Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 10 2014, 12:51 PM

I see in the NWN that WBC planners have advised to approve a huge warehouse on Greenham Common. This will result in may hundreds of lorry movements a day on the Basingstoke Road and possibly through the town.

Posted by: On the edge Jan 10 2014, 01:29 PM

Just as Auntie Pam is trying to get lorries banned from going through Newbury. Brilliant! You couldn't make it up.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 10 2014, 01:41 PM

Trucks will just use the BY PASS like they are supposed to.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 10 2014, 03:23 PM

Yeah right.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 10 2014, 03:24 PM

I know. The base is 'handed back' then becomes flipping great warehouse... brilliant!

Posted by: Cognosco Jan 10 2014, 04:15 PM

Perhaps the control tower will make money as a new transport cafe then!

Posted by: gel Jan 10 2014, 04:16 PM

At least you won't come across heavily armed convoys anymore; they used to take the Greenham warheads out for walkies as I called it!
This would be a cue for protesters to try & disrupt, get amongst the vehicles.

This one doesn't seem to render, unless you click link.

Posted by: On the edge Jan 10 2014, 05:22 PM

Before Biker mentions it, the by pass is the wrong side. The majority of lorries to and from Basingstoke (M£) via Newbury Town emanate from the massive distribution depots in Thatcham. Our planners have really been forward thinking haven't they? WBC still seems to think we can go back to 1956

Posted by: user23 Jan 10 2014, 05:45 PM

I wonder what impact this will have on local allotments?

Posted by: On the edge Jan 10 2014, 05:53 PM

They are keeping the pollution down by reducing the need to import food. Our dear WBC is doing its level best to do the exact opposite. Their idea of a greener Berkshire comes from a B&Q colour chart

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 10 2014, 06:53 PM

As if user23 actually cares, but it seems that the Greenham Common Trust and West Berks Council have as about much care over what happens on their land as Newbury Town Council does on theirs.

This is just a wrong place for a distribution depot.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 10 2014, 06:59 PM

There is a huge amount of suitable land between the A4 & M4 to the N methinks......

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 10 2014, 07:00 PM

Agreed.

Posted by: On the edge Jan 10 2014, 07:10 PM

Quite agree, amazed WBC are surprised!

Posted by: MontyPython Jan 10 2014, 07:17 PM

Perhaps since the Business Rates retention was announced they have been more interested in getting schemes that will pay their wages and reduce their risk of redundancy. So they do care but not necessarily for the public interest.

Posted by: spartacus Jan 10 2014, 07:53 PM

But let's not forget that it'll also result in many more local jobs. Some parts of the country would kill to have depots like this.

Posted by: motormad Jan 10 2014, 07:59 PM

I agree with that.
Greenham Common is not really suitable for a distribution warehouse.

Anyone want to get some signs made up and we can go protest?

Posted by: user23 Jan 10 2014, 08:04 PM

A protest at Greenham Common? That's original.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 10 2014, 08:06 PM

The distribution warehouse is great, it just doesn't have the transport infrastructure here to service it without clogging up the local traffic.

Posted by: On the edge Jan 10 2014, 08:07 PM

Agreed, which makes it even more vital to have the infrastructure supporting them. Are WBC trying to shed employment in the locality as part of some daft relocation scheme? I seem to remember some LD Concillor in Thatcham suggesting something very much like that when Sony pulled out a few years back.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 10 2014, 08:15 PM

That's not a bad idea, though better still is we get some new blood involved in local politics so that the right strategic decisions get taken and snafu's like this don't keep cropping up for us to protest about.

Posted by: MontyPython Jan 10 2014, 08:31 PM

But those areas probably have a higher unemployment rate. I expect much of the workforce will commute from Basingstoke, Reading and Swindon, others will want additional social housing built in Newbury.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 10 2014, 08:38 PM

Yes and we could still have it, just not there, somewhere closer to the motorway would be more suitable, or somewhere on the west side of Newbury. It is still an ugly and inappropriate location.

This has been a blight on the common ever since Julian Swift-Hook and his mates voted to support the aborted Sainsbury's depot up there.

Posted by: user23 Jan 10 2014, 08:39 PM

Could we? Who's to say they'll not relocate the depot somewhere other than Newbury?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 10 2014, 08:48 PM

Yes, who's to say.

Posted by: motormad Jan 10 2014, 09:06 PM

User23 complaining at everything? That's original.

Posted by: user23 Jan 10 2014, 09:12 PM

I've come to the right place for complaining. Not that I was.

Is this a five minute complaint or the full half hour though?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 10 2014, 09:27 PM

I told you once!

Posted by: MontyPython Jan 10 2014, 09:44 PM

No you didn't

Posted by: motormad Jan 10 2014, 10:00 PM

I have better things to do than waste my time engaging in a pointless discussion with you.

Posted by: spartacus Jan 10 2014, 10:06 PM

I agree that the Greenham industrial park is ugly, run-down and tired but perhaps a new depot will inject some new life into the place. If you have to drive through the site to get to somewhere like the English Provender Co depot, you drive past some ramshackle $hithole buildings. Some of the 'business units' and hangar workshops have been around well over 40 years and would have been better off if they were pulled down when the Cold War fizzled out.


pffft.... cue the 'Say No To Sandleford' brigade dragging out their pitchforks and banners again. Or the same bunch that opposed the Chieveley waste recycling plant getting worked up about that... No chance of getting a new depot built in such AONBs

Posted by: motormad Jan 10 2014, 10:08 PM

Problem for me that I see is most people are not interested in local politics.
I'm the only person in my rather large circle of friends who would even entertain going to meetings about my local area (like the ones you're trying to sort out in the other thread Simon).
It's not a career choice for me as it doesn't pay well(ultimately I work to pay for the things i want to do in my spare time).
There is too much hassle to "get involved" as a politician, red tape, beurocracy, other morons, the fact everyone around you is twice your age, but as an activitst there is perhaps more scope..

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 10 2014, 11:10 PM

I'm more than twice your age, and I'm one of the youngsters - I think we should describe ourselves as "in line with your age"?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 10 2014, 11:13 PM

Yes, our ordered development is blighted by the nimbies. Development doesn't have to be ugly, but stifled development and inadequate infrastructure will strangle the town.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 10 2014, 11:53 PM

A new huge depot will make things better? A part of the problem is the mismanagement by the Greenham Common Trust. At least the rundown buuildings are out of harm's and view's way. A bloody great depot and all the truck movements won't be.


The point is, it is not the right place to put it; however, it is also worth noting it is not something we are obliged to have either. On top of that, people are entitled to complain or protest on anything that materially affects their life: so long as they are prepared to put up with the consequences if they are successfull.


A big round of applause to Julian Swift-Hook and his mates voting all this through way back then!

Posted by: Biker1 Jan 11 2014, 06:23 AM

Correct!

Time to take a leaf out of his own book and put him on "ignore" I think.
User has given instructions on how to do so in earlier posts!!

Posted by: Exhausted Jan 11 2014, 09:10 PM

The council planning department can only offer advice on the planning application that is put before them. If the application has ticked all the legal boxes and is within the rules for such use as laid down by the council, they really have no legitimate reason to do anything but advise the councillors to grant it. A designated AoNB might be used but which of course does not apply to the industrial area of Greenham Common.
They cannot advise the applicant to use land north of Newbury for instance. What they can do though is ask that a full transport assessment to be carried out by the applicant to include all lorry movements during each 24 hour period or whatever period information is needed. This could be used to either suggest that the road structure will not support the use or they can insist on S106 payments to make the roads suitable for the movements anticipated.
This would be probably a big no no for the anticipated cost of a development.
If the councillors go against the professional advice of the planning officers who are career people and use their gut feeling or personal prejudices then you can bet there will be an appeal which, if it goes against the council, will cost big bucks. (Don't mention the Travellers)

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 11 2014, 09:18 PM

Again; what point the councillors.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 11 2014, 10:36 PM

The point of the councillors is that they should take a strategic view and create the transport infrastructure and designate the land around those transport hubs so that development is planned and ordered and in the right place, and so the town doesn't develop piecemeal with ad-hoc development like this.

That's what councillors are supposed to do.

This kind of thing needs to go up by the motorway.

Posted by: blackdog Jan 11 2014, 10:57 PM

As the motorway junction is in the AONB the council's hands are tied. AONBs are a national designation, it would take years for WBC to get the boundaries moved. However, there are other motorway junctions - Theale or Swindon for instance.

However, it's true that, in general, councillors do FA apart from rubber stamp the operations of the officers.

Like it or not Greenham is designated as an industrial site. I suspect the only thing that can be used against this application is the traffic issue. It seems that Basingstoke and Deane are against it, I wonder if their planning officers have the same training as WBC's? It could help councillors to reject it if they had expert opinion to counter that of their own officers.

Posted by: Ron Jan 11 2014, 11:17 PM

What happened to the proposal in the past of building a distribution point at the junction of the A34 and the Andover Road? Not quite as good as next to the M4 but better than having all the lorries through Newbury.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 12 2014, 12:47 AM

Perhaps a parish councillor who cared about the issue might have tried to find out, but I would imagine being a 'radio mogul' and champion for a viewing platform takes a lot of time up.

Who owns the 'base' anyway? Are we happy that our neighbours will not care who's on the 'base'? They already allowed Ayers Rock, a smelly 'pickled onion' factory, a multi-story container 'Berlin Wall', and that road surface lot that got thrown off by EH to 'spoil the view'. A bit like Parkway which was allowed to fall into ruin, surely it is designated as such because it is allowed to be. What happened to the 'mythical' for small business start-ups policy?

I can remember being at Luker School when it was debated, yet I don't remember the detail now, but there was a basis for rejecting Sainbury's plans for a warehouse up there. Julian Swift-Hook and his chums waved it through with only one councillor, a Tory, who showed any real objection to it; he either abstained or voted against it.

Posted by: Exhausted Jan 12 2014, 11:14 AM

Well, you might believe that is the way it works but remember, the councillors that we vote in are not trained nor have any experience in the field of town and country planning. The people who have that professional responsibility are the planning officers. It is they who have had, in theory, years of training in the subject and probably have some sort of degree status. So, my opinion is that the councillors are there to rubber stamp the proposals. I am sure that they may have some minor involvement along the way as it is in the planners interests to keep them sweet but I wonder what input they can possibly have other than perhaps to choose the colour of the tarmac.

Having sat through a few planning meetings, I have sometimes been surprised at the points raised by some of the councillors which, to me, proves that they haven't read the planning notes or failed to understand the application.
Once again, it may be nicer to have a depot closer to a junction but that is not what the planners can decide upon. They cannot say to the applicant, if you move ten miles up the road, that would be a better site. Their remit, is to decide on the application before them, nothing else. They may review the letters from the public that are received but in general, these have to be discounted as most of them do not have valid objections. Not liking a development because it might overlook their garden or because it might cause parking problems are the usual content.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 12 2014, 11:18 AM

Like significant heavy vehicular movement through areas in town that breach EU pollution law? Notwithstanding heavy vehicular movement on roads never originally designed for such traffic.

Like I said earlier, this has been brought to us by the owners and the managers of New Greenham Park, with the support of Julian Swift-Hook and his colleagues.

Posted by: Exhausted Jan 12 2014, 11:29 AM

That's what it is all about really.



That sounds a bit like a NIMBY attitude. They will not get any value from the development either in rental or rates but may have to improve the A339 at their cost. (I'm not sure if this road comes under the heading of a trunk road).
If our WBC planners are not up to the job then the Chief Executive may have some questions to answer. Who is capable of asking those questions is a mute point though.

Posted by: Exhausted Jan 12 2014, 11:41 AM

This may have some bearing on the planning decision but in reality, the road structure and pollution by HGV's is a bit tenuous as a reason for refusal. The entrance/exits are on an A road and therefore should be capable of handling whatever traffic is likely to pass over it. The council suggesting that they could place an embargo on HGV traffic on the A339 was on April 1st wasn't it. Is there a precedent for that type of ban anywhere.?
London has emission requirements for vehicles entering their boundaries but would that be enforceable on the A339 I wonder.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 12 2014, 11:52 AM

Anyway, thank you New Greenham Park and Julian Swift-Hook chaired West Berks planning committee (all those years ago) for endorsing this type of use on the base.

Posted by: On the edge Jan 12 2014, 11:58 AM

Yet again, all this proves is that we don't need Councillors. They are now clearly simply just an expensive and outdated anacronisim.

Posted by: blackdog Jan 12 2014, 12:03 PM

The problem with 'experts' is that there is almost always another 'expert' with an opposing view. I suspect the same may apply to planning officers. However, it may just be Basingstoke & Deane politicos who are moaning about the issue. If so it would be interesting to hear the views of their planners.

I wonder if B&D have any right to S106 money on a development like this? As noted the A339 to Basingstoke and the Newtown - Tot Hill road will take a beating - surely they deserve some of the kick-back to partly cover their maintenance.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 12 2014, 12:05 PM

I'd agree with all of that. When I say the role of the councillor is to take a strategic view I'm talking about a high-level management view - little more that "Newbury needs space for industry to develop to provide jobs and prosperity for the town, and that industry needs to be put somewhere that doesn't interfere with the town's people's enjoyment of where they live, and it needs to be supplied with sufficient infrastructure so that the town doesn't grind to a halt". If the professional town planners aren't drawing up those detailed strategic plans for the next twenty years it's because the councillors aren't insisting on them doing it.

The planners, and for the that matter the councillors, have no choice but to approve the warehouse - it's industrial development in an industrial zone, refusal will inevitably be overturned on appeal. That's unlikely to stop some slack-jawed councillor wheeling out their ill-informed objections, but like you say, the approval now is pretty much inevitable.

The sin is that for the last ten to twenty years our councillors have sat on their hands and allowed Newbury to develop piecemeal without any strategic planning - even the bypass was put in the wrong place!

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 12 2014, 01:21 PM

Exactly.


I doubt that was Newbury's fault.

However, Greenham Common was not placed or designed as a ferkin industrial area, that has been allowed to happen!

Posted by: Exhausted Jan 12 2014, 01:27 PM

I'm afraid to say that Basingstoke and Deane council have written to the WBC planners clearly stating that they have no objection to the application.

S106 can only be paid directly to the council in which the application sits. There is nothing to stop such payment being shared though.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 12 2014, 02:01 PM

Newbury should have taken the initiative and demanded infrastructure that would serve us, not just sat back and watched.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 12 2014, 03:02 PM

You mean the 'build it & they will come' attitude?

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 12 2014, 03:18 PM

45% of the Highways 106 money will go to Hampshire (it is set out in the documentation for the Planning Meeting)

Posted by: Exhausted Jan 12 2014, 04:46 PM

Yes that is the case but the S106 payment is to WBC the 45% for local road improvements etc will be handed over to Hampshire.
The bit that is pocketed for the libraries is for WBC and not shared.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 12 2014, 04:52 PM

I know..... Not sure what your point is there. Me, I'm trying to think where the Highway money will go....... I believe it has to be on Capital schemes, not maintenance....

Posted by: Exhausted Jan 12 2014, 05:24 PM

The requirement for the S106 could go partly to subsidising a bus service.

Quote....

Also Thatcham Town Council, Thatcham Vision and WBC Transport Services aspire to having a through Thatcham - Newbury - Greenham Business Park bus service, at least at peak travel times. However, the existing bus service 103 is funded directly by Greenham Business Park, in conjunction with Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council as it also serves Bishops Green. WBC currently does not presently have to contribute funding towards it; however B & DBC are scrutinising their spending with the potential of reducing their funding for the bus service. Therefore there may be the necessity of having to provide funding from WBC to sustain and adapt this service to continue to serve Greenham Park.

Improvements for cyclists between the A339 / B4640 Swan Roundabout and the A339 / Pinchington Lane Roundabout to link Greenham Park including the site better to facilities in southern Newbury

Improvements to the A339 / A343 St Johns Roundabout near Burger King

Improvements to the A339 / B3421 Bear Lane Junction

.....Unquote.
Library money goes to stock and service but my point about that is that the library gets an S106 for every application approved by WBC. I somehow doubt that it actually gets there but helps to build the WBC vanity cash.

Quote...
Library Service contribution towards provision of stock items and all other service improvements for use in all West Berkshire Libraries £3,302

....Unquote

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 12 2014, 06:43 PM

Understood - the Highways Planning Officer report... Not sure how much of a definite those are, or whether they can be delivered for just over £100k......
I wonder if it will include sorting out the 40-yr old flood problem on the A339 east of the Swan RAB?