Sandleford row erupts again following letter to Wash Common residents Options

[Andy Capp]

Personally, I'd have serious concerns about that. How do you define a 'local' person? OK, in very personal terms, I've lived in Newbury for twenty odd years, I wasn't born here, neither was my wife. Equally, like most other children born in West Berkshire since the 1980s, my family weren't either! I work 'just over the boarder' arguably in Hampshire. My children work in Reading and Basingstoke. Do we count as local?

'Charity starts at home', and it is alleged that WB has a housing problem. Facilitating cross-boarder immigration will not solve that, viz, the reason for the development is moot. Like it or not, we are a country set up as local authorities, it is those constituents that should come first, perhaps.

[On the edge]

Is that a reference to the lack of hospital/maternity provision in West Berkshire?



Of course not - you have to be at least third generation!

On a serious note, whether or not you meet the definition of local, would you ( or your children) meet the definition of 'need'?

Yes, maternity provision is now in Reading so very few can claim to be born in Newbury. Why is that important? Back in 1952 my parents tried to get a Council house in Guildford. To meet the then qualification, you had to be local, that is born in the Town and like thry do, the housing people checked birth certificates. Unbeknown to Dad, he was actually born just outside the town, his mother gave birth visiting relations over the boarder....no council house for quite some time. Yes, my children do have a need for affordable accommodation and want to buy a home to start their own families; presently living in sub standard flats or sharing.

[Simon Kirby]

Perhaps if the homes had some kind of guarantee that they would be supplied for local need might add some weight to the development, rather than swell the population.

The homes are being built locally, so either they'll stand empty or they will sell to satisfy local need. Of course the people who move in may not all come from the locality, but if they want to come and live in Newbury then it follows that there is a local need.

[Andy Capp]

The homes are being built locally, so either they'll stand empty or they will sell to satisfy local need. Of course the people who move in may not all come from the locality, but if they want to come and live in Newbury then it follows that there is a local need.

Semantic cobblers. You are quickly becoming very boring.

The point I make is if this helped reduce the 'waiting list', rather than encourage more immigration, then the development MIGHT have more appeal.

[On the edge]

'Charity starts at home', and it is alleged that WB has a housing problem. Facilitating cross-boarder immigration will not solve that, viz, the reason for the development is moot. Like it or not, we are a country set up as local authorities, it is those constituents that should come first, perhaps.

Aaah I see, it's immigrants causing the problem again!

I must admit, as a Newbury Town resident that sounds beneficial to me. I've often felt the freeloaders from the villages ought to be stopped from using 'our' facilities....

[Andy Capp]

Aaah I see, it's immigrants causing the problem again!

I must admit, as a Newbury Town resident that sounds beneficial to me. I've often felt the freeloaders from the villages ought to be stopped from using 'our' facilities....

You're getting as boring as your mate Simon, with your strawman rubbish.



Nowhere did I say out-of-towners should be denied, but if this project was one that benefited local builders, future 'indigenous' residents, etc, then it MIGHT be something that would help smooth its passage!"

[MontyPython]

The homes are being built locally, so either they'll stand empty or they will sell to satisfy local need. Of course the people who move in may not all come from the locality, but if they want to come and live in Newbury then it follows that there is a local need.

What even if they work in London and currently live there?

Under your terms if everyone in the UK decided to move to a quaint Devon village there would be a local need for thousands of houses

[Simon Kirby]

What even if they work in London and currently live there?

Under your terms if everyone in the UK decided to move to a quaint Devon village there would be a local need for thousands of houses

The fallacy is to insist on local homes for local people.

[Ruwan Uduwerage-...]

The fallacy is to insist on local homes for local people.

Simon,

Mmmmm, not so sure. There is a genuine concern within specifically rural areas that the gentrification of villages is actually cleansing the villages of their hereditary residents who cannot afford the inflated prices that the newbies can afford.

If we wish villages to remain true communities, then there is a need to provide some assistance for local low income earners to be able to stay, otherwise market forces alone will destroy our these villages of the sense of belonging that has existed for eons.

This is a problematic issue that needs to be dealt with great sensitivity.

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera
Newbury Town Council - Councillor for Victoria Ward

Ps. Nice picture of you and one of the girls in the paper!

[MontyPython]

The fallacy is to insist on local homes for local people.

You just said that it was a local need - people moving from and working outside the area is not a local need!

[On the edge]

You're getting as boring as your mate Simon, with your strawman rubbish.



Nowhere did I say out-of-towners should be denied, but if this project was one that benefited local builders, future 'indigenous' residents, etc, then it MIGHT be something that would help smooth its passage!"

Oooh AndyC! You should have been a politician; if you swallowed a nail you'd s*** a corkscrew!

[Simon Kirby]

Mmmmm, not so sure. There is a genuine concern within specifically rural areas that the gentrification of villages is actually cleansing the villages of their hereditary residents who cannot afford the inflated prices that the newbies can afford.

If we wish villages to remain true communities, then there is a need to provide some assistance for local low income earners to be able to stay, otherwise market forces alone will destroy our these villages of the sense of belonging that has existed for eons.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Social engineering is dangerous, and the best solution is to leave it to the market. "Gentrification" is just another social slur, I might just as easily complain about the chavification. Why should local-born people have any greater right to live in any particular place than anyone else? If a place becomes desirable, then the only criterion for a prospective resident is that they can afford it.

Ps. Nice picture of you and one of the girls in the paper!

Thank you.

[On the edge]

Simon,

Mmmmm, not so sure. There is a genuine concern within specifically rural areas that the gentrification of villages is actually cleansing the villages of their hereditary residents who cannot afford the inflated prices that the newbies can afford.

If we wish villages to remain true communities, then there is a need to provide some assistance for local low income earners to be able to stay, otherwise market forces alone will destroy our these villages of the sense of belonging that has existed for eons.

This is a problematic issue that needs to be dealt with great sensitivity.

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera
Newbury Town Council - Councillor for Victoria Ward

Ps. Nice picture of you and one of the girls in the paper!

That's OK, but what about those who 'got cleansed' from their Surrey market towns, or even London suburbs, don't they count as communities we want to keep? I used to be very proud of my home town 'till some closet built a university and London bankers started paying well over the odds. What's so special about English villages; market towns have existed for as long.

[Andy Capp]

I wholeheartedly disagree. Social engineering is dangerous, and the best solution is to leave it to the market.

Why exactly? Can you point to some success stories?

That's OK, but what about those who 'got cleansed' from their Surrey market towns, or even London suburbs, don't they count as communities we want to keep? I used to be very proud of my home town 'till some closet built a university and London bankers started paying well over the odds. What's so special about English villages; market towns have existed for as long.

I think this is what tends to happen when you leave it to the market.

[Andy Capp]

Oooh AndyC! You should have been a politician; if you swallowed a nail you'd s*** a corkscrew!

Just an acknowledgement to what is written 'll do. BUT I do admit I don't always get my point across as I mean.

[Exhausted]

If we wish villages to remain true communities, then there is a need to provide some assistance for local low income earners to be able to stay.....,

If they are already in the village they are presumably already housed.

What do you mean by assistance for low income earners and who are they in the context of "the village". If that is aimed at the "I was born here and I want to stay here", that's fine but they will need to cycle to work if WBC have their way. I do see that as the job of the housing associations though and not developers now that the tied house has almost disappeared and the old council houses have been sold to the occupiers and not replaced with the funds obtained.

The villages do not have employment opportunities these days and so most of the proposed occupants will need to travel to their workplace so they perhaps fall into the same category as the gentrified residents who want a country pile and commute to work.

[MontyPython]

If we wish villages to remain true communities, then there is a need to provide some assistance for local low income earners to be able to stay, otherwise market forces alone will destroy our these villages of the sense of belonging that has existed for eons.

But how is this to be funded?
By those of us who live in towns and cities who already subsidise them as they pay the same for the supply of utilities which cost more to get out to these less densely populated areas?
Or should property owners be restricted to selling to someone from the area thereby probably reducing the price they get for their house?

Of course historically few would have owned their own property anyway so may be it should be social housing, but should locals be able to restrict new builds to locals only?

[Simon Kirby]

The living-in-a-village thing is missing the point: how about we just build towns that aren't sh!t, then everyone can live somewhere that's pleasant with interesting architecture and green open space, but with all of the services and facilities that villages just can't have like somewhere local to work, reliable public transport, supermarkets and shops, etc.

The only reason that doesn't happen is because our politicos don't insist on it, and that's mainly because there aren't any votes in it. The votes are largely in opposing any development, with the result that the development happens anyway, but it's cheap and nasty, with fudged infrastructure and soulless domestic architecture.

It can be so much better, but it needs people to engage positively with the issues and cooperate.

[Nothing Much]

Villages in the sky.
It seems to be normal now. Just down the road there is a development by City Road basin. N1.Canaletto.
It seems to be heading for Mars. I doubt that there will be TVs and garbage chucked off the balconies.
So what went wrong with high rise Tower Hamlets a few miles away.And all the other Kersey Crescents of the past.
ce

[On the edge]

Newbury did actually make a very good start taking up the idea that each community needed a planning brief, a little while back, two or three of the then Town Councillors produced an excellent Planning Statement which was a properly researched study of the town's development history together with some well informed conclusions and recommended ways forward. The next stage should have been a design brief which could have been applied to all new physical developments and alterations. If followed, I'd hazard a guess that we would have ended up with a pretty vibrant and distinctive town we would enjoy living in.

What went wrong? Although the 'design statement' idea was a Government initiative, in reality it was a sop to the localism fad. Planning is the responsibility of the District Council who guard their role diligently. Ever heard of the 'not invented here syndrome' - well, that's what happened. So, planning in Newbury is the usual haphazard mess dependent on the personal ego's of a few. Hence we spent a huge sum of money on the repaying scheme, which left the 'Georgian' Town looking like a Builders Merchants Display yard. What a shame