LDF changes (consultation), Comments now published... Options

[Richard Garvie]

http://consult.westberks.gov.uk/portal/pfc

What has become apparent is that West Berks look to be facilitating the change of use of a number of sites should landowners wish to apply by restricting the construction of additional employment floorspace and suggesting land could be reallocated in future.

Four comments on the Racecourse development changes, all suggesting that the minimum level of affordable housing should be kept in some way. From what I am led to believe, the LDF cannot change the planning permission already awarded at the Racecourse development as the LDF was not "live" when planning was approved. Is this why the Tories rushed it through? It's for this reason that I will be calling for the minimum commitment to be retained at the level at which it is now (28%). (I see the Tories have not said anything?!?)

Should the planning inspector be able to call in previous planning decisions, then we would call for a level of 40% as most of the land concerned has not been previously developed, and having read the comments from the Lib Dems I'm sure if it was called in we could successfully fight the resubmission together. This being said, it is highly unlikely that the planning application can be called in now it has been approved.

As for Sandleford Park, I support the inclusion of certain infrastructure commitments. However, as planning consent has not yet been awarded, I believe this site is open to legal challenge. Upto three landowners are set to launch legal challenges against the housing allocation, with evidence from the Highways Agency, Basingstoke & Deene, Hampshire County Council, The Envioronment Agency and others. By the looks of it, two of those legal challenges may fall away if the Council allow reallocation of land from Employment Generating to Residential use. Maybe the landowners in question (and myself for that matter) are reading to much into the changes in respect of the two sites concerned. But then again, maybe not!!!

[Richard Garvie]

BUMP. Looks like this week could be very interesting...

[Guest_Bill1_*]

BUMP. Looks like this week could be very interesting...

"BUMP"?

What prompted this comment Mr Garvie?

[user23]

"BUMP"?

What prompted this comment Mr Garvie?

A "Bump" is when you push an older thread to the top of the list that you think is now relevant. Given no one replied to this first time it's not really appropriate here.

He does it quite a bit, replying to himself to keep the stuff he wants to use to promote his agenda at the top.

[Guest_Bill1_*]

A "Bump" is when you push an older thread to the top of the list that you think is now relevant. Given no one replied to this first time it's not really appropriate here.

He does it quite a bit, replying to himself to keep the stuff he wants to use to promote his agenda at the top.

Ah I see...........................

BUMP, the examination of the LDF Core Strategy begins on Tuesday.

[Richard Garvie]

Plus some rather interesting information has also been made available which I gather the council are not keen to publish as it's yet to appear on their website.

[Iommi]

Plus some rather interesting information has also been made available which I gather the council are not keen to publish as it's yet to appear on their website.

Wossat then?

[Richard Garvie]

I'll let somebody else post it, otherwise it will be cast off as me politicising it.

[Guest_NWNREADER_*]

I'll let somebody else post it, otherwise it will be cast off as me politicising it.

You are getting tiresome.

If you know a detail that is relevant then say what it is. Stating a fact is not politicising it: proposing an interpretation of information might be, as might using a fact out of context or selectively.

[Bofem]

What a trade off...

Basingstoke & Deane/Hants CC are opposed to Sandleford. WBC need BDBC and HCC support to redirect lorries out of town via Newtown Straight.

So will we get fewer lorries going through town but more cars coming in? Or more lorries and more cars? What a conundrum!

It's a good job for Basingstoke that their top planner is WBC's former transport boss!

[Guest_NWNREADER_*]

What a trade off...

Basingstoke & Deane/Hants CC are opposed to Sandleford. WBC need BDBC and HCC support to redirect lorries out of town via Newtown Straight.

So will we get fewer lorries going through town but more cars coming in? Or more lorries and more cars? What a conundrum!

It's a good job for Basingstoke that their top planner is WBC's former transport boss!

Neither of those facts are new, so cannot be the secret weapon in Mr Garvies back pocket.


The approved route for LGVs has always been via Burghclere to Tot Hill. Making it enforceable begs the question who will conduct the enforcement and how the evidence required will be secured.....

[Richard Garvie]

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article...articleID=14994

Basically, if the LDF is rubberstamped it will be unlawful.

[dannyboy]

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article...articleID=14994

Basically, if the LDF is rubberstamped it will be unlawful.

Sounds to me like one lot of land owners miffed because they won't be able to flog-off pasture as expensive development land.

[Guest_NWNREADER_*]

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article...articleID=14994

Basically, if the LDF is rubberstamped it will be unlawful.

According the the legal eagle representing another wannabee developer - connected to a a past leading Conservative Party member if it is the Fairhurst family I remember.
Even if the Inspector comes down against Sandleford unless he makes a specific comment on the point it will not mean the LDF is unlawful

[Richard Garvie]

You have to read the document. The fact is, the Sandleford Development now is different to the proposed development in the strategic housing allocation (apparently). There will also be a legal challenge regarding the members promoting Sandleford then voting on it.

I don't want houses at "North Newbury" but the Fairhurst Estate and the land agent are going to bring this LDF crashing down. This is why the officers have offered an olive branch regarding reallocating land... would appear that nobody told the land agents or the Fairhurst Estate. If you think that this site is spending thousands of pounds on legal teams to get this LDF stopped, there must be six other estates doing the same, all because West Berks chose the least suitable site out of 11 sites (score of -16), and the fact they did so after promoting through the process.

[user23]

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article...articleID=14994

Basically, if the LDF is rubberstamped it will be unlawful.

I think you mean that it's one group's opinion that it could be unlawful.

If you were to say it's unlawful yourself you'd probably need evidence to support this or you might find yourself in court

[Iommi]

I think you mean that it's one group's opinion that it could be unlawful. If you were to say it's unlawful yourself you'd probably need evidence to support this or you might find yourself in court.

I reeeeeaaally doubt it somehow.

[user23]

I reeeeeaaally doubt it somehow.

I do, and that's why the group concerned have got a QC to draw up their response, I would guess.

[Richard Garvie]

I think that if all of the evidence I have seen is true, then yes it will be unlawful. Review of planning decisions anyone?

[dannyboy]

I think that if all of the evidence I have seen is true, then yes it will be unlawful. Review of planning decisions anyone?

Sounds to me like one lot of land owners miffed because they won't be able to flog-off pasture as expensive development land.

get it changed & trebles all round eh?