And that seems sensible to you?

Surely this exactly what's been happening to Reading over the past few years?

Would you advocate giving the West Berkshire part of the Reading West Parliamentary Constituency to Reading BC?

[blackdog]

Surely this exactly what's been happening to Reading over the past few years?

Would you advocate giving the West Berkshire part of the Reading West Parliamentary Constituency to Reading BC?

Yes, I would.