PLANS to make improvements to Warren Road in Wash Common have been approved, despite concerns that the application is being used as a “back door route” to access the proposed housing development at Sandleford.

The improvements, which will see the road widened to accommodate a pedestrian footpath, were given the green light by West Berkshire Council officers last week.

However the decision has been met with scepticism from Newbury Town Council and some local residents due to the fact that the applicant, Mark Norgate, is also one of the landowners and developers of Sandleford Park.

Mr Norgate also owns Newbury-based property developer Donnington New Homes, which could be responsible for building up to 500 homes as part of the
2,000-home Sandleford development.

However, Mr Norgate said his application for Warren Road was to improve residents’ safety and insisted
it was “not linked to any application that may be forthcoming over Sandleford” despite the road having been identified by the district council as a possible all-vehicle access route into Sandleford.

He added that any suggestion he was playing “some sort of game” by linking the Warren Road and Sandleford applications was “ridiculous”.

However, the plans to improve Warren Road were unanimously shot down at a Newbury Town Council meeting in October – with councillors claiming that it was “as clear as day” that the application was intended to provide better access to the development.

One local resident, Ian Dyke, said: “Overall there seems to be very little merit in this application, or compelling reason for it, other than providing a bus route, or all-traffic access for the Sandleford development by default.”

He added: “I am not aware of any final decisions having been made on Warren Road either becoming a bus route or all-traffic access to Sandleford Park.

“It would seem, therefore, totally inappropriate for these proposed improvements to take place until such decisions are made.”

In a statement, granting permission for the improvements, West Berkshire Council said: “Whilst representations received refer to the future development of the Sandleford site, this application must be determined on its merits and any increase in traffic and need for road improvements as a result of the development of Sandleford will be assessed when an application for that development is submitted.”

It added: “It is considered that the proposed works to Warren Road under consideration here would not prejudice the development of the Sandleford site or any further works that may be necessary as a result of an application for the development of the Sandleford site.”

The council also said that although the works were considered to change the character and appearance of the road itself, it is considered to be limited and outweighed by the public benefit of highway safety.

The proposal involves the widening of the road to 4.8m between Park Cottage and the entrance to New Warren Farm together with a 1.5m-wide footway on the north side of Warren Road to tie in with the existing footway on the east side of Andover Road that would terminate at a new crossing point beside Park Cottage.

A new 1.5m-wide footway would also be introduced on the southern side of Warren Road opposite Park Cottage and run eastwards to the junction of the access road leading to Lynwood House and Ashton House.

Tactile paving and dropped kerbs would be provided at the crossing between the new footways by Park Cottage. Bollards are also proposed at the junction to the existing public right of way and the road.

The council said that the application was not considered to be significantly different from the improvements previously agreed in 2009.

Earlier this year, as reported by the Newbury Weekly News, Mr Norgate wrote to Wash Common residents asking if they would be interested in selling their homes and land to assist with access into Sandleford, despite Warren Road not being confirmed as an access route and no formal planning application being submitted.

It's the outright lies and duplicitousness that really irks.

the councils lie and cheat their way to smooth things over before announcing their latest fait au complit

The issue is because they go about this development in a totally dishonest way they are not able to admit there will be traffic issues and hence are unable to offer proper solutions

If they had the decency to say " Right, traffic in this area is going to be mad, long term solutions are needed" at least sensible discussion can be sought.
By lying about there being plenty of jobs within the area (there isn't) and that the new dwellers will cycle or walk to the train station because it's within this imaginary 2km limit just means they are storing up trouble for local residents to 'suck it up' for the next 20 years.

I largely agree, though we, the communities that will be stuffed by poor traffic planning, also need to take responsibility and engage positively with development. But largely, yes, the primary fault lies with our councils for being shifty and opaque.

Surely the primary fault lies with a government that is forcing councils to enable the building of enormous numbers of homes at the same time as preventing the same councils from spending on infrastructure by a combination of reducing government grants and measures to prevent council tax increases.

Mind you this shouldn't prevent councils from developing plans for new infrastructure and reserving the space for it - rather than building over it all.

Surely the primary fault lies with a government that is forcing councils to enable the building of enormous numbers of homes at the same time as preventing the same councils from spending on infrastructure by a combination of reducing government grants and measures to prevent council tax increases.

Mind you this shouldn't prevent councils from developing plans for new infrastructure and reserving the space for it - rather than building over it all.

But can't WBC pass on the entire cost of the transport infrastructure to the developer? I actually can't really see why building junctions into the estate should be a public cost at all.

My thinking.... Developer (company) knows the planning application will struggle because of the road network. WBC not minded to fund in the absence of 'funding'. Developer may not pay the Council, so a benefactor comes forward to do the works purely for the benefit of the community (lucky!). The fact he has connections to the development company is pure chance. WBC 'want' Sandleford, so will not look a gift horse in the mouth. Plans passed, now await the full planning application to arrive, with traffic problems all sorted. I cannot ever remember a benefactor upgrading public roads at his/her own expense......

That's what the S106 payments are all about. I think the name is about to change but it's the same thing.

Probably why WBC want a single application from the development. The problem is that they, WBC and the Government, want their cake and eat it. The cost to the developer can spiral once everybody marks the cards for how much they want. Schools. Social services, ecology, Roads and transport, Bike sheds, Bats, Police, Fire, and of course the libraries. Add on top of that the affordable housing quota and it's a wonder anything gets built these days.

S106 is being abolished and a new system being put in place - which will reduce the amount paid by developers. All part of the government's policy of making development happen.

However, whichever system is in place there is no way it will pay for the sort of infrastructure needed to cope with a town the size of Newbury/Thatcham as it grows at the current rate. Things like a ring road, a bridge at Thatcham, or a proper replacement for the Robin Hood gyratory. The best we get is a revamp of a junction or two.

S106 is being abolished and a new system being put in place - which will reduce the amount paid by developers. All part of the government's policy of making development happen.

However, whichever system is in place there is no way it will pay for the sort of infrastructure needed to cope with a town the size of Newbury/Thatcham as it grows at the current rate. Things like a ring road, a bridge at Thatcham, or a proper replacement for the Robin Hood gyratory. The best we get is a revamp of a junction or two.

Let's put some rough figures to this: it costs in the order of £15M to build a mile of dual carriage way so lets guestimate that it would cost around £150M for a decent ring road. There are some 100,000 domestic council tax payers in west berkshire so if we let them fund half of that cost (business rates and central government can fund the other half) then we're talking about a £25 levy on our council tax over say 30 years. That feels like a reasonable pay-back period over which to spread such a significant capital scheme.

But in practice what does our local government spend £25 a head on? At the Town Council alone you can find that kind of self-serving waste on things like the charter market, the town hall, the mayoral pomp, the Christmas lights, and the allotments. This is the problem, our local government is self-serving and inept, and blaming that failure on central government is shabby.

Let's put some rough figures to this: it costs in the order of £15M to build a mile of dual carriage way so lets guestimate that it would cost around £150M for a decent ring road. There are some 100,000 domestic council tax payers in west berkshire so if we let them fund half of that cost (business rates and central government can fund the other half) then we're talking about a £25 levy on our council tax over say 30 years. That feels like a reasonable pay-back period over which to spread such a significant capital scheme.

But in practice what does our local government spend £25 a head on? At the Town Council alone you can find that kind of self-serving waste on things like the charter market, the town hall, the mayoral pomp, the Christmas lights, and the allotments. This is the problem, our local government is self-serving and inept, and blaming that failure on central government is shabby.

Let's put some rough figures to this: it costs in the order of £15M to build a mile of dual carriage way so lets guestimate that it would cost around £150M for a decent ring road. There are some 100,000 domestic council tax payers in west berkshire so if we let them fund half of that cost (business rates and central government can fund the other half) then we're talking about a £25 levy on our council tax over say 30 years. That feels like a reasonable pay-back period over which to spread such a significant capital scheme.

After all, the effect of a few hundred new houses in support terms should be marginal.