Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Newbury Today Forum _ Newbury News _ Sandleford row erupts again following letter to Wash Common residents
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 14 2014, 10:54 AM
Isn't access one of the things covered in planning when developments are approved?
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2014/sandleford-row-erupts-again-following-letter-to-wash-common-residents
Posted by: Lolly Nov 14 2014, 01:41 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 14 2014, 10:54 AM) 
Isn't access one of the things covered in planning when developments are approved?
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2014/sandleford-row-erupts-again-following-letter-to-wash-common-residents
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2014/sandleford-row-erupts-again-following-letter-to-wash-common-residents
I think it's a consideration, but developers can find their way around most planning considerations...
In the case of Sandleford I don't think an application has been lodged yet. It's just been selected as a strategic site suitable for accommodating 2000? houses within a certain timeframe. The finer details such as access, infrastructure etc should be tied down when the application is submitted, and insufficient/inadequate access could be a reason for refusal, which is presumably why the developer has made this "offer".
I'm sure the residents of Warren Road are astute enough to see it for what it is. Whether they will succumb to the offer remains to be seen.
Posted by: Lolly Nov 14 2014, 02:26 PM
Deviating slightly from the thread, I think Mr Norgate might regret this comment:
“It is the lowest form of journalism to ask me to comment on a letter that was sent in private to a resident and I’m not interested in answering your questions about it.”
Well done Dan Cooper & the NWN!
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 14 2014, 04:19 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 14 2014, 10:54 AM)
Isn't access one of the things covered in planning when developments are approved?
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2014/sandleford-row-erupts-again-following-letter-to-wash-common-residents
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2014/sandleford-row-erupts-again-following-letter-to-wash-common-residents
As far as I see it the developer is doing just what they should be doing. Sandleford needs good access onto the Andover Road and the developer is making just the kind of approach they need to make. I can understand the consternation of the folk who live around Warren Road, but if the developer is willing to pay over the odds to buy their houses then to me that seems like a perfectly fair exchange.
I would have liked to see the local politicos taking some responsibility and showing some leadership over this rather than being evasive and vote-grubbing, so it's disappointing to see that neither Cole nor Swift-Hook had anything positive to say for themselves.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 14 2014, 05:47 PM
I'm not sure you can reasonably expect a politician to behave in a vote losing way, especially this close to an election.
It would suggest the usual thing has happened where we are shown a Beatrix Potter impression of the development, but of course, hidden from the detail is that access is a problem. I wonder what else is in store. Notwithstanding that the language in the letter is not of the most sensitive I have read.
"“As such, I would like to come and discuss with you the ways in which you could benefit from the development happening, as opposed to being a financial victim of it.”
It would suggest then, that if you are in close proximity but don't have land that would be attractive to the developer, you might find yourself being a 'financial victim'. 
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 14 2014, 08:27 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 14 2014, 05:47 PM)
I'm not sure you can reasonably expect a politician to behave in a vote losing way, especially this close to an election.
I expect virtually every politician to do precisely what you imply and say whatever it is they think people want to hear because they're only in politics for the power and they'd make a pact with Old Nick if it would give them what they crave.
But I'm still idealistic enough to want politicians to say what it is they believe in and make decisions that are right for society even if those decisions are locally unpopular.
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 14 2014, 05:47 PM)
It would suggest the usual thing has happened where we are shown a Beatrix Potter impression of the development, but of course, hidden from the detail is that access is a problem.
The threats to the success of Sandleford have always been obvious. Access and traffic is one area, but quality design and the delivery of a sustainably managed and funded Country Park are other biggies. It's possible that Sandleford will be fantastic, but it's very unlikely unless our local politicians make it happen, and all that I see is the Tories saying nothing in the hope that the reactionary Conservative-voting Wash Commoners won't defect to the Lib Dems who are mopping up the Nimbies with their cynical rhetoric.
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 14 2014, 05:47 PM)
Notwithstanding that the language in the letter is not of the most sensitive I have read.
"“As such, I would like to come and discuss with you the ways in which you could benefit from the development happening, as opposed to being a financial victim of it.”
It would suggest then, that if you are in close proximity but don't have land that would be attractive to the developer, you might find yourself being a 'financial victim'.
"“As such, I would like to come and discuss with you the ways in which you could benefit from the development happening, as opposed to being a financial victim of it.”
It would suggest then, that if you are in close proximity but don't have land that would be attractive to the developer, you might find yourself being a 'financial victim'.
I don't see it like that. It's always going to be indelicate approaching someone who's antagonised by the thought of the construction of a proletariat spawning-vat on what they have come to think of as their green and pleasant land - if it happened to me I'd be terribly upset too. But if I was offered £50k over and above the value of my house to up-sticks and make way for the hyperspace bypass then, indelicate or not, I'm pretty sure I'd take the money.
Posted by: Lolly Nov 14 2014, 09:40 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 14 2014, 08:27 PM)
I don't see it like that. It's always going to be indelicate approaching someone who's antagonised by the thought of the construction of a proletariat spawning-vat on what they have come to think of as their green and pleasant land - if it happened to me I'd be terribly upset too. But if I was offered £50k over and above the value of my house to up-sticks and make way for the hyperspace bypass then, indelicate or not, I'm pretty sure I'd take the money.
Is that how much is on offer or just a guess? When you take into account stamp duty on a new house, removal costs etc plus the stress of moving it might not seem such an attractive offer. And it doesn't factor in the emotional investment in a home.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 14 2014, 09:54 PM
QUOTE (Lolly @ Nov 14 2014, 09:40 PM)
Is that how much is on offer or just a guess? When you take into account stamp duty on a new house, removal costs etc plus the stress of moving it might not seem such an attractive offer. And it doesn't factor in the emotional investment in a home.
Complete guess.
Posted by: Exhausted Nov 14 2014, 10:48 PM
We are continually talking about the politicians whenever these types of applications are put forward but I suspect that really they haven't got a clue between them. This statement goes some way towards confirming that for me.
The council’s portfolio holder for planning, Hilary Cole, said that she wasn’t able to confirm or deny whether discussions took place, as they usually occurred between developers and council officers rather than councillors.
However, she added that it wasn’t uncommon for developers to hold pre-planning discussions with a local authority.
Well done Mrs Cole for that gem.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 15 2014, 08:08 AM
QUOTE (Lolly @ Nov 14 2014, 09:40 PM)
Is that how much is on offer or just a guess? When you take into account stamp duty on a new house, removal costs etc plus the stress of moving it might not seem such an attractive offer. And it doesn't factor in the emotional investment in a home.
That's the essence of the market; the home owner doesn't need to accept the offer no matter how much is pitched.
The emotional bit is an interesting point. Everyone seems to be screaming about solving our housing shortage. New ones have to go somewhere. Look round Newbury and us there just one site that hasn't attracted vociferous opposition? Ironically, even the 'brown field' one got a lot of stick from the very party promoting it! It's worth remembering that for most of us, the home we've invested emotions in was new once and must have disturbed someone.
In my view, this is exactly why we need some real political leadership and not the consensus of failure we have locally. Let's have a real plan and a real vision which is supported and defended, rather than crocodile tears about potential threats to Flopsy's fictional burrow!
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 15 2014, 09:27 AM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 15 2014, 08:08 AM)
That's the essence of the market; the home owner doesn't need to accept the offer no matter how much is pitched.
The emotional bit is an interesting point. Everyone seems to be screaming about solving our housing shortage. New ones have to go somewhere. Look round Newbury and us there just one site that hasn't attracted vociferous opposition? Ironically, even the 'brown field' one got a lot of stick from the very party promoting it! It's worth remembering that for most of us, the home we've invested emotions in was new once and must have disturbed someone.
In my view, this is exactly why we need some real political leadership and not the consensus of failure we have locally. Let's have a real plan and a real vision which is supported and defended, rather than crocodile tears about potential threats to Flopsy's fictional burrow!
The emotional bit is an interesting point. Everyone seems to be screaming about solving our housing shortage. New ones have to go somewhere. Look round Newbury and us there just one site that hasn't attracted vociferous opposition? Ironically, even the 'brown field' one got a lot of stick from the very party promoting it! It's worth remembering that for most of us, the home we've invested emotions in was new once and must have disturbed someone.
In my view, this is exactly why we need some real political leadership and not the consensus of failure we have locally. Let's have a real plan and a real vision which is supported and defended, rather than crocodile tears about potential threats to Flopsy's fictional burrow!
Agreed.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 15 2014, 11:57 AM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 14 2014, 08:27 PM)
I don't see it like that. It's always going to be indelicate approaching someone who's antagonised by the thought of the construction of a proletariat spawning-vat on what they have come to think of as their green and pleasant land - if it happened to me I'd be terribly upset too. But if I was offered £50k over and above the value of my house to up-sticks and make way for the hyperspace bypass then, indelicate or not, I'm pretty sure I'd take the money.
I made no comment about the offer, only the language. I'm only taking the words in good faith as reported, but the language looks to me to be be tactless. The author's response to the NWN suggests they have touched nerve too.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 15 2014, 12:13 PM
QUOTE (Exhausted @ Nov 14 2014, 10:48 PM)
We are continually talking about the politicians whenever these types of applications are put forward but I suspect that really they haven't got a clue between them. This statement goes some way towards confirming that for me.
The council’s portfolio holder for planning, Hilary Cole, said that she wasn’t able to confirm or deny whether discussions took place, as they usually occurred between developers and council officers rather than councillors.
However, she added that it wasn’t uncommon for developers to hold pre-planning discussions with a local authority.
Well done Mrs Cole for that gem.
The council’s portfolio holder for planning, Hilary Cole, said that she wasn’t able to confirm or deny whether discussions took place, as they usually occurred between developers and council officers rather than councillors.
However, she added that it wasn’t uncommon for developers to hold pre-planning discussions with a local authority.
Well done Mrs Cole for that gem.
Quite. A clear display of 'disingenuosity'.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 15 2014, 12:34 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 15 2014, 11:57 AM)
I made no comment about the offer, only the language. I'm only taking the words in good faith as reported, but the language looks to me to be be tactless. Paying over the market value for something precious is made to sound generous, but that won't be understood until the actual offer is made, by which time some would have already 'spent it' I suspect. The authors response to the NWN suggests they have touched nerve too.
We see it differently. I rather liked the directness of the developer's comment. One of the residents who received the approach went to the paper to make some mischief in support of their objection, and that's fair enough, but I see nothing inappropriate in the offer or the language that it's couched in. The development needs a decent access road off the Andover Road and Warren Road is an obvious candidate.
Actually what the south of Newbury needs is a segment of ring road cutting through from the Swan roundabout on the north bank of the Enborne and joining the Andover Road in a big roundabout at the Woodpecker, and the Sandleford estate needs access onto that, but until we get some visionary political leadership and as a community take responsibility for that vision then we'll continue to box ourselves in with piece-meal development and choke the town up irretrievably for lack of infrastructure.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 15 2014, 12:50 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 15 2014, 12:34 PM)
We see it differently. I rather liked the directness of the developer's comment. One of the residents who received the approach went to the paper to make some mischief in support of their objection, and that's fair enough, but I see nothing inappropriate in the offer or the language that it's couched in. The development needs a decent access road off the Andover Road and Warren Road is an obvious candidate.
Officially, there hasn't been any offer and language is a matter of choice, but if I were a recipient, I would be offended. I'd also be upset if I was an unfortunate neighbour who wouldn't benefit from the the 'bung' to sell land for a project we were all once united against. It is that line about being a 'financial victim', it is a clumsy comment.
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 15 2014, 12:34 PM)
Actually what the south of Newbury needs is a segment of ring road cutting through from the Swan roundabout on the north bank of the Enborne and joining the Andover Road in a big roundabout at the Woodpecker, and the Sandleford estate needs access onto that, but until we get some visionary political leadership and as a community take responsibility for that vision then we'll continue to box ourselves in with piece-meal development and choke the town up irretrievably for lack of infrastructure.
Quite right. Sandleford, right or wrong, is going to happen one day, but I fail to see any suitable preparation for that or other likely developments.
Posted by: Lolly Nov 15 2014, 02:15 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 15 2014, 12:34 PM)
We see it differently. I rather liked the directness of the developer's comment. One of the residents who received the approach went to the paper to make some mischief in support of their objection, and that's fair enough, but I see nothing inappropriate in the offer or the language that it's couched in. The development needs a decent access road off the Andover Road and Warren Road is an obvious candidate.
Like Andy I see the approach (as reported) tactless. In fact I'd go further and say that it appears rather aggressive. I have no doubt that pre-planning discussions have taken place with West Berkshire Council officers and that using Warren Road as an access route is a sticking point, but there are (supposedly) democratic methods of a LA going about facilitating strategic development. Hence Ms Cole's attempt to disassociate herself from the issue, and Mr Swift-Hook's comment :
Regarding the letter sent to Wash Common residents, Newbury Town Council leader and West Berkshire councillor Julian Swift-Hook said: “It is certainly news to me that a developer becomes responsible for investigating West Berkshire planning policy.
“A lot of questions need to be answered.”
And I'm very surprised that you would call the person who passed the letter on to the NWN a "mischief maker", even if you did caveat it with a "fair enough".... I'm guessing that the objections to access via Warren Road must have some validity and are not just NIMBYiSM or the approach would not have been made in the first place. (And before you ask I don't live anywhere near Sandleford so am not directly affected!)
Posted by: On the edge Nov 15 2014, 04:09 PM
It's pretty naive to think that developers of any description don't do a fair bit of preparatory work with all potentially impacted parties before coming out in public. One of the biggest examples round here was Vodafone on the sold Showground at Shaw. Was the first time when anyone knew really when a rough plan was submitted to WBC? Err no! Similarly with our sparkly new Hospital, which suddenly appeared in the much vaunted 'green gap' between Thatcham and Newbury which the then in power political group had pledged to protect. Both were built in contradiction to the local strategic plan.
Someone is making play with the potential developer for Sandleford; but of course, so would I, to get any offer up. Yes, I'd be upset if I were a neighbour; just as much as I would be if my neighbour decided to build two massive sheds in his rear garden and turn his frontage into a caravan park. That's real life I'm afraid.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 15 2014, 04:24 PM
QUOTE (Lolly @ Nov 15 2014, 02:15 PM)
Like Andy I see the approach (as reported) tactless. In fact I'd go further and say that it appears rather aggressive. I have no doubt that pre-planning discussions have taken place with West Berkshire Council officers and that using Warren Road as an access route is a sticking point, but there are (supposedly) democratic methods of a LA going about facilitating strategic development. Hence Ms Cole's attempt to disassociate herself from the issue, and Mr Swift-Hook's comment :
Regarding the letter sent to Wash Common residents, Newbury Town Council leader and West Berkshire councillor Julian Swift-Hook said: “It is certainly news to me that a developer becomes responsible for investigating West Berkshire planning policy.
“A lot of questions need to be answered.”
And I'm very surprised that you would call the person who passed the letter on to the NWN a "mischief maker", even if you did caveat it with a "fair enough".... I'm guessing that the objections to access via Warren Road must have some validity and are not just NIMBYiSM or the approach would not have been made in the first place. (And before you ask I don't live anywhere near Sandleford so am not directly affected!)
Regarding the letter sent to Wash Common residents, Newbury Town Council leader and West Berkshire councillor Julian Swift-Hook said: “It is certainly news to me that a developer becomes responsible for investigating West Berkshire planning policy.
“A lot of questions need to be answered.”
And I'm very surprised that you would call the person who passed the letter on to the NWN a "mischief maker", even if you did caveat it with a "fair enough".... I'm guessing that the objections to access via Warren Road must have some validity and are not just NIMBYiSM or the approach would not have been made in the first place. (And before you ask I don't live anywhere near Sandleford so am not directly affected!)
I'm not suggesting the resident went public with their letter to make mischief for its own sake, but I assume they wanted to embarrass the developer to serve their own interests, and I'm assuming that those interests are frustrating the development of Sandleford.
I think a better strategy for anyone receiving the letter is to thank the developer and name their price. The developer is likely to need to demolish the houses in order to secure planning permission, and while they can probably get the council to use their compulsory purchase powers it's a process that can soak up an awful lot of time and legal costs, on both sides, and the resident only ends up with the market cost, so a much better strategy is to be pragmatic and try to strike a decent bargain with the developer.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 16 2014, 10:36 AM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 15 2014, 04:24 PM)
I'm not suggesting the resident went public with their letter to make mischief for its own sake, but I assume they wanted to embarrass the developer to serve their own interests, and I'm assuming that those interests are frustrating the development of Sandleford.
Someone tries to embarrass to get their way? Heaven forbid!
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 15 2014, 04:24 PM)
I think a better strategy for anyone receiving the letter is to thank the developer and name their price. The developer is likely to need to demolish the houses in order to secure planning permission, and while they can probably get the council to use their compulsory purchase powers it's a process that can soak up an awful lot of time and legal costs, on both sides, and the resident only ends up with the market cost, so a much better strategy is to be pragmatic and try to strike a decent bargain with the developer.
The divide and rule strategy. Perhaps the sender of letter has other motives that you haven't aired. Perhaps the sender of the letter is concerned about due process. Sometimes there are things that are more important than money, whether it is your home, public spaces or allotment.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 16 2014, 02:01 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 16 2014, 10:36 AM)
The divide and rule strategy. Perhaps the sender of letter has other motives that you haven't aired. Perhaps the sender of the letter is concerned about due process. Sometimes there are things that are more important than money, whether it is your home, public spaces or allotment.
That would be rather nice to think, but by their actions, wouldn't apply to our today's breed of politician and let's face it, the majority of their electors have followed suit, as you've evidenced before with Council house sales. Sadly, today, everyone (the vast majority) does seem to have their price.
Posted by: Lolly Nov 16 2014, 04:32 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 15 2014, 12:34 PM)
Actually what the south of Newbury needs is a segment of ring road cutting through from the Swan roundabout on the north bank of the Enborne and joining the Andover Road in a big roundabout at the Woodpecker, and the Sandleford estate needs access onto that, but until we get some visionary political leadership and as a community take responsibility for that vision then we'll continue to box ourselves in with piece-meal development and choke the town up irretrievably for lack of infrastructure.
Not sure exactly where on the Andover Road the Woodpecker is, but South Newbury would definitely benefit from a direct link between the A34 junction and the Basingstoke Road/old A34 roundabout. Naïvely I assumed that would be an integral part of the Sandleford development.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 16 2014, 04:36 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 16 2014, 10:36 AM)
Someone tries to embarrass to get their way? Heaven forbid!
The divide and rule strategy. Perhaps the sender of letter has other motives that you haven't aired. Perhaps the sender of the letter is concerned about due process. Sometimes there are things that are more important than money, whether it is your home, public spaces or allotment.
The divide and rule strategy. Perhaps the sender of letter has other motives that you haven't aired. Perhaps the sender of the letter is concerned about due process. Sometimes there are things that are more important than money, whether it is your home, public spaces or allotment.
Like I say, as a tactic it's fair enough, I'm just not swayed by the argument.
My assumptions might be completely wrong, but what I think is that:
- The developer wants to make money and has no other motivation than that.
- The majority of the "No" campaign are reactionary Nimbies who don't want change and aren't interested in the benefits, either to the environment or to people other than themselves.
- The "No" campaigners who front the access road and currently live on a quiet lane are going to live on a reasonably busy road and that will change their homes for the worse.
- The Lib-Dem politicos who are agitating against Sandleford are mostly not motivated by ideology but just grandstanding
- The few Lib Dems who are ideologically motivated are the hair-shirted dog-banning self-flagellating ascetic cyclists who'd have the majority of us living in town-centre high-rises whether we'd like to or not.
I'd like to have a Country Park, and I'd like Sandleford to be a well-designed suburban environment with plenty of green space and no traffic worries, and all of that is possible but it needs our local politicos to ensure we get it, and the Tories have a poor track record.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 16 2014, 04:50 PM
QUOTE (Lolly @ Nov 16 2014, 04:32 PM)
Naïvely I assumed that would be an integral part of the Sandleford development.
The Woodpecker is on the junction of the Washwater road and the Andover road. It makes the southern-most extent of the suburban settlement boundary.
No, Sandleford is not currently going to deliver any strategic routes. It's not really a Sandleford issue, I mentioned it because it's just another example of how both lack strategic leadership, and how as a society we don't take responsibility for our strategic development and tend only to act out of direct self-interest - the curse of the Thatcher generation - "there is no such thing as Society".
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 16 2014, 06:26 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 16 2014, 04:36 PM)
My assumptions might be completely wrong, but what I think is that:
- The developer wants to make money and has no other motivation than that.
I doubt there will be any disagreement here.
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 16 2014, 04:36 PM)
I see the majority of the 'no' campaigning exercising their freedom to to fight for what they want. Seeing as you would sell up for £50k and sod anyone else says it all.
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 16 2014, 04:36 PM)
Quite.
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 16 2014, 04:36 PM)
Agreed.
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 16 2014, 04:36 PM)
And the Simon Kirby party would have a sod everyone, the market talks. I think that stinks too.
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 16 2014, 04:36 PM)
I'd like to have a Country Park, and I'd like Sandleford to be a well-designed suburban environment with plenty of green space and no traffic worries, and all of that is possible but it needs our local politicos to ensure we get it, and the Tories have a poor track record.
Agreed.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 16 2014, 06:29 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 16 2014, 04:50 PM)
The Woodpecker is on the junction of the Washwater road and the Andover road. It makes the southern-most extent of the suburban settlement boundary.
No, Sandleford is not currently going to deliver any strategic routes. It's not really a Sandleford issue, I mentioned it because it's just another example of how both lack strategic leadership, and how as a society we don't take responsibility for our strategic development and tend only to act out of direct self-interest - the curse of the Thatcher generation - "there is no such thing as Society".
No, Sandleford is not currently going to deliver any strategic routes. It's not really a Sandleford issue, I mentioned it because it's just another example of how both lack strategic leadership, and how as a society we don't take responsibility for our strategic development and tend only to act out of direct self-interest - the curse of the Thatcher generation - "there is no such thing as Society".
What a load of cobblers. The 'no society' was about people taking responsibility for their lot.
" I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it: 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society.
There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 16 2014, 06:38 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 16 2014, 06:29 PM)
What a load of cobblers...
Oh how very erudite. Do you want to have a reasonable conversation?
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 16 2014, 06:39 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 16 2014, 06:38 PM)
Oh how very erudite. Do you want to have a reasonable conversation?
Yes, please see above.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 16 2014, 06:53 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 16 2014, 06:26 PM)
I see the majority of the 'no' campaigning exercising their freedom to to fight for what they want. Seeing as you would sell up for £50k and sod anyone else says it all.
And the Simon Kirby party would have a sod everyone, the market talks. I think that stinks too.
And the Simon Kirby party would have a sod everyone, the market talks. I think that stinks too.
I didn't say I'd sell up for £50k, I just guessed that was the bonus on offer. If I was in the situation where my house was blocking the access to what would otherwise be a £500,000,000 housing development I'm pretty sure I'd be asking for a lot more than that.
I don't see the problem in that. I don't owe anyone but myself a duty in this situation.
And yes, I believe in a free market and small state and my politics is generally laissez-faire, but you misunderstand me if you think that means "sod everyone". Quite the opposite, I've been a supported of Sandleford from the start in a community where taking such a position is hardly going to win me any friends, but I feel strongly that people need somewhere decent to live, and I feel stronger still that people should take personal responsibility for societal issues like this and support what are otherwise difficult political decisions to make.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 16 2014, 07:26 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 16 2014, 06:29 PM)
What a load of cobblers. The 'no society' was about people taking responsibility for their lot.
" I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it: 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society.
There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."
" I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it: 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society.
There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."
Well, notwithstanding the rudeness of your reply, you're right. I was mistaken and I didn't understand the context of her quote. As it happens I agree with what she said (though not particularly about the obligation/entitlement thing), and I think I could actually have quoted what she said to support my own position here.
Posted by: spartacus Nov 16 2014, 09:55 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 15 2014, 08:08 AM)
It's worth remembering that for most of us, the home we've invested emotions in was new once and must have disturbed someone.
Yes, just like the residents on Lower Way in Thatcham who don't seem to grasp the irony of their banners bleating on about not wanting their fabulous view of a run down field destroyed, forgetting that THEIR houses at some stage were built and spoilt the view for residents of older properties of what must have been a bigger field.
It can even impact on the rich and famous... I don't imagine Wayne Rooney gave two stuffs about the blot on the landscape his £5m Cheshire mansion would have at the time, but now that he's been living there and there are plans to build 15 houses nearby (5 of them 'affordable') his wife is getting all uppity and insisting the plans would ‘damage the special landscape, character and appearance of the area’.
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/showbiz-news/coleen-rooney-lodges-formal-objection-8005278
Posted by: Turin Machine Nov 17 2014, 02:14 AM
Banners, signs, petitions, website, action committee. It's a field, no trees, no wildlife, nothing of much apart from the occasional circus. But hey, may damage their property values. But, hey ho.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 17 2014, 11:14 AM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 16 2014, 07:26 PM)
Well, notwithstanding the rudeness of your reply, you're right. I was mistaken and I didn't understand the context of her quote. As it happens I agree with what she said (though not particularly about the obligation/entitlement thing), and I think I could actually have quoted what she said to support my own position here.
I'm sorry Simon, the misuse of the 'no society' comment (often conflated by the left with the fictional Gordon Gekko 'greed is good' comment) is a pet hate of mine. Mind you, while it might have been inaccurate I think you were unwittingly half right in that due to policies promoted by her government we are now a nation of home owners and this is bound to cause problems with planning matters which is quite understandable when you consider that there is little value in anything else we can invest in.
QUOTE (Turin Machine @ Nov 17 2014, 02:14 AM)
Banners, signs, petitions, website, action committee. It's a field, no trees, no wildlife, nothing of much apart from the occasional circus. But hey, may damage their property values. But, hey ho.
I doubt very much that is true.
By the way, I am not against Sandleford development. I just don't trust the way it has come in to being.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 17 2014, 01:44 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 17 2014, 11:14 AM)
....
By the way, I am not against Sandleford development. I just don't trust the way it has come in to being.
By the way, I am not against Sandleford development. I just don't trust the way it has come in to being.
That's fair enough, but how would you see it come into being? It's happened in the normal way as far as I can see. That is someone had an idea and works up a proposal. The only other way I can see would be for the planners (i.e the Council) to come up with schemes. I must admit, that would fill me with dread.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 17 2014, 03:32 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 17 2014, 01:44 PM)
That's fair enough, but how would you see it come into being?
Through due process.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 17 2014, 03:51 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 17 2014, 03:32 PM)
Through due process.
But they've been following process? Which bit causes you concern? Frankly, if I was a developer, I'd want to cover all eventualities before I applied for planning permission; to do otherwise means it hasn't been thought through.
The first stage of planning permission is 'outline' - where you'll see what you are up against politically. Outline means you'll have a rough workable scheme, but you clearly won't have invested in the full monty.
Yes,means also means talking to the likely anti's up front, what's wrong with that?
Posted by: Cognosco Nov 17 2014, 04:13 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 17 2014, 03:51 PM)
But they've been following process? Which bit causes you concern? Frankly, if I was a developer, I'd want to cover all eventualities before I applied for planning permission; to do otherwise means it hasn't been thought through.
The first stage of planning permission is 'outline' - where you'll see what you are up against politically. Outline means you'll have a rough workable scheme, but you clearly won't have invested in the full monty.
Yes,means also means talking to the likely anti's up front, what's wrong with that?
The first stage of planning permission is 'outline' - where you'll see what you are up against politically. Outline means you'll have a rough workable scheme, but you clearly won't have invested in the full monty.
Yes,means also means talking to the likely anti's up front, what's wrong with that?
What the anti's say does not enter the equation.....what the developer wants is the be all and end all if it goes the way of every other development that has been carried out in Newbury. Bear in mind also the final development will never look the same as that first proposed and approved if the scheme goes as normal with the Newbury planners and Councillors!
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 17 2014, 04:49 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 17 2014, 03:51 PM)
But they've been following process? Which bit causes you concern? Frankly, if I was a developer, I'd want to cover all eventualities before I applied for planning permission; to do otherwise means it hasn't been thought through.
The first stage of planning permission is 'outline' - where you'll see what you are up against politically. Outline means you'll have a rough workable scheme, but you clearly won't have invested in the full monty.
Yes,means also means talking to the likely anti's up front, what's wrong with that?
The first stage of planning permission is 'outline' - where you'll see what you are up against politically. Outline means you'll have a rough workable scheme, but you clearly won't have invested in the full monty.
Yes,means also means talking to the likely anti's up front, what's wrong with that?
*deep breath* I have not argued against what has happened except to say I think the language of the letter is inappropriate. You, Simon et al. seem to be picking an argument about something few if any are against.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 17 2014, 05:25 PM
QUOTE (Cognosco @ Nov 17 2014, 04:13 PM)
What the anti's say does not enter the equation.....what the developer wants is the be all and end all if it goes the way of every other development that has been carried out in Newbury. Bear in mind also the final development will never look the same as that first proposed and approved if the scheme goes as normal with the Newbury planners and Councillors!
And this is a serious issue. I have no confidence that our local politicos will secure a quality design with excellent amenities along with appropriate community and communications infrastructure, and much lass confidence that the development will deliver a Country Park worthy of the name with accountable community-led governance and an endowment to secure its future indefinitely.
This is what our elected politicians should be securing for us, but they have a poor track record.
However, we - the everyday schmos - we have a personal responsibility too, to support ideas that will benefit our community and to look a little beyond our personal negative reaction to change. People tend only to speak up to object, and when that happens then it's not difficult to see how we get politicos who are frightened to say or do anything, because in that situation the best strategy is always to keep schtum - we get the democracy we deserve.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 17 2014, 06:31 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 17 2014, 04:49 PM)
*deep breath* I have not argued against what has happened except to say I think the language of the letter is inappropriate. You, Simon et al. seem to be picking an argument about something few if any are against.
*look of stunned amazement* arguably it was a private letter between two parties. It wasn't meant for public consumption and was simply trying to engage a legitimate discussion. Arguably, if I really wanted to be pedantic, I'd say the recipient was being inpolite in showing it to the press. For my part, I can't see his that coloured your view of the process, but never mind.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 17 2014, 06:46 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 17 2014, 06:31 PM)
Arguably, if I really wanted to be pedantic, I'd say the recipient was being inpolite in showing it to the press.
I understand that the letter was unsolicited and privacy should therefore never be assumed, so I don't know why you would feel that. It would be daft to send private letters to people with whom you have no relationship, or are not known.
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 17 2014, 06:31 PM)
For my part, I can't see his that coloured your view of the process, but never mind.
My views have already been aired previously. I'm not saying that the process has been coloured, I simply think the letter was clumsy, however, others seem to think that the authors actions are extraordinary.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 17 2014, 07:50 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 17 2014, 06:46 PM)
I understand that the letter was unsolicited and privacy should therefore never be assumed, so I don't know why you would feel that. It would be daft to send private letters to people with whom you have no relationship, or are not known.
Perhaps we were brought up differently, but if I received a private personal letter I would understand that it would be rude to publish it. I'm not saying I wouldn't publish it, but I'd understand that publishing it would violate a moral code and change the dynamic. Like I said, I think it was fair enough, all's fair etc, but it was somewhat rude all the same.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 17 2014, 09:40 PM
So it's war is it?
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 17 2014, 07:50 PM)
Perhaps we were brought up differently
Talk about rude!
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 17 2014, 07:50 PM)
but if I received a private personal letter I would understand that it would be rude to publish it. I'm not saying I wouldn't publish it, but I'd understand that publishing it would violate a moral code and change the dynamic. Like I said, I think it was fair enough, all's fair etc, but it was somewhat rude all the same.
Whoopty do; so what, a rude letter is treated with contempt. Anyone'd think you wrote the letter. Under the circumstances, no-one can be surprised if people who object to the development would do or say anything within the law to undermine the development.As for the development itself, in good faith I suspect that it is the best of less than perfect options, but I can 'hear a noise' that suggests there are some issues that surround Sandleford being selected for development. In this instance, I can't see that the author of the letter has done anything wrong writing to the residents, but it seems that some are insinuating that proper protocol has not being followed.
I too am starting to understand the 'V' word.
Posted by: Lolly Nov 17 2014, 10:28 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 17 2014, 07:50 PM)
Perhaps we were brought up differently, but if I received a private personal letter I would understand that it would be rude to publish it. I'm not saying I wouldn't publish it, but I'd understand that publishing it would violate a moral code and change the dynamic. Like I said, I think it was fair enough, all's fair etc, but it was somewhat rude all the same.
Being pedantic, it was the NWN that published extracts from the letter, not a resident (unless you know different?) Presumably it was passed on by one of the residents but we don't know that for sure, and we can only speculate as to motive.
Referring back to the article the bits that concern me are:
"The letter was dated May 20, 2014 and signed by Mark Norgate"
The quote: “I appreciate that you may have been very much against the development at Sandleford Park, but the question as to whether or not it will happen has now been answered.
“As such, I would like to come and discuss with you the ways in which you could benefit from the development happening, as opposed to being a financial victim of it.”
And: "Mr Norgate also says that he had held discussions with West Berkshire Council, which told him that Warren Road would need to be widened.
He added that as a result, he and the council had agreed to ask homeowners in Warren Road if they wanted to sell enough land to accommodate the new road"
My first instinct would be to check with the Council regarding the extent of their involvement, and given that the letter was sent in May you would have thought that they would have been able to clarify that by now. If I was concerned about due process, worried about compulsory purchase, or even wanting to push the price up,I'd probably ask to see his agreement with the Council. And yet there is no comment in the article from the "council spokesperson". Equally we don't know when ( or in what context) Mr Norgate made his "It's the lowest form of journalism" comment.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 18 2014, 07:53 AM
Lets try another way. When the developer first came up with their big idea, they would have spoken to the planners at the Council. They didn't need to, but it was sensible and prudent. Exactly the same as I would do if I decided to build an extra few rooms on the side of my office. The Council staff would have been independent and impartial, giving only advice. In the Sandleford case, we can safely assume that the planners may well have said that it would help the proposal if Warren Road was widened and that being the case, it would be prudent to get the agreement of the affected residents. All pretty obvious really. Easier said than done, but the developer then starts, or tries to start a conversation with those people. Of course, some are anti from the start. Of course, the proposal is still only a proposal. The developer sent a letter,he could have sent a letter - then we'd have had a 'Developers Heavies at my front door headline! The conversation about widening Warren Road is a commercial discussion and each side will do what it will to get the result they desire. What it doesn't do is demonstrate that the Council have shown any interest or partiality, demonstrate that Sandleford is right or wrong, or demonstrate the developer is acting inappropriately in any way. The only thing publication does show is that the resident is not going to be an easy call; but that's up to them and them alone.
Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Nov 18 2014, 09:42 AM
I guess, from some of the replies here that few people know that one of the developer companies is owned by Mark Norgate's mum (Delia)
Posted by: Lolly Nov 18 2014, 09:50 AM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 18 2014, 07:53 AM)
The developer sent a letter,he could have sent a letter - then we'd have had a 'Developers Heavies at my front door headline!
Do you mean 'could have knocked on doors'?
In that context, we might very well have had that headline, but in May, not in November and the nature of the agreement that the Commercial developer purported to have made with the Council might have been investigated further. Instead it appears that the NWN have lifted quotes straight from the letter, and this particular quote implies that the Council is involved in a commercial process:
"he and the council had agreed to ask homeowners in Warren Road if they wanted to sell enough land to accommodate the new road."
The way I see it, either someone at the Council has overstepped the mark, or the Developer has misinterpreted/overstated the advice he was given.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 18 2014, 01:16 PM
QUOTE (Lolly @ Nov 18 2014, 09:50 AM)
Do you mean 'could have knocked on doors'?
In that context, we might very well have had that headline, but in May, not in November and the nature of the agreement that the Commercial developer purported to have made with the Council might have been investigated further. Instead it appears that the NWN have lifted quotes straight from the letter, and this particular quote implies that the Council is involved in a commercial process:
"he and the council had agreed to ask homeowners in Warren Road if they wanted to sell enough land to accommodate the new road."
The way I see it, either someone at the Council has overstepped the mark, or the Developer has misinterpreted/overstated the advice he was given.
In that context, we might very well have had that headline, but in May, not in November and the nature of the agreement that the Commercial developer purported to have made with the Council might have been investigated further. Instead it appears that the NWN have lifted quotes straight from the letter, and this particular quote implies that the Council is involved in a commercial process:
"he and the council had agreed to ask homeowners in Warren Road if they wanted to sell enough land to accommodate the new road."
The way I see it, either someone at the Council has overstepped the mark, or the Developer has misinterpreted/overstated the advice he was given.
Sorry, but that's really playing with words. The council had not entered any agreement and couldn't do so without due process. What was meant is that the developer agreed with the advice he'd been given by the Council officers. In any event, what was so wrong about the developer wanting to talk to the householder? If the developer hadn't and he would have been totally within his rights not to, when his plans were made public, we'd have had the resident complaining that it was the first he'd heard about it!
Posted by: r.bartlett Nov 18 2014, 05:19 PM
QUOTE (Dodgys smarter brother. @ Nov 18 2014, 10:42 AM)
I guess, from some of the replies here that few people know that one of the developer companies is owned by Mark Norgate's mum (Delia)
https://www.opencompany.co.uk/profile/254892/delia-lynne-norgate
https://www.opencompany.co.uk/company/02796034/donnington-land-property-limited
Posted by: On the edge Nov 18 2014, 05:32 PM
QUOTE (Dodgys smarter brother. @ Nov 18 2014, 09:42 AM)
I guess, from some of the replies here that few people know that one of the developer companies is owned by Mark Norgate's mum (Delia)
So what?
Posted by: Exhausted Nov 18 2014, 06:29 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 18 2014, 05:32 PM)
So what?
Exactly, the Norgates have always been local developers and obviously when the father died, the company was continued by the family. It isn't dishonourable to earn a living even if the profits might make it a comfortable living but the reverse could be true of course.
Posted by: Lolly Nov 18 2014, 06:53 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 18 2014, 01:16 PM)
Sorry, but that's really playing with words.
Not intentionally - I think it's just a difference of interpretation, based on incomplete information
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 18 2014, 01:16 PM)
The council had not entered any agreement
How do you know?
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 18 2014, 01:16 PM)
and couldn't do so without due process.
I agree they shouldn't do, but the quotes in the letter ( as presented in the article) suggest otherwise.
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 18 2014, 01:16 PM)
What was meant is that the developer agreed with the advice he'd been given by the Council officers.
Again, how do you know? That isn't what it says in the NWN. Have you seen the actual letter?
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 18 2014, 01:16 PM)
In any event, what was so wrong about the developer wanting to talk to the householder?
Nothing
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 18 2014, 01:16 PM)
If the developer hadn't and he would have been totally within his rights not to, when his plans were made public, we'd have had the resident complaining that it was the first he'd heard about it!
Not sure what your point is here? If a developer put forward plans to construct a road on your land without your agreement I think you'd have rather more to complain about than the fact it was the first you'd heard about it, especially if it meant demolition of your house!
Posted by: r.bartlett Nov 18 2014, 07:07 PM
QUOTE (Exhausted @ Nov 18 2014, 06:29 PM)
Exactly, the Norgates have always been local developers and obviously when the father died, the company was continued by the family. It isn't dishonourable to earn a living even if the profits might make it a comfortable living but the reverse could be true of course.
I guess the issue may lie with the strong possibility the developer will leave a trail of destruction in warren rd (if that is an acceptable term) and move to a big house in Highclere on the profit whilst those left behind have to suffer the consequences of poor planning. As it stands the traffic backs up from the double roundabouts past Warren rd let alone when this comes on full stream.
make no mistake the planning department will fudge the traffic issue now to appease the green 'car free' brigade which will cause serious hold ups for years to come..
Decent open and honest planning would make most of these concerns go away. The battle to save Sandleford is lost lets just not throw in the towel to let them do what they want and to **** with the consequences.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 18 2014, 07:28 PM
QUOTE (Lolly @ Nov 18 2014, 06:53 PM)
Not intentionally - I think it's just a difference of interpretation, based on incomplete information
How do you know?
I agree they shouldn't do, but the quotes in the letter ( as presented in the article) suggest otherwise.
Again, how do you know? That isn't what it says in the NWN. Have you seen the actual letter?
Nothing
Not sure what your point is here? If a developer put forward plans to construct a road on your land without your agreement I think you'd have rather more to complain about than the fact it was the first you'd heard about it, especially if it meant demolition of your house!
How do you know?
I agree they shouldn't do, but the quotes in the letter ( as presented in the article) suggest otherwise.
Again, how do you know? That isn't what it says in the NWN. Have you seen the actual letter?
Nothing
Not sure what your point is here? If a developer put forward plans to construct a road on your land without your agreement I think you'd have rather more to complain about than the fact it was the first you'd heard about it, especially if it meant demolition of your house!
Whatever the planners may or may not have 'agreed' with the developer, there can be no contract without the authority of the council itself which would have been made public. Search as I might, there is no public record of any such arrangement. Of course, there might have been a secret arrangement but that would be a very serious and different matter.
I have been in the position where a developer was proposing to demolish a block of flats I was living in without making any reference to me. First I knew was an article in the local press. Actually, the only thing I was worried about was the need to have the decision taken quickly; so it had no effect on me selling. One of my neighbours almost begged our Councillor to go yes because she wanted the compensation, another wanted a no because he didn't want the disruption. This is all standard stuff for any new development.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 18 2014, 07:39 PM
QUOTE (r.bartlett @ Nov 18 2014, 07:07 PM)
I guess the issue may lie with the strong possibility the developer will leave a trail of destruction in warren rd (if that is an acceptable term) and move to a big house in Highclere on the profit whilst those left behind have to suffer the consequences of poor planning. As it stands the traffic backs up from the double roundabouts past Warren rd let alone when this comes on full stream.
make no mistake the planning department will fudge the traffic issue now to appease the green 'car free' brigade which will cause serious hold ups for years to come..
Decent open and honest planning would make most of these concerns go away. The battle to save Sandleford is lost lets just not throw in the towel to let them do what they want and to **** with the consequences.
make no mistake the planning department will fudge the traffic issue now to appease the green 'car free' brigade which will cause serious hold ups for years to come..
Decent open and honest planning would make most of these concerns go away. The battle to save Sandleford is lost lets just not throw in the towel to let them do what they want and to **** with the consequences.
Err what exactly is wrong with that? The developer is making a living like anyone else! At least they are local developers and likely to be spending whatever they make in the locality! Trust you don't shop in Aldi or Lidl who are presently destroying our home supermarkets, but the owners are spending the profits they make in Germany.
The Planning people have to apply formal rules to traffic calculations. If you disagree, then there is a remedy via your local councillor. I'd certainly join you when it comes to the rather daft green rules about car parking spaces in new developments which leads to such stupidities as the Vodafone busses. Again, not the fault of the developer...
Posted by: r.bartlett Nov 18 2014, 07:58 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 18 2014, 07:39 PM)
Err what exactly is wrong with that? The developer is making a living like anyone else! At least they are local developers and likely to be spending whatever they make in the locality! Trust you don't shop in Aldi or Lidl who are presently destroying our home supermarkets, but the owners are spending the profits they make in Germany.
The Planning people have to apply formal rules to traffic calculations. If you disagree, then there is a remedy via your local councillor. I'd certainly join you when it comes to the rather daft green rules about car parking spaces in new developments which leads to such stupidities as the Vodafone busses. Again, not the fault of the developer...
The Planning people have to apply formal rules to traffic calculations. If you disagree, then there is a remedy via your local councillor. I'd certainly join you when it comes to the rather daft green rules about car parking spaces in new developments which leads to such stupidities as the Vodafone busses. Again, not the fault of the developer...
Not sure why you ask about lidl and Aldi but no we don't shop at either. Apparently Sainsbury is first choice then Tesco and occasionally Budgens
Now no one is overly concerned about anyone making a profit as we apparently live in a capitalist society. However within that there is a sense of social responsibility. Now it can be argued that isn't the concern of the capitalist out to make a buck and indeed that may be so but some have a sense of not slash and burn but work within self imposed guidelines. For instance certain Quakers who built many of the UK's world famous brands and became fabulously wealthy but had a real genuine sense of social responsibility and a concern for the locals.
I wonder where Mr & Mrs Norgate fit in the greater scheme of things?
Posted by: Cognosco Nov 18 2014, 08:04 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 18 2014, 07:28 PM)
Whatever the planners may or may not have 'agreed' with the developer, there can be no contract without the authority of the council itself which would have been made public. Search as I might, there is no public record of any such arrangement. Of course, there might have been a secret arrangement but that would be a very serious and different matter.
I have been in the position where a developer was proposing to demolish a block of flats I was living in without making any reference to me. First I knew was an article in the local press. Actually, the only thing I was worried about was the need to have the decision taken quickly; so it had no effect on me selling. One of my neighbours almost begged our Councillor to go yes because she wanted the compensation, another wanted a no because he didn't want the disruption. This is all standard stuff for any new development.
I have been in the position where a developer was proposing to demolish a block of flats I was living in without making any reference to me. First I knew was an article in the local press. Actually, the only thing I was worried about was the need to have the decision taken quickly; so it had no effect on me selling. One of my neighbours almost begged our Councillor to go yes because she wanted the compensation, another wanted a no because he didn't want the disruption. This is all standard stuff for any new development.
I think everyone is aware that it is all cut and dried long before anything leaks to the public?
The charade of the so called planning procedures occur only to try and alleviate the flack the local politicos will face from their electorate. Sweeteners are offered (like a country park) and depending on the reaction from the plebs other sweeteners are offered. Then, miraculously, when permission is granted some time elapses before the climate becomes not conducive to be able to actually produce the sweeteners for whatever reason and for instance the developer will have to pull out if he, or she, has to actually produce the sweeteners. Next comes the developers, because of the difficult financial climate, we wont be able to actually build the x amount of affordable housing as first proposed. This invariably means the precept payers have to give the developer a bung to build any affordable housing that is required. The promised country park, if actually supplied, ends up a very miniscule muddy patch of scrub land that of course eventually has to be built on because it actually is no use as a country park. If all this sounds so familiar I wonder why?
I believe the developers letter stated the truth and it says it all in the one statement:
“As such, I would like to come and discuss with you the ways in which you could benefit from the development happening, as opposed to being a financial victim of it.
Agree or face the financial consequences ultimatum?
This is Newbury of course so what else can we expect?
Posted by: r.bartlett Nov 18 2014, 08:26 PM
QUOTE (Cognosco @ Nov 18 2014, 08:04 PM)
Agree or face the financial consequences ultimatum?
This is Newbury of course so what else can we expect?
This is Newbury of course so what else can we expect?
The get out while you can was a very obvious *kind and generous offer
*passive bullying.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 18 2014, 08:51 PM
QUOTE (r.bartlett @ Nov 18 2014, 07:58 PM)
Not sure why you ask about lidl and Aldi but no we don't shop at either. Apparently Sainsbury is first choice then Tesco and occasionally Budgens
Now no one is overly concerned about anyone making a profit as we apparently live in a capitalist society. However within that there is a sense of social responsibility. Now it can be argued that isn't the concern of the capitalist out to make a buck and indeed that may be so but some have a sense of not slash and burn but work within self imposed guidelines. For instance certain Quakers who built many of the UK's world famous brands and became fabulously wealthy but had a real genuine sense of social responsibility and a concern for the locals.
I wonder where Mr & Mrs Norgate fit in the greater scheme of things?
Now no one is overly concerned about anyone making a profit as we apparently live in a capitalist society. However within that there is a sense of social responsibility. Now it can be argued that isn't the concern of the capitalist out to make a buck and indeed that may be so but some have a sense of not slash and burn but work within self imposed guidelines. For instance certain Quakers who built many of the UK's world famous brands and became fabulously wealthy but had a real genuine sense of social responsibility and a concern for the locals.
I wonder where Mr & Mrs Norgate fit in the greater scheme of things?
Yes, that's all very well and the way it is. I was just trying to show you it is the same for any entrepreneur or developer. Again, what's so wrong with Mr and Mrs Norgate?
Posted by: On the edge Nov 18 2014, 09:08 PM
QUOTE (Cognosco @ Nov 18 2014, 08:04 PM)
I think everyone is aware that it is all cut and dried long before anything leaks to the public?
The charade of the so called planning procedures occur only to try and alleviate the flack the local politicos will face from their electorate. Sweeteners are offered (like a country park) and depending on the reaction from the plebs other sweeteners are offered. Then, miraculously, when permission is granted some time elapses before the climate becomes not conducive to be able to actually produce the sweeteners for whatever reason and for instance the developer will have to pull out if he, or she, has to actually produce the sweeteners. Next comes the developers, because of the difficult financial climate, we wont be able to actually build the x amount of affordable housing as first proposed. This invariably means the precept payers have to give the developer a bung to build any affordable housing that is required. The promised country park, if actually supplied, ends up a very miniscule muddy patch of scrub land that of course eventually has to be built on because it actually is no use as a country park. If all this sounds so familiar I wonder why?
I believe the developers letter stated the truth and it says it all in the one statement:
“As such, I would like to come and discuss with you the ways in which you could benefit from the development happening, as opposed to being a financial victim of it.
Agree or face the financial consequences ultimatum?
This is Newbury of course so what else can we expect?
The charade of the so called planning procedures occur only to try and alleviate the flack the local politicos will face from their electorate. Sweeteners are offered (like a country park) and depending on the reaction from the plebs other sweeteners are offered. Then, miraculously, when permission is granted some time elapses before the climate becomes not conducive to be able to actually produce the sweeteners for whatever reason and for instance the developer will have to pull out if he, or she, has to actually produce the sweeteners. Next comes the developers, because of the difficult financial climate, we wont be able to actually build the x amount of affordable housing as first proposed. This invariably means the precept payers have to give the developer a bung to build any affordable housing that is required. The promised country park, if actually supplied, ends up a very miniscule muddy patch of scrub land that of course eventually has to be built on because it actually is no use as a country park. If all this sounds so familiar I wonder why?
I believe the developers letter stated the truth and it says it all in the one statement:
“As such, I would like to come and discuss with you the ways in which you could benefit from the development happening, as opposed to being a financial victim of it.
Agree or face the financial consequences ultimatum?
This is Newbury of course so what else can we expect?
Therein lies the rub. The answer lies with our dear local councillors, it's that political leadership bit again. If the process is being diverted, it can only be with their connivance. Let's see some real accountability - they should be the focus of the protesters attention. If they believe the development is in the public interest, then come out and say so. defend your employees.
The conditions on developments are surely mandatory? For instance, I can't see why the Council aren't telling their legal people to enforce the Parkway condition, rather than using heavy handed tactics on innocent prospective purchasers.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 18 2014, 09:26 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 18 2014, 09:08 PM)
Therein lies the rub. The answer lies with our dear local councillors, it's that political leadership bit again. If the process is being diverted, it can only be with their connivance. Let's see some real accountability - they should be the focus of the protesters attention. If they believe the development is in the public interest, then come out and say so. defend your employees.
Absolutely. I quite agree with Cognosco's point about broken promises, but you can't blame the commercial developer for trying, the problem is that our local politicos are not ensuring that the public interest is served; they're not paying enough attention to what their officers are doing and they're allowing the developer to wriggle out of its commitments. And as you say, it's the politicos that should be the focus of the protestors' attention, but how do you mobilise the comfortable people of Wash Common to campaign for a quality urban environment with adequate social infrastructure and a financially sustainable Country Park?
Posted by: r.bartlett Nov 18 2014, 09:44 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 18 2014, 08:51 PM)
Yes, that's all very well and the way it is. I was just trying to show you it is the same for any entrepreneur or developer. Again, what's so wrong with Mr and Mrs Norgate?
I don't think I have passed comment on them except that they are trying to passive bully an owner out of their home to further their own aims.
Of course you may feel that is perfectly acceptable. I don't know any of the involved parties so can't comment on the effect it has had but I myself feel I would rather not give them the benefit of the doubt and can't quite see why I should, especially if you yourself suggest they are developers and by default have no self restraint when a money making opportunity falls into their lap.
I do agree it's ultimately the council who have responsibility for the local community and which is probably why I feel so depressed as to what the likely outcome will be..
Posted by: MontyPython Nov 18 2014, 09:58 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 17 2014, 07:50 PM)
Perhaps we were brought up differently, but if I received a private personal letter I would understand that it would be rude to publish it. .....
So if one received a private personal letter explaining how to get one's allotment back it would be rude to publish it!
HOW VERY RUDE YOU ARE SIMON!
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 18 2014, 10:53 PM
It's a no win situation. Take a national example. the main parties have hitherto agreed to support the membership of the EU, yet they are seen by many as ignoring the electorate. The same could happen at Sandleford. If both parties united over Sandleford, there would be complaints that the electorate are being ignored.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 19 2014, 07:28 AM
QUOTE (r.bartlett @ Nov 18 2014, 09:44 PM)
I don't think I have passed comment on them except that they are trying to passive bully an owner out of their home to further their own aims.
Of course you may feel that is perfectly acceptable. I don't know any of the involved parties so can't comment on the effect it has had but I myself feel I would rather not give them the benefit of the doubt and can't quite see why I should, especially if you yourself suggest they are developers and by default have no self restraint when a money making opportunity falls into their lap.
I do agree it's ultimately the council who have responsibility for the local community and which is probably why I feel so depressed as to what the likely outcome will be..
Of course you may feel that is perfectly acceptable. I don't know any of the involved parties so can't comment on the effect it has had but I myself feel I would rather not give them the benefit of the doubt and can't quite see why I should, especially if you yourself suggest they are developers and by default have no self restraint when a money making opportunity falls into their lap.
I do agree it's ultimately the council who have responsibility for the local community and which is probably why I feel so depressed as to what the likely outcome will be..
Then why did you choose to name the developers representative personally? Passive bully is simply inflammatory; a bit like calling a railway ticket inspector a bully because he's asking to see your ticket. The letter simply contained information the recipient didn't like. I get letters like that from my bank. Try as I might, I'm not quite sure how else the content might have been conveyed, or indeed, if a Mr Smith, or Mr Jones from any other developer would have played it differently.
I also don't get the ''no self restraint when a money making opportunity falls into their lap' bit. Do you really mean to say you would pass up such an opportunity? Ore that any other business venture would do the same?
Posted by: On the edge Nov 19 2014, 07:37 AM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 18 2014, 10:53 PM)
It's a no win situation. Take a national example. the main parties have hitherto agreed to support the membership of the EU, yet they are seen by many as ignoring the electorate. The same could happen at Sandleford. If both parties united over Sandleford, there would be complaints that the electorate are being ignored.
That's where political leadership kicks in. If a majority of party members agree with party policy, arguably they are not ignoring the electorate. We all have the opportunity to become party members. The real issue with Sandleford is that there is a very well organised and vociferous local opposition. Nothing wrong with that, but it needs a similar robust response for the good of the rest of the community. The electorate want more homes, they have to go somewhere. I can't think of any proposed site that hasn't attracted opposition; how should we proceed; just let the shoutiest win?
Posted by: Lolly Nov 19 2014, 10:12 AM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 19 2014, 07:37 AM)
. The electorate want more homes,
That's not how I see it. Some of the electorate want a home of their own that they can afford to pay the rent/mortgage on. Some (including the majority of the local electorate) already have one.
Developers on the other hand want to build houses (not homes)
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 19 2014, 07:37 AM)
they have to go somewhere.
Where they are needed? As opposed to where developers think they can make the most profit.
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 19 2014, 07:37 AM)
I can't think of any proposed site that hasn't attracted opposition; how should we proceed; just let the shoutiest win?
By following due process? Allowing both supporters and opposers to put forward their case.
Unlike you I don't see the 'Say no to Sandleford' campaign as 'an issue', I see it as democracy in action. Supporters could have done the same thing.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 19 2014, 11:36 AM
QUOTE (Lolly @ Nov 19 2014, 10:12 AM)
That's not how I see it. Some of the electorate want a home of their own that they can afford to pay the rent/mortgage on. Some (including the majority of the local electorate) already have one.
Developers on the other hand want to build houses (not homes)
Where they are needed? As opposed to where developers think they can make the most profit.
By following due process? Allowing both supporters and opposers to put forward their case.
Unlike you I don't see the 'Say no to Sandleford' campaign as 'an issue', I see it as democracy in action. Supporters could have done the same thing.
Developers on the other hand want to build houses (not homes)
Where they are needed? As opposed to where developers think they can make the most profit.
By following due process? Allowing both supporters and opposers to put forward their case.
Unlike you I don't see the 'Say no to Sandleford' campaign as 'an issue', I see it as democracy in action. Supporters could have done the same thing.
Well, a big chunk of the electorate are clamouring for homes, certainly all the political parties see this. Even those with their own home already want their children to live somewhere decent. In demographic terms we are also seeing an explosion in single occupancy homes. So is there any evidence to show that the electorate don't want to meet this demand? I wholly agree they don't want them in their back yard.
Yes, developers want to build houses, how else do we get homes? Even converting existing buildings and ridding ourselves of campus style public utility buildings needs developers. The only other way I can see to satisfy the demand for more accommodation would be to put much more investment into making couples stay together, creating far more shared accommodation for mums and babies, offering far greater encouragement for people to take in elderly relatives and other lodgers. One way or another, I can't see that as being popular.
The homes are needed here in the South East. Newbury is about to get an even better link to the employment opportunities in the Thames Valley. The South East generates the nations wealth, like it or not the houses are needed here, we are part of the UK! Yes, there are areas of the Country with the opposite problem, in some northern regions acceptable housing is being demolished. How do you move jobs and so people willingly to these areas? Intervention had been tried by both parties in the past and had failed.
Yes, I wholly agree that the protests are democracy in action. Absolutely no issue with that, I'm just surprised that the protesters don't seem to like being challenged. Democracy is a two way street. I really don't mind people objecting, I don't like them using ungrounded and bogus argument to back their points, that is simply trying to gain advantage over others...classic passive bullying.
Personally, I don't like any 'green field' development. I would much rather see brown field reuse. But then, there is massive protest about that. Eeek, we don't like the Sterling Cable site redevelopment, or Parkway, or the proposed Station area redevelopment. On top of that, why do schools and other public buildings need to take up so much land? Absolutely no reason why they can't be more than two stories. A classic example is the College, far better for that to have been built in town centre, as a multi story building. Much better transport access too.
Posted by: Lolly Nov 19 2014, 06:41 PM
Too many generalisations there to respond to, and I was talking more in terms of local politics not national.
I don't understand your point about the objectors (to development in general or Sandleford in particular?) being 'passive bullies' - a term I hadn't heard of until this thread! I've googled it and there are apparently several types of bullying, but whilst I can see how it could be applied to the letter sent to residents of Warren Road as per the thread, I can't see how it's applicable to the Say No to Sandleford campaigners.
Agree with you re Newbury College though - have never really understood the rationale for it moving from one side of town to the other, and it's a bit of a hike from the town centre.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 19 2014, 07:09 PM
QUOTE (Lolly @ Nov 19 2014, 06:41 PM)
I don't understand your point about the objectors (to development in general or Sandleford in particular?) being 'passive bullies' - a term I hadn't heard of until this thread! I've googled it and there are apparently several types of bullying, but whilst I can see how it could be applied to the letter sent to residents of Warren Road as per the thread, I can't see how it's applicable to the Say No to Sandleford campaigners.
Agree with you re Newbury College though - have never really understood the rationale for it moving from one side of town to the other, and it's a bit of a hike from the town centre.
Agree with you re Newbury College though - have never really understood the rationale for it moving from one side of town to the other, and it's a bit of a hike from the town centre.
$$$$
I see 'outing' people on the Internet while remaining anonymous as bulling, TBH (who ever did that).
Posted by: Lolly Nov 19 2014, 08:20 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 19 2014, 07:09 PM)
$$$$
surely not!
Posted by: Lolly Nov 19 2014, 08:27 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 19 2014, 07:09 PM)
I see 'outing' people on the Internet while remaining anonymous as bulling, TBH (who ever did that).
Yes, but which type of bullying.....
http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/bullying/types_bullying.htm
Passive bullying
A passive bully is one who lets others suffer, and perhaps enjoys the sense of superiority that this brings. Active bullies often have passive bullies as gang members. They actually do relatively little, although their presence can be threatening.
Passive bullies may be potential victims themselves, but prefer to keep out of the bully's sights.
Still confused!
Posted by: user23 Nov 19 2014, 10:27 PM
QUOTE (MontyPython @ Nov 18 2014, 10:58 PM)
So if one received a private personal letter explaining how to get one's allotment back it would be rude to publish it!
HOW VERY RUDE YOU ARE SIMON!
I believe this is referred to as "being owned". HOW VERY RUDE YOU ARE SIMON!
Posted by: On the edge Nov 19 2014, 10:50 PM
QUOTE (Lolly @ Nov 19 2014, 06:41 PM)
Too many generalisations there to respond to, and I was talking more in terms of local politics not national.
I don't understand your point about the objectors (to development in general or Sandleford in particular?) being 'passive bullies' - a term I hadn't heard of until this thread! I've googled it and there are apparently several types of bullying, but whilst I can see how it could be applied to the letter sent to residents of Warren Road as per the thread, I can't see how it's applicable to the Say No to Sandleford campaigners.
Agree with you re Newbury College though - have never really understood the rationale for it moving from one side of town to the other, and it's a bit of a hike from the town centre.
I don't understand your point about the objectors (to development in general or Sandleford in particular?) being 'passive bullies' - a term I hadn't heard of until this thread! I've googled it and there are apparently several types of bullying, but whilst I can see how it could be applied to the letter sent to residents of Warren Road as per the thread, I can't see how it's applicable to the Say No to Sandleford campaigners.
Agree with you re Newbury College though - have never really understood the rationale for it moving from one side of town to the other, and it's a bit of a hike from the town centre.
Simply trying to answer your point asking 'where was new housing needed'. Keeping it local, it's needed right here in West Berkshire. I couldn't see you had doubts about the local need which is known and acknowledged.
As for passive bullying, that was a response from someone supporting one of the 'anti's' who said a developer sending a letter asking to talk about selling his property was 'passive bullying'. As I see it, it apples more to the campaigners, because by their own aggressive tactics, passive rather than violent, they are attempting to 'bully' the Council into seeing things their way. For instance, I certainly don't like the implication that I must be a literary philistine simply because I agree with the destruction of a fictional rabbit warren. Then again, in democratic terms I can accept they will try what they will to do that but that means the developer can't be castigated for doing the same.
Posted by: Lolly Nov 20 2014, 06:30 AM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 19 2014, 10:50 PM)
Simply trying to answer your point asking 'where was new housing needed'. Keeping it local, it's needed right here in West Berkshire. I couldn't see you had doubts about the local need which is known and acknowledged.
Not convinced. West Berkshire is such a sprawling county and right at the Western end of the Thames Valley, whereas most employment opportunities are at the Eastern end. I suppose it depends on your definition of local.
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 19 2014, 10:50 PM)
As for passive bullying, that was a response from someone supporting one of the 'anti's' who said a developer sending a letter asking to talk about selling his property was 'passive bullying'. As I see it, it apples more to the campaigners, because by their own aggressive tactics, passive rather than violent, they are attempting to 'bully' the Council into seeing things their way. For instance, I certainly don't like the implication that I must be a literary philistine simply because I agree with the destruction of a fictional rabbit warren. Then again, in democratic terms I can accept they will try what they will to do that but that means the developer can't be castigated for doing the same.
Must have missed that! Was it on a different thread? Getting back to this one and accepting that Sandleford has been chosen as a strategic 'greenfield' site, surely there is enough room on the site to build access roads without needing to demolish existing houses or impinge on people's gardens.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 20 2014, 08:38 AM
Ironic really, a great friend of mine who lives in the Slough area is presently involved in a protest group....hoping to stop a small development. It's murmured at least that new homes need to be built further west, Slough is too full!
Then again, some years back Reading Borough came up with a scheme to regenerate the town centre by making it a Euro city, massive very well designed towers, a bit like Docklands. However, to satisfy strategic planning demands, the Borough would have needed a substantial number of the new homes proposed for West Berkshire. Oooh no, don't want that - we said no.
What do we want?
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 20 2014, 09:52 AM
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.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 20 2014, 09:56 AM
Again, what's local? Does that include Greenham, Thatcham or even Calcot?
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 20 2014, 10:51 AM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 20 2014, 09:56 AM)
Again, what's local? Does that include Greenham, Thatcham or even Calcot?
Sandleford is Greenham
I'd say local is West Berks. Others might say Newbury/Greenham/Thatcham and any other parish next to Newbury.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 20 2014, 11:06 AM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 20 2014, 10:51 AM)
Sandleford is Greenham
I'd say local is West Berks. Others might say Newbury/Greenham/Thatcham and any other parish next to Newbury.
I'd say local is West Berks. Others might say Newbury/Greenham/Thatcham and any other parish next to Newbury.
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?
Posted by: Lolly Nov 20 2014, 11:50 AM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 20 2014, 11:06 AM)
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?
Is that a reference to the lack of hospital/maternity provision in West Berkshire?
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 20 2014, 11:06 AM)
Do we count as local?
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'?
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 20 2014, 12:29 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 20 2014, 11:06 AM)
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.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 20 2014, 03:32 PM
QUOTE (Lolly @ Nov 20 2014, 11:50 AM)
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'?
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.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 20 2014, 05:00 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 20 2014, 09:52 AM)
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.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 20 2014, 05:10 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 20 2014, 05:00 PM)
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.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 20 2014, 05:14 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 20 2014, 12:29 PM)
'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....
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 20 2014, 05:23 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 20 2014, 05:14 PM)
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....
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!"
Posted by: MontyPython Nov 20 2014, 06:23 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 20 2014, 05:00 PM)
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
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 20 2014, 07:15 PM
QUOTE (MontyPython @ Nov 20 2014, 06:23 PM)
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
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.
Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Nov 20 2014, 07:38 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 20 2014, 07:15 PM)
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!
Posted by: MontyPython Nov 20 2014, 07:44 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 20 2014, 07:15 PM)
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!
Posted by: On the edge Nov 20 2014, 07:54 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 20 2014, 05:23 PM)
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!"
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!
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 20 2014, 07:59 PM
QUOTE (Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera @ Nov 20 2014, 07:38 PM)
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.
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.
QUOTE (Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera @ Nov 20 2014, 07:38 PM)
Ps. Nice picture of you and one of the girls in the paper!
Thank you.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 20 2014, 08:01 PM
QUOTE (Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera @ Nov 20 2014, 07:38 PM)
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!
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.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 20 2014, 08:39 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Nov 20 2014, 07:59 PM)
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?
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 20 2014, 08:01 PM)
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.
Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 20 2014, 08:40 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 20 2014, 07:54 PM)
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.
Posted by: Exhausted Nov 22 2014, 03:42 PM
QUOTE (Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera @ Nov 20 2014, 07:38 PM)
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.
Posted by: MontyPython Nov 22 2014, 04:11 PM
QUOTE (Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera @ Nov 20 2014, 07:38 PM)
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?
Posted by: Simon Kirby Nov 22 2014, 06:03 PM
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.
Posted by: Nothing Much Nov 23 2014, 04:50 PM
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
Posted by: On the edge Nov 23 2014, 09:03 PM
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
Posted by: r.bartlett Dec 26 2014, 05:51 PM
QUOTE Council approves Warren Road upgrade despite Sandleford concerns
Thursday, 25th Dec 2014
QUOTE
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.
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.
Posted by: Exhausted Dec 26 2014, 09:48 PM
Is this an effort by young Norgate to achieve the status of the parental Norgate who seemed to "Own" the local planners.
Posted by: On the edge Dec 26 2014, 10:49 PM
Have a look at the West Berks LibDem website. The Say NO to Sandleford Campaign has its very own heading in the menu. Can't see any other NO to Development Campaigns being given similar treatment. Does this mean that the Sandleford Campaigners 'Own' the local LibDems? Not sure if this would go down too well with those opposing the developments elsewhere....
Posted by: r.bartlett Dec 27 2014, 10:12 AM
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.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 27 2014, 10:47 AM
QUOTE (r.bartlett @ Dec 27 2014, 10:12 AM)
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.
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.
Posted by: blackdog Dec 27 2014, 11:18 AM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Dec 27 2014, 10:47 AM)
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.
Posted by: On the edge Dec 27 2014, 11:27 AM
QUOTE (blackdog @ Dec 27 2014, 11:18 AM)
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.
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.
Certainly agree with your last point which is so often forgotten and glossed over. The 'spending cuts' issue is an important one. Our local CouncillorS would have a bit of trouble claiming they have no money to spend on infrastructure, given the amount they are squittering away on unnecessary infrastructure projects like restoring derelict buildings. Similarly, if we can afford the unnecessary and huge capital sums it's cost to feed kids at primary school we must have the cash to support development.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 27 2014, 11:52 AM
QUOTE (blackdog @ Dec 27 2014, 11:18 AM)
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.
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.
To be fair I don't know much about WBC and the restrictions that you mention so if this is true then yes, I agree with you to some extent.
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.
Posted by: Exhausted Dec 27 2014, 02:56 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Dec 27 2014, 11:52 AM)
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.
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.
Posted by: NWNREADER Dec 27 2014, 05:52 PM
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......
Posted by: On the edge Dec 27 2014, 07:02 PM
Somewhat convoluted, as previous posts have explained, this is what S106 payments are actually for. What should also be remembered is that the council will get a substantial annual income from everyone who buys one of the houses in the development, so arguably the council should be paying the developer for bringing them more income.
Posted by: Exhausted Dec 27 2014, 07:09 PM
QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Dec 27 2014, 05:52 PM)
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......
There is no way that this application will struggle. It's a council development in all but name. This will be nursed through to conclusion. There might be a bit of blood spilt on the carpet but that will be quickly cleared up and will be presented to the nodding councillors with a recommendation for approval. Done deal, the various bodies will take their S106 payments and the local roads will be sorted, the viability study will determine how many affordables will be pepperpotted around the development and how much the library will get.
Then the building will start and Newbury will have so much additional traffic along with the racecourse development that the A339 will become a nightmare even with the racecourse bridge and the Sterling Estate new road. That's what seems to be the way forward without any thought for alternative overall traffic planning. If the WBC bike body believe that in this day and age that every home with a bike store will use a bike to go shopping and travel to work it proves that they have no understanding of today's people. We are a global community, sixty years ago we all worked locally and the little shops down the end of the road served us well. Today,........?
Posted by: blackdog Dec 28 2014, 12:14 AM
QUOTE (Exhausted @ Dec 27 2014, 02:56 PM)
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.
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.
Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 28 2014, 01:34 AM
Good old free enterprise: 'short-sighted capitalism'.
Posted by: On the edge Dec 28 2014, 07:32 AM
QUOTE (blackdog @ Dec 28 2014, 12:14 AM)
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.
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.
Just like the capital all the other businesses and services will have to invest to support additional customers. There isn't anything different about the Council! Of course, one might have expected that to support those already living and breeding in the area the Councils would have kept up. After all, the effect of a few hundred new houses in support terms should be marginal. So, new developments are really just highlighting the incompetence of the local councils over the past decades.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 28 2014, 09:30 AM
QUOTE (blackdog @ Dec 28 2014, 12:14 AM)
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.
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.
Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 28 2014, 10:43 AM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Dec 28 2014, 09:30 AM)
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.
All that is fine if your figures are accurate; however, even the government shied away from building a ring-road that would have served the town better; presumably, because of cost.
Posted by: user23 Dec 28 2014, 11:35 AM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Dec 28 2014, 09:30 AM)
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.
You plan fails on two counts: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.
1) People like the market as they feel it retains Newbury's status as a "small market town".
2) People didn't want an Eastern bypass as it would remove the last green space between Newbury and Thatcham, effectively creating one urban area.
Whilst some politicians like yourself break arguments down purely into figures, others listen to the views of the people and base their views on both.
Thank goodness we don't live in Simon's Scroogetown, a locality where the market has been closed down, Christmas lights abandoned, graveyards privatised and civic buildings sold off for short term gain.
Posted by: blackdog Dec 28 2014, 11:41 AM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Dec 28 2014, 09:30 AM)
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.
It might cost £15m to build a mile of dual carriageway - but first you have to buy the land, land that in places short sighted planning has covered with buildings or turned into prime building land - very expensive. Then you need junctions and bridges - far more expensive than a bit of dual carriageway.
Then you need central government to fund the 'other half' (business rates are just an income stream for the Treasury, not an additional funding source) - in the current economic climate this won't happen for decades.
Of course they could just let WBC keep the Business Rates they collect - that would pay for a ring road in a very short time.
Posted by: blackdog Dec 28 2014, 11:52 AM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Dec 28 2014, 07:32 AM)
After all, the effect of a few hundred new houses in support terms should be marginal.
I wouldn't dismiss a 30-40% increase in the size of Newbury as 'a few hundred houses' or kid myself that the effect is marginal. It's over 5,000 new houses and there will be more, a few hundred every year for the foreseeable future.
Posted by: blackdog Dec 28 2014, 11:58 AM
QUOTE (user23 @ Dec 28 2014, 11:35 AM)
2) People didn't want an Eastern bypass as it would remove the last green space between Newbury and Thatcham, effectively creating one urban area.
I fear the choice is between a relief road between Newbury and Thatcham (unlikely) or housing estates (probable). I can't see the green space surviving north of the river.
However, the eastern ring road should go east of Thatcham - many have been calling for elements of this road to solve existing problems like the Thatcham rail crossing and the Burger King roundabout air pollution.
Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 28 2014, 12:00 PM
This would suggest that the local councils should resist every large building project until the government is prepared to cough up some more cash, or S106 is made more workable.
Posted by: blackdog Dec 28 2014, 01:01 PM
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Dec 28 2014, 12:00 PM)
This would suggest that the local councils should resist every large building project until the government is prepared to cough up some more cash, or S106 is made more workable.
You seem to be labouring under the impression that local councils have the power to stop large projects - they don't. If a council turns down a project the developer can appeal to the Planning Inspectorate who will appoint an Inspector who will review the case and make the final decision. Should WBC decide to stop approving large projects an Inspector would simply take over the decision making process and is far more likely to approve projects than WBC.
Posted by: MontyPython Dec 28 2014, 01:03 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Dec 28 2014, 11:35 AM)
....
Whilst some politicians like yourself break arguments down purely into figures, others listen to the views of the people and base their views on both.
...
Whilst some politicians like yourself break arguments down purely into figures, others listen to the views of the people and base their views on both.
...
Whilst some politicians like yourself break arguments down purely into figures, NTC/WBC listen to the views of the people and base their views on both and go with the ones that fit the plan they want to do.
Corrected for accuracy to reflect what counts for democracy in Newbury!
Posted by: NWNREADER Dec 28 2014, 01:25 PM
QUOTE (Exhausted @ Dec 27 2014, 08:09 PM)
There is no way that this application will struggle. It's a council development in all but name. This will be nursed through to conclusion. There might be a bit of blood spilt on the carpet but that will be quickly cleared up and will be presented to the nodding councillors with a recommendation for approval.
The 'struggle' I refer to is based on the fact the infrastructure at present does not support the traffic plan. If the Council did not 'object' then many other plans would use the precedent. All the '106' type schemes only come in after the building plan is well on the way. Here a visionary benefactor clears the way, purely for the community benefit, by paying WBC to improve a road layout. That project does not appear on any WBC highways plan I know of, and it would take years for it to be built under usual protocols. This is a convenient way to get a plan 'approvable'.
We should applaud such largesse by a local citizen.
Posted by: user23 Dec 28 2014, 02:04 PM
QUOTE (blackdog @ Dec 28 2014, 11:58 AM)
However, the eastern ring road should go east of Thatcham - many have been calling for elements of this road to solve existing problems like the Thatcham rail crossing and the Burger King roundabout air pollution.
Yes, an Eastern route crossing the A4 somewhere near Colthrop and running South to the other side of the railway crossing would seem sensible, but would need a great deal of funding from Central Government to happen.
Posted by: On the edge Dec 28 2014, 03:49 PM
The trouble is Newbury isn't a quaint old market town anymore, if ever it was. It's also no longer 1955, which many of our Councillors seem to forget. The age of steam trains, warm beer and cycling home from work had long gone. You might also have noticed all those nice farm animals don't pop into town every Thursday - all that's left are a few raggedy stalls selling the same stuff as Tesco but in less congenial surroundings. Even Camp Hopson has sold out. Two choices then, either embrace and properly plan for and support new development and revitalisation or decline into a dormitory town for people who can't afford Reading or Basingstoke.
Posted by: user23 Dec 28 2014, 04:14 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Dec 28 2014, 03:49 PM)
The trouble is Newbury isn't a quaint old market town anymore, if ever it was.
A visit to the https://www.facebook.com/groups/Newburypastpresent/ will show you many people still think it is.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 28 2014, 04:50 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Dec 28 2014, 11:35 AM)
You plan fails on two counts:
1) People like the market as they feel it retains Newbury's status as a "small market town".
2) People didn't want an Eastern bypass as it would remove the last green space between Newbury and Thatcham, effectively creating one urban area.
Whilst some politicians like yourself break arguments down purely into figures, others listen to the views of the people and base their views on both.
Thank goodness we don't live in Simon's Scroogetown, a locality where the market has been closed down, Christmas lights abandoned, graveyards privatised and civic buildings sold off for short term gain.
1) People like the market as they feel it retains Newbury's status as a "small market town".
2) People didn't want an Eastern bypass as it would remove the last green space between Newbury and Thatcham, effectively creating one urban area.
Whilst some politicians like yourself break arguments down purely into figures, others listen to the views of the people and base their views on both.
Thank goodness we don't live in Simon's Scroogetown, a locality where the market has been closed down, Christmas lights abandoned, graveyards privatised and civic buildings sold off for short term gain.
Where's your evidence for telling me what other people? I'm not alone in asking for a parish poll to gauge support for tax spending, but you know very well that's not how things are run around here. I would like to see people given enough information to make informed choices, and for those choices to count.
Do you suppose that the tax-paying parishioners actually know that they're being taxed to pay for the town council to run our miserable charter market, and do you think they would agree to that if they knew that other towns have better more vibrant markets which are run well enough that they actually turn a profit?
And do you suppose that Newbury's tax-paying parishioners would agree to being taxed to pay for the Christmas lights if they knew that lights in other towns are provided by the town's traders because it pays them to invest in a bit of merriment to get the punters spending. Newbury BID now manage the lights, but the town council still hand over our tax, and we never saw any saving on the £12,000 of staff costs that the town council used to attribute to the Christmas Lights as that officer time was just absorbed the other busy-work that makes or town council such an administrative behemoth.
And how do you suppose the Newbury tax-payer would choose if given a choice between essential public services, or the civic prestige of a ceremonial mayor rattling round in a Gothic mansion.
We will never get adequate infrastructure in Newbury, not because it is unaffordable, but because Newbury's local government is self-serving and the money gets squittered away on the vanity of fools.
Posted by: user23 Dec 28 2014, 04:58 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Dec 28 2014, 04:50 PM)
Where's your evidence for telling me what other people?
Being part of social media groups, pages and other channels that tens of thousands of local people are members of, for the past few years.
Posted by: Biker1 Dec 28 2014, 05:07 PM
QUOTE (blackdog @ Dec 28 2014, 12:58 PM)
I fear the choice is between a relief road between Newbury and Thatcham.
However, the eastern ring road should go east of Thatcham - many have been calling for elements of this road to solve existing problems like the Thatcham rail crossing and the Burger King roundabout air pollution.
However, the eastern ring road should go east of Thatcham - many have been calling for elements of this road to solve existing problems like the Thatcham rail crossing and the Burger King roundabout air pollution.
You folks crack me up!
This was proposed 20 years ago but most were in favour of the destructive (to nature) |Western Route so that's what you've now got.
If it hasn't been the promised miraculous saviour to Newbury's / Thatcham's traffic problems as predicted by some then it's too darn late!!
Posted by: Exhausted Dec 28 2014, 06:49 PM
QUOTE (Biker1 @ Dec 28 2014, 05:07 PM)
You folks crack me up! This was proposed 20 years ago but most were in favour of the destructive (to nature) |Western Route so that's what you've now got. If it hasn't been the promised miraculous saviour to Newbury's / Thatcham's traffic problems as predicted by some then it's too darn late!!
We need an Urban ring road. What the western or eastern route was always intended to be was a by-pass. Trunking the A34. It was coincidental that it did resolve the problems of Newbury's traffic and it has been a "miraculous saviour to Newbury's traffic problems". I doubt that even an eastern route would have had any effect on Thatcham's traffic as it would have gone North South.
QUOTE (user23 @ Dec 28 2014, 02:04 PM)
Yes, an Eastern route crossing the A4 somewhere near Colthrop and running South to the other side of the railway crossing would seem sensible, but would need a great deal of funding from Central Government to happen.
Can't see how that would be a Newbury ring road. It might get the bridge over the railway at Thatcham but would be much too far out to be the smaller urban road that will provide relief for the proposed developments.
Posted by: Exhausted Dec 28 2014, 07:07 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Dec 28 2014, 04:58 PM)
Being part of social media groups, pages and other channels that tens of thousands of local people are members of, for the past few years.
If you mean facebook, half the people who post on that don't know the difference between NTC and WBC and of course the "tens of thousands" is perhaps poetic licence as far as Newbury related persons are concerned.
Posted by: On the edge Dec 28 2014, 08:21 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Dec 28 2014, 04:14 PM)
A visit to the https://www.facebook.com/groups/Newburypastpresent/ will show you many people still think it is.
Have a look at where a good few of them live....the States, or in other parts of the Country! About 20 odd people is hardly 'many'! Even so, I wonder just how many would really want to return to 'good ole Newbury' - the squalid slum courts off Northbrook Street, bucket sanitation in damp insanitary cottages in the not far out areas, traffic so thick in Northbrook Street and on the A4 mid summer cross town trips a nightmare by car. The weird thing is that this lot bemoan the loss of the old market town but shop at Tesco on the retail park and more often than not work outside the Town.
Posted by: Mr Brown Dec 28 2014, 08:45 PM
I have to say, there seemed to a a fair number against the 'brown field' development where I presently live. Objections have also been raised about the proposed flats to be built near the station. It's Catch 22 round here!
Posted by: user23 Dec 28 2014, 08:48 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Dec 28 2014, 08:21 PM)
Have a look at where a good few of them live....the States, or in other parts of the Country! About 20 odd people is hardly 'many'! Even so, I wonder just how many would really want to return to 'good ole Newbury' - the squalid slum courts off Northbrook Street, bucket sanitation in damp insanitary cottages in the not far out areas, traffic so thick in Northbrook Street and on the A4 mid summer cross town trips a nightmare by car. The weird thing is that this lot bemoan the loss of the old market town but shop at Tesco on the retail park and more often than not work outside the Town.
A good few thousand live in Newbury or Thatcham, and whilst you might look down your nose and sneer at their views and lifestyle, I reckon they're more representative of general opinion in the area than the ten or so regulars on this forum.Don't take my word for it though, put it to the test. Suggest closing down the market or selling off the town hall and see how it goes down.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 28 2014, 09:11 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Dec 28 2014, 08:48 PM)
A good few thousand live in Newbury or Thatcham, and whilst you might look down your nose and sneer at their views and lifestyle, I reckon they're more representative of general opinion in the area than the ten or so regulars on this forum.
Don't take my word for it though, put it to the test. Suggest closing down the market or selling off the town hall and see how it goes down.
Don't take my word for it though, put it to the test. Suggest closing down the market or selling off the town hall and see how it goes down.
Can you posts some links to where these people hang out?
For the record, I've not particularly suggested closing down the market, what I've suggested is ending the town council's management and tax-payer subsidy. Evidence from other towns is that vibrant financially viable markets are possible if they are well managed, and lifting the dead hand of the town council may well see the market thrive - but if it doesn't, then yes, I'd be happy to see it go.
Posted by: MontyPython Dec 28 2014, 09:31 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Dec 28 2014, 04:14 PM)
A visit to the https://www.facebook.com/groups/Newburypastpresent/ will show you many people still think it is.
Some others think Facebook is full of trash reading UKIP supporters.
Me thinks you choose your support just so as to support WBC's viewpoint.
According to WBC people didn't want to build on the Park so the Parkway bridge that the public wanted made to way was kept as a single carriageway.
Now to create a spur to Nick's pet project in Faraday road the park will be built on and feck the public's viewpoint.
Still the "Club" get what they want and they can send a lacky out to spread the word and bullsh!t as usual. Bonus payments and trebles all round!
Posted by: On the edge Dec 28 2014, 09:37 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Dec 28 2014, 08:48 PM)
A good few thousand live in Newbury or Thatcham, and whilst you might look down your nose and sneer at their views and lifestyle, I reckon they're more representative of general opinion in the area than the ten or so regulars on this forum.
Don't take my word for it though, put it to the test. Suggest closing down the market or selling off the town hall and see how it goes down.
Don't take my word for it though, put it to the test. Suggest closing down the market or selling off the town hall and see how it goes down.
There are twelve hundred on this forum, have a look. You've made that classic mistake. The Facebook page does as you say have a few thousand 'members' BUT only the same old few contribute! If you took their views as representative of the five odd thousand non active, yes, we do have a problem. It's like assuming that the seventy five percent who don't turn out in local elections must be really happy with their local council.
Yes, I suspect I coukd get people to vote away the town hall - if a decent proposal was put forward. Equally with the market, what do you want? A big cut in mental health budget or subsidise a market. I don't think you'll find Borough Market a drain on Southwark's charge payers.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 28 2014, 09:56 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Dec 28 2014, 09:37 PM)
There are twelve hundred on this forum, have a look. You've made that classic mistake. The Facebook page does as you say have a few thousand 'members' BUT only the same old few contribute! If you took their views as representative of the five odd thousand non active, yes, we do have a problem. It's like assuming that the seventy five percent who don't turn out in local elections must be really happy with their local council.
Yes, I suspect I coukd get people to vote away the town hall - if a decent proposal was put forward. Equally with the market, what do you want? A big cut in mental health budget or subsidise a market. I don't think you'll find Borough Market a drain on Southwark's charge payers.
Yes, I suspect I coukd get people to vote away the town hall - if a decent proposal was put forward. Equally with the market, what do you want? A big cut in mental health budget or subsidise a market. I don't think you'll find Borough Market a drain on Southwark's charge payers.
Quite so. The responsible thing to do would be for the town council to work up some of these suggestions into costed proposals and then put the ideas to the community they are supposed to serve.
The town hall is just office accommodation, I doubt whether the average precept-payer is much bothered whether Mr Troop sits behind a desk in a Gothic Mansion or in the office of a community hall, but let's costs the options and put it to the vote. Likewise the charter market, cost the options and let's take a vote on it. Likewise the mayor and the civic mumbo-jumbo, let the precept-payer know what that all costs and ask them if that's really where they'd prioritise their tax being spent. Likewise allotments, we know other councils provide their service at no cost to the precept-payer, so the responsible thing to do is investigate the options and then put it to the precept payer.
The Lib Dems bang-on about a lack of openness and consultation, so show me the money!
Posted by: user23 Dec 28 2014, 10:06 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Dec 28 2014, 09:37 PM)
There are twelve hundred on this forum, have a look. You've made that classic mistake. The Facebook page does as you say have a few thousand 'members' BUT only the same old few contribute!
This is untrue as a look at the first three posts (at the moment, they change regularly) reveals tens of different people have taken part in them.
Posted by: Biker1 Dec 28 2014, 10:31 PM
QUOTE (Exhausted @ Dec 28 2014, 07:49 PM)
it did resolve the problems of Newbury's traffic and it has been a "miraculous saviour to Newbury's traffic problems".
If this is the case why do..
QUOTE (Exhausted @ Dec 28 2014, 07:49 PM)
We need an Urban ring road.
And why is there excessive pollution at the BK Roundabout?
And why do people constantly complain about Crookham Hill / Thornford Road expressing a need for a new "relief road"?
And why are people expressing concern at the plans for the Faraday Road link?
And why does the NWN regularly refer to Newbury's motorists as "beleaguered"?
The first 3 and probably more would have been solved with an Eastern route.
Posted by: On the edge Dec 29 2014, 07:45 AM
QUOTE (user23 @ Dec 28 2014, 10:06 PM)
This is untrue as a look at the first three posts (at the moment, they change regularly) reveals tens of different people have taken part in them.
Jolly good, you've now started to recognised the numbers, now understand the dynamics.
Posted by: Exhausted Dec 29 2014, 02:04 PM
QUOTE (Mr Brown @ Dec 28 2014, 08:45 PM)
I have to say, there seemed to a a fair number against the 'brown field' development where I presently live............... It's Catch 22 round here!
Objections to any development usually run to six or seven and if you look at them carefully, you will see that most of them are NIMBY and usually are not valid reasons for rejection. The planning department seem to spend an inordinate amount of time before they get it to the planning committee and it's usually an internal input by the council jobsworths like cycle sheds or bats that cause the delays. It will also require of the planners, a viability study, developer v affordable housing or other S106 monies that WBC want. Their track record is not good and there are very few that get within the 12 week timescale except for the Mrs Jones' minor add on.
Then we have the next hurdle, the planning committee of which there are three in WBC. The Western, the Eastern and the district committee that has to add their soundbite to the recommendation by the planners. These, the Regional, East or West and then, if approved, has to go to the district planning meeting. A load of huff and puff and the bad news here is that these committees are councillors who probably have not even read fully or understood the application and who listen to councillor Bloggs personal vote catcher which he/she knows will be published in the local paper before they hold up their hands.
You're right, it is Catch22 and I sometimes wonder how we ever get anything built in Newbury and when we do, the developer then changes his game plan and the council roll over. For example the affordable housing requirement in Parkway and the total style change to accommodate John Lewis. (They being as far as I can see however the only worthwhile shop in the whole lot.)
Posted by: Exhausted Dec 29 2014, 02:25 PM
QUOTE (Biker1 @ Dec 28 2014, 10:31 PM)
If this is the case why do.. And why is there excessive pollution at the BK Roundabout? And why do people constantly complain about Crookham Hill / Thornford Road expressing a need for a new "relief road"? And why are people expressing concern at the plans for the Faraday Road link? And why does the NWN regularly refer to Newbury's motorists as "beleaguered"? The first 3 and probably more would have been solved with an Eastern route.
It would be exactly the same with an Eastern route, as it was never, as I've said already, intended to do anything but be a bypass to trunk the A34.
What didn't happen was a local plan to join up and provide an additional road to the A339, close into the town with a rail and river crossing. This should have happened while we had the opportunity post bypass and before pedestrianisation and the closing of the Parkway bridge.
Crookham Hill and Thornford Rd are problems for Thatcham and are not related to Newbury traffic.
The Faraday link is because the A339 carries the brunt of the local traffic and any additional volume will be added to that bit of road as we do not have a ring road. This lack is of course why the motorists are beleaguered. Today the A339 southbound was a nightmare. Race traffic and one car broken down by the NWN offices backing the the traffic right back towards Vodafone.
Pollution at the Burger King. Well partly due to the load of local traffic and the HGV's which come from our local distribution depots and of course the geographical location. Right at the bottom of a steep hill, pollution from accelerating and decelerating vehicles rolling down and being trapped at the bottom where the polluters have to stop for the roundabout and equally, get mixed up with the St Johns Road traffic. A diesel being floored generates a load of particulates so surprise surprise.
Posted by: Exhausted Dec 29 2014, 03:06 PM
Just one last thing on the Eastern route. The proposal for that, cut straight across Greenham West fields, Turned around the end of the racecourse over the river and railway by Bull's lock, across the A4 where the local hospital is now and after trundling through Henwick, around the back of Clay Hill to join-up about where Vodafone offices are. So, as you can see, cut deeply into the town at the southern end and would have been nowhere near the Eastern side of Thatcham or the crossing by the station.
Posted by: blackdog Dec 29 2014, 07:30 PM
QUOTE (Exhausted @ Dec 29 2014, 03:06 PM)
Just one last thing on the Eastern route. The proposal for that, cut straight across Greenham West fields, Turned around the end of the racecourse over the river and railway by Bull's lock, across the A4 where the local hospital is now and after trundling through Henwick, around the back of Clay Hill to join-up about where Vodafone offices are. So, as you can see, cut deeply into the town at the southern end and would have been nowhere near the Eastern side of Thatcham or the crossing by the station.
In terms of local traffic relief this route would have been far more effective than the western route, which really only took A34 through traffic out of the town. While this was a massive relief (and still is) the eastern route would also have taken the Basingstoke to A34 traffic, the Thatcham to A34 (north and south) traffic and the Racecourse traffic out of town. Provision of the eastern route option (still the ideal solution) or a ring road from the north of Newbury, round to the east of Thatcham to the Wash Common A34 junction would take a lot of traffic out of town and solve many of the local traffic problems (for a while).
The problem is funding - government funding was available for the bypass because the Newbury bottleneck was a national problem - today it is no longer such a bottleneck and as a problem it is, essentially, a local one - so the chances of major government funding must be very low, especially in times of austerity. I suspect the only way to attract government funding in the short term (ie within 20 years) would be a plan for a massive expansion of Newbury along the lines of Basingstoke - another 20,000 houses or so on top of the 5,000 currently planned.
Posted by: Exhausted Dec 29 2014, 08:04 PM
QUOTE (blackdog @ Dec 29 2014, 07:30 PM)
In terms of local traffic relief this route would have been far more effective than the western route, which really only took A34 through traffic out of the town. While this was a massive relief (and still is) the eastern route would also have taken the Basingstoke to A34 traffic, the Thatcham to A34 (north and south) traffic and the Racecourse traffic out of town. Provision of the eastern route option (still the ideal solution) or a ring road from the north of Newbury, round to the east of Thatcham to the Wash Common A34 junction would take a lot of traffic out of town and solve many of the local traffic problems (for a while).
I hear what you are saying but you have to remember that the Eastern route could not go across Greenham Common and so had to take all the North/South traffic along a widened Newtown Common straight and then through Greenham up by the Bury's Bank Road junction through Pigeon's Farm (now a housing estate) before looping around the racecourse. If it had gone across Greenham Common as perhaps it could today then the Eastern route would have perhaps been, with hindsight, a better option. The Inspector was only interested in one thing though, trunking the A34 and the dialogue about it being for the benefit of Newbury, whilst true, was just to get local support.
There was a proposal by one of the sensible councillors about that time with a plan for Newbury. I can't find that but I bet it's still sitting on someone's computer somewhere.
Posted by: MontyPython Dec 31 2014, 02:09 PM
QUOTE (On the edge @ Dec 29 2014, 07:45 AM)
Jolly good, you've now started to recognised the numbers, now understand the dynamics.
User 23 works for WBC who only be able to tackle one variable - and choose the one to suit themselves!
Posted by: Biker1 Dec 31 2014, 06:40 PM
QUOTE (Exhausted @ Dec 29 2014, 03:25 PM)
It would be exactly the same with an Eastern route, as it was never, as I've said already, intended to do anything but be a bypass to trunk the A34.
No, the A339 would have been taken care of and would not still pass through the town past the BK Roundabout (and Sainsbury's) to join the A34 at Chieveley..
The Thornford Road / level crossing issue would have been taken care of. (Traffic from Thatcham etc. to the A339.)
Acres of trees and countryside would not have been lost.
As an aside, even though extremely unlikely, the DNS Railway formation would have been left more intact for any possible reinstatement.
You are quite right, of course, that the by-pass was built to get juggernauts from the Midlands to the coast more quickly and had nothing to do with improving Newbury's traffic problems (any gain was pure coincidence). Therefore the cheapest (financially) route was chosen with no consideration for how it would (or would not) improve things locally.
Posted by: r.bartlett Jun 28 2015, 07:35 AM
What are we thinking about the proposed traffic solutions recently put forward. Looks like that area is going to be gridlocked. A new primary school in warren Rd will double congestion along the A34 outside St Georges church. I can't see this being a help or solution.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 28 2015, 08:16 AM
QUOTE (r.bartlett @ Jun 28 2015, 08:35 AM)
What are we thinking about the proposed traffic solutions recently put forward. Looks like that area is going to be gridlocked. A new primary school in warren Rd will double congestion along the A34 outside St Georges church. I can't see this being a help or solution.
It all depends on how well it's designed, and there is a good chance it'll be designed poorly. I'm appalled at how the Sainsbury garage was ever given planning permission because the parking arrangements are hopelessly inadequate and that's causing chaos, so I don't have any confidence that the Sandleford arrangements will be any better.
Posted by: blackdog Jun 28 2015, 09:24 AM
The idea of two new primary schools within the Sandleford development is surely so that the children from the development can be educated there without a huge increase in traffic?
Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 28 2015, 10:55 AM
QUOTE (blackdog @ Jun 28 2015, 10:24 AM)
The idea of two new primary schools within the Sandleford development is surely so that the children from the development can be educated there without a huge increase in traffic?
There has been discussion about replacing the existing school on the west of the Andover Road with housing. I suspect this is also related to the Town Council's quiet negotiation with the Charity Commission to have the trust relating to the use of the Wash Common allotment site extinguished so that it might aslo form part of the development.
Posted by: blackdog Jun 28 2015, 11:02 AM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Jun 28 2015, 11:55 AM)
There has been discussion about replacing the existing school on the west of the Andover Road with housing. I suspect this is also related to the Town Council's quiet negotiation with the Charity Commission to have the trust relating to the use of the Wash Common allotment site extinguished so that it might aslo form part of the development.
First I've heard of this (Falkland School I assume?) If true it must surely give the Sandleford developers grounds to question the need for two new schools if WBC have one nearby that they are hoping to close?
Posted by: r.bartlett Jun 28 2015, 11:12 AM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Jun 28 2015, 10:55 AM)
There has been discussion about replacing the existing school on the west of the Andover Road with housing. I suspect this is also related to the Town Council's quiet negotiation with the Charity Commission to have the trust relating to the use of the Wash Common allotment site extinguished so that it might aslo form part of the development.
I know some developers spoke to the previous headmaster of Falklands to see if he'd support such a proposal. I was led to believe he was sympathetic to such a move as they'd get a brand new school. I haven't heard anything else on this since
(I believe Park house should 'do' a St Barts for the same reason.)
Posted by: r.bartlett Jun 28 2015, 11:15 AM
QUOTE (blackdog @ Jun 28 2015, 11:02 AM)
First I've heard of this (Falkland School I assume?) If true it must surely give the Sandleford developers grounds to question the need for two new schools if WBC have one nearby that they are hoping to close?
Could be the reason for the need of two new schools?
Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 28 2015, 11:48 AM
QUOTE (r.bartlett @ Jun 28 2015, 12:15 PM)
Could be the reason for the need of two new schools?
Quite.
Posted by: r.bartlett Jun 28 2015, 04:36 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Jun 28 2015, 10:55 AM)
There has been discussion about replacing the existing school on the west of the Andover Road with housing. I suspect this is also related to the Town Council's quiet negotiation with the Charity Commission to have the trust relating to the use of the Wash Common allotment site extinguished so that it might also form part of the development.
Simon
Can you confirm where and who had this discussion as it may affect my future plans. If they did get the Allotment that would put a lot of traffic down that lane by the school although there a second potential entry point by the library?
TIA
Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 28 2015, 04:40 PM
QUOTE (r.bartlett @ Jun 28 2015, 05:36 PM)
Simon
Can you confirm where and who had this discussion as it may affect my future plans. If they did get the Allotment that would put a lot of traffic down that lane by the school although there a second potential entry point by the library?
TIA
Can you confirm where and who had this discussion as it may affect my future plans. If they did get the Allotment that would put a lot of traffic down that lane by the school although there a second potential entry point by the library?
TIA
I don't rightly remember. One source on the Falkland development was the Sandleford Development consultation, but I have a feeling I've heard it from other sources too. The Town Council have not to my knowledge openly discussed the de-trusting of the Wash Common allotment site and I can't rightly say where I first heard that linked with the Falkland development, but it is an obvious option.
Here's the former town clerk's submission to the Sandleford consultation:
QUOTE
Hi
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Consultation on the Sandleford Park Draft Supplementary Planning Document. A sub-group of Newbury Town Council has met and formulated this response, which was ratified at the Planning & Highways Committee meeting on 22 April 2013.
a) The Draft SPD is very good in parts, but sketchy in others.
It is good on landscape / topology / country park / woodland / wildlife corridor / houses and their relationship with the countryside / roads and PROWs within the site.
c) It needs more detail on infrastructure aspects, such as community facilities, education facilities.
d) There are still open questions re boundaries, and how the Sandleford Park community will fit with the adjacent Greenham, Wash Common and Newbury Town communities. Although boundary changes don’t necessarily result in integrated communities, the fact that Wash Common already has multiple Community Hall provision might negate the need for such provision in Sandleford Park, if the two communities were to be integrated (with relevant improvements in crossing the A343).
e) Conversely, it may be appropriate for larger scale primary education facilities to be provided on Sandleford Park site, freeing the existing Falkland School site for housing development.
f) More is needed on public transport integration – mandating a bus link from Warren Road to central Newbury and integration with the rest of the local bus network.
g) A clear, timelined, infrastructure implementation plan needs to be mandated, similar to that which appears to being successfully followed at the Racecourse development, with clear dependencies and trigger points.
h) Additional traffic assessments are required urgently, to establish the need for additional access routes beyond those already defined in the Core Strategy.
i) An access onto the A339 at the Amenity Site (with relevant cycle / pedestrian facilities) may assist with A339 traffic calming (safety improvements), the start of better access to Greenham Common (accessibility / integration improvements) and better access to the amenity site from Newbury (environmental improvement).
j) A traffic calmed crossing (or even tunnel / bridge) and additional new PROW access to Greenham Common (south of Sandleford Priory) could be created for cycle / pedestrian access from the end of the existing PROW at the south eastern aspect of the site.
k) There remain concerns about the impact of domestic pets on the ancient woodlands and the corridors between but it is unclear what action could be taken to mitigate.
l) The local generation of renewable energy should be mandated as being beyond the existing requirements of the Core Strategy, with site-wide as well as in-building provision.
m) There is lots of discussion of cycle routes, but very little mention of cycle parking at potential destination points (and covered cycle parking at key locations, such as schools / shops / community areas).
n) Allotments and Community Growing Areas must be mandated, and be accessible for communities outside of Sandleford Park.
o) Has there been any consideration of a public house?
p) We would like to see some recognition of the potential benefits of community ownership e.g. of the Country Park, the Community Hall, Community growing / allotment areas, site-wide renewable energy provision – all of which would assist community integration / adhesion.
Regards
[town clerk]
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Consultation on the Sandleford Park Draft Supplementary Planning Document. A sub-group of Newbury Town Council has met and formulated this response, which was ratified at the Planning & Highways Committee meeting on 22 April 2013.
a) The Draft SPD is very good in parts, but sketchy in others.
It is good on landscape / topology / country park / woodland / wildlife corridor / houses and their relationship with the countryside / roads and PROWs within the site.c) It needs more detail on infrastructure aspects, such as community facilities, education facilities.
d) There are still open questions re boundaries, and how the Sandleford Park community will fit with the adjacent Greenham, Wash Common and Newbury Town communities. Although boundary changes don’t necessarily result in integrated communities, the fact that Wash Common already has multiple Community Hall provision might negate the need for such provision in Sandleford Park, if the two communities were to be integrated (with relevant improvements in crossing the A343).
e) Conversely, it may be appropriate for larger scale primary education facilities to be provided on Sandleford Park site, freeing the existing Falkland School site for housing development.
f) More is needed on public transport integration – mandating a bus link from Warren Road to central Newbury and integration with the rest of the local bus network.
g) A clear, timelined, infrastructure implementation plan needs to be mandated, similar to that which appears to being successfully followed at the Racecourse development, with clear dependencies and trigger points.
h) Additional traffic assessments are required urgently, to establish the need for additional access routes beyond those already defined in the Core Strategy.
i) An access onto the A339 at the Amenity Site (with relevant cycle / pedestrian facilities) may assist with A339 traffic calming (safety improvements), the start of better access to Greenham Common (accessibility / integration improvements) and better access to the amenity site from Newbury (environmental improvement).
j) A traffic calmed crossing (or even tunnel / bridge) and additional new PROW access to Greenham Common (south of Sandleford Priory) could be created for cycle / pedestrian access from the end of the existing PROW at the south eastern aspect of the site.
k) There remain concerns about the impact of domestic pets on the ancient woodlands and the corridors between but it is unclear what action could be taken to mitigate.
l) The local generation of renewable energy should be mandated as being beyond the existing requirements of the Core Strategy, with site-wide as well as in-building provision.
m) There is lots of discussion of cycle routes, but very little mention of cycle parking at potential destination points (and covered cycle parking at key locations, such as schools / shops / community areas).
n) Allotments and Community Growing Areas must be mandated, and be accessible for communities outside of Sandleford Park.
o) Has there been any consideration of a public house?
p) We would like to see some recognition of the potential benefits of community ownership e.g. of the Country Park, the Community Hall, Community growing / allotment areas, site-wide renewable energy provision – all of which would assist community integration / adhesion.
Regards
[town clerk]
Posted by: blackdog Jun 28 2015, 05:53 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Jun 28 2015, 05:40 PM)
Here's the former town clerk's submission to the Sandleford consultation:
I wonder what made the Town Clerk make that comment? Does the Town Council own the school site? Surely not?
I presume he was reflecting the wishes of NTC's planning committee.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 28 2015, 06:27 PM
QUOTE (blackdog @ Jun 28 2015, 06:53 PM)
I wonder what made the Town Clerk make that comment? Does the Town Council own the school site? Surely not?
I presume he was reflecting the wishes of NTC's planning committee.
I presume he was reflecting the wishes of NTC's planning committee.
"ratified at the Planning & Highways Committee meeting on 22 April 2013".
One reason I can think of for NTC wanting to float the idea of development on Falkland would be to promote their chances of selling the Wash Common allotment site for housing, and without the Charities Commission thing I wouldn't think that was a possibility, but the two things happening together is at least potentially connected.
Posted by: blackdog Jun 28 2015, 06:39 PM
Is the Falkland School is such a bad state that it needs replacement? If so this would certainly be a cheap (for WBC) solution.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 28 2015, 08:04 PM
QUOTE (blackdog @ Jun 28 2015, 07:39 PM)
Is the Falkland School is such a bad state that it needs replacement? If so this would certainly be a cheap (for WBC) solution.
But as r.bartlett says, it could exacerbate the traffic problem.
Posted by: r.bartlett Jun 28 2015, 08:18 PM
QUOTE (blackdog @ Jun 28 2015, 06:39 PM)
Is the Falkland School is such a bad state that it needs replacement? If so this would certainly be a cheap (for WBC) solution.
Yes it's pretty tired main building with a lot of temporary (now permanent) outside cabins which are very inefficient. They work hard to maintain it but it costs a lot of money.
Posted by: blackdog Jun 28 2015, 10:08 PM
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Jun 28 2015, 09:04 PM)
But as r.bartlett says, it could exacerbate the traffic problem.
One school opens, one closes - how much extra traffic would there be?
Posted by: r.bartlett Jun 29 2015, 04:26 AM
QUOTE (blackdog @ Jun 28 2015, 10:08 PM)
One school opens, one closes - how much extra traffic would there be?
At the moment there seems only the provision of an additional school at the end of Warren Rd not replacement.
QUOTE
Education provision has been carefully considered, with two new two form entry primary schools being included as part of the new development, as well as contributions towards expansion of secondary school places within the Town. This solution has been worked upon by Bloor Homes Southern alongside education officers at West Berkshire Council and will cater for the needs of residents of the new development. - See more at: http://www.sandlefordparkbloorhomes.co.uk/our-proposals/new-facilities-and-homes.aspx#sthash.LJkNOrH0.dpuf
Posted by: blackdog Jun 29 2015, 07:48 AM
QUOTE (r.bartlett @ Jun 29 2015, 05:26 AM)
At the moment there seems only the provision of an additional school at the end of Warren Rd not replacement.
Either the new school is replacing Falkland or it is providing school places for the new residents of the Sandleford development. In the first instance the traffic will move from Falkland with it, in the second the traffic will largely be internal to Sandleford.
Posted by: Berkshirelad Jun 29 2015, 08:55 AM
QUOTE (blackdog @ Jun 29 2015, 08:48 AM)
Either the new school is replacing Falkland or it is providing school places for the new residents of the Sandleford development. In the first instance the traffic will move from Falkland with it, in the second the traffic will largely be internal to Sandleford.
Of course, there shouldn't need to be any traffic movement for children from the Sandleford development to go to school within the development...
Posted by: Jonno Jun 29 2015, 10:54 AM
QUOTE (blackdog @ Jun 28 2015, 10:24 AM)
The idea of two new primary schools within the Sandleford development is surely so that the children from the development can be educated there without a huge increase in traffic?
I understand the new school on the eastern side is to be for the Castle School. This is for pupils with special needs across the whole of the Newbury area, so the vast majority will require transport. Access may be arranged via the Newbury College entrance. I do not believe they have a large number of pupils so it should not make much difference to the traffic.
Posted by: blackdog Jun 29 2015, 04:23 PM
QUOTE (Berkshirelad @ Jun 29 2015, 09:55 AM)
Of course, there shouldn't need to be any traffic movement for children from the Sandleford development to go to school within the development...
Dream on!
QUOTE (Jonno @ Jun 29 2015, 11:54 AM)
I understand the new school on the eastern side is to be for the Castle School. This is for pupils with special needs across the whole of the Newbury area, so the vast majority will require transport. Access may be arranged via the Newbury College entrance. I do not believe they have a large number of pupils so it should not make much difference to the traffic.
Well, if one school is to provide WBC with a nice building site in Donnington and the other is to provide WBC with a nice building site in Wash Common - where are the kids from the 2,000 new homes going to be educated?
Posted by: Cognosco Jun 29 2015, 05:33 PM
QUOTE (blackdog @ Jun 29 2015, 05:23 PM)
Dream on!
Well, if one school is to provide WBC with a nice building site in Donnington and the other is to provide WBC with a nice building site in Wash Common - where are the kids from the 2,000 new homes going to be educated?
Well, if one school is to provide WBC with a nice building site in Donnington and the other is to provide WBC with a nice building site in Wash Common - where are the kids from the 2,000 new homes going to be educated?
Oh good does this mean ratepayers get another whopping 2 quid added to the coffers?
Posted by: Turin Machine Dec 3 2015, 05:29 PM
Bump
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/news/16630/Sandleford-application-is-available-to-view.html
Posted by: On the edge Dec 5 2015, 08:49 PM
What did you expect? We don't do strategic thinking round here and even if we did, we certainly wouldn't want to share, let alone discuss the result with the local populace; they simply wouldn't understand!
Another reason why being a dormitory suburb is a good idea, pass the Mogadon and switch off the light.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)