IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Sandleford Park enquiry: the rich want to stay richer, right?
Sherlock
post May 23 2012, 05:03 AM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 359
Joined: 12-January 12
Member No.: 8,467



However it's dressed up, surely this is the very wealthy residents of Wash Common (Dr Cooper and Mr Norman, two of the main protagonists, must be worth millions between them) indulging in the ultimate case of Nimbyism http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2012/hearing...s-today-tuesday

Seems to me the better off get what they want in 21st century Britain and the rest of us can go to he*l on a handcart. Even under Margaret Thatcher society didn't feel as divided on the basis of wealth as it does now.

But maybe I'm wrong - thoughts, anyone?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post May 23 2012, 06:48 AM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



Totally agree! Not exactly helped by the local LibDims; doing their usual and mistaking a dung cart for a band wagon.







--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TallDarkAndHands...
post May 23 2012, 07:31 AM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,327
Joined: 15-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 60



QUOTE (Sherlock @ May 23 2012, 06:03 AM) *
However it's dressed up, surely this is the very wealthy residents of Wash Common (Dr Cooper and Mr Norman, two of the main protagonists, must be worth millions between them) indulging in the ultimate case of Nimbyism http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2012/hearing...s-today-tuesday

Seems to me the better off get what they want in 21st century Britain and the rest of us can go to he*l on a handcart. Even under Margaret Thatcher society didn't feel as divided on the basis of wealth as it does now.

But maybe I'm wrong - thoughts, anyone?


Get orf my land peasant.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post May 23 2012, 08:04 AM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130




Interesting point in the NWN report:
The majority of developers at the hearing have also argued that the council’s allocation of 10, 500 new homes in the next 14 years is below the required amount.

From which one could imply that it's not Sandleford OR Shaw but Sandleford or Sandleford AND Shaw.

I don't see much about the Lib Dem fantasy of thousands of new homes on brownfield sites.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post May 23 2012, 08:04 AM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130




Interesting point in the NWN report:
The majority of developers at the hearing have also argued that the council’s allocation of 10, 500 new homes in the next 14 years is below the required amount.

From which one could imply that it's not Sandleford OR Shaw but Sandleford or Sandleford AND Shaw.

I don't see much about the Lib Dem fantasy of thousands of new homes on brownfield sites.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post May 23 2012, 09:01 AM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (Sherlock @ May 23 2012, 06:03 AM) *
However it's dressed up, surely this is the very wealthy residents of Wash Common (Dr Cooper and Mr Norman, two of the main protagonists, must be worth millions between them) indulging in the ultimate case of Nimbyism http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2012/hearing...s-today-tuesday

Seems to me the better off get what they want in 21st century Britain and the rest of us can go to he*l on a handcart. Even under Margaret Thatcher society didn't feel as divided on the basis of wealth as it does now.

But maybe I'm wrong - thoughts, anyone?

You might very well be right, but the inspector hasn't decided the issue yet. In principle she should only consider the technical merits of plan and not be swayed by the social standing of the objectors, but then the wealthier you are the better able you are to afford to put your case. Out of interests, were the nimbys represented by a barrister as the developers were?

That said I'm not sure it's entirely fair casting the argument in terms of the wealth of named individuals. Dr Cooper is a publicly active Lib Dem who's home address on Garden Close Lane is something he's put in the public domain himself so in my view it's entirely fair to contrast his home in Nimby Central with the town centre hovels he'd have the rest of us proles live in.

However, I'm not aware that Peter Norman has made a public issue of his home and wealth so I think it's unfairly personal attacking him on this score. I don't agree with his objections to Sandleford, but he's a perfectly reasonable man to talk to (and that can't be said for many of the politicos on either side of this bun-fight) and he has every right to make his argument.

The villains of the piece are the lib dems who have cynically manipulated the legitimate fears and prejudices of the local middle-class reactionaries in order to undermine their tory leanings and win political capital, putting politics before people. The tories have behaved pretty arrogantly too with only Anthony Pick from the irrelevant town council publicly engaging to any degree and making a decent fist of explaining the benefits of the council's core strategy. What we need is local politicians who are concerned primarily with the issues and not bound by party affiliation who are brave enough both to listen to legitimate concerns and to promote the public interest, but of course we get the democracy we deserve.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post May 23 2012, 10:11 AM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



It doesn't help when we frequently see the councils bungle things. I have no confidence in the councils to do the right thing by Newbury.

As for being rich giving an unfair advantage; of course it does, otherwise, what is the point of being rich?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Peperium
post May 23 2012, 12:06 PM
Post #8


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 20-April 12
Member No.: 8,701



The reporting only covers a very small part of the proceedings, the main part of which was taken up with the QCs and Planning Consultants engaged by the owners of the other sites seeking to get the whole Plan thrown out on technical issues so they could have another go at the pie themselves. In fact, in the main, the other opponents of the Plan (but mostly Sandleford) were polite and eloquent. At the end of the day the Inspector will make his decision based on planning law, not emotion.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post May 23 2012, 04:52 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (Peperium @ May 23 2012, 01:06 PM) *
The reporting only covers a very small part of the proceedings, the main part of which was taken up with the QCs and Planning Consultants engaged by the owners of the other sites seeking to get the whole Plan thrown out on technical issues so they could have another go at the pie themselves. In fact, in the main, the other opponents of the Plan (but mostly Sandleford) were polite and eloquent. At the end of the day the Inspector will make his decision based on planning law, not emotion.

Welcome to the forum Peperium, pleased you joined us. Do you have a feeling for what the planning inspector will decide? Can she throw the whole plan out, and what happens then if she does?


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Exhausted
post May 23 2012, 05:19 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,722
Joined: 4-September 09
Member No.: 320



This can only, as far as I can see, go nails up if WBC have not carried out their legal obligations to the policy that they have submitted.
The inspector says, and I quote from his letter....

"My task is to determine whether the Core Strategy meets various legal and procedural tests and whether it is sound(his bold, not mine). To be sound, a Core Strategy should be justified, effective and consistent with national policy.
It is not my task to improve the Core Strategy- I can make changes only if I find elements of the document unsound."

He goes on to say...

"If I find that there is unsoundness which I cannot remedy by changes (because, for example, there is insufficient evidence on which to base a sound change) I would have to recommend that the Core Stategy be withdrawn."

There are a couple of key points in that it should be "justified, effective, and consistent with national policy". Surely, the strategy meets these three points and if it doesn't what are WBC up to putting the whole plan forward without doing their homework.
Secondly, he uses the word at the last paragrah, "recommend". If WBC do not accept his recommendation(s) what happens then.
If the Core Strategy is approved even with minor changes, I do hope that the planning consent asks for a large S106 payment to cover their costs.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Peperium
post May 24 2012, 02:33 PM
Post #11


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 20-April 12
Member No.: 8,701



Exhausted presents a good summary of what decisions may be available to the Inspector, but what might then happen is something again. With the land in question at Sandleford being worth up to £70M perhaps, and the whole development selling proprties to the tune of perhaps £350M then the level of S106 and any other contributions required in the future could be perhaps be £10-20M. With Council Tax raking in perhaps £2.5M per year at todays prices when the development is complete WBerks clearly want to have a hand in how these 2,000 homes are provided, and see growth as a key part of the regions wealth making strategy. My feeling is that this will proceed becuse 1) the Council needs it to, and 2) no solid coherent or regulatory reason why it should not has been presented. Without a plan being adopted we could expect to see development in ALL the sites previously presented as options in earlier stages and no real weapons in the council's armoury to prevent it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post May 24 2012, 04:24 PM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (Peperium @ May 24 2012, 03:33 PM) *
Without a plan being adopted we could expect to see development in ALL the sites previously presented as options in earlier stages and no real weapons in the council's armoury to prevent it.

This is the key issue - throwing out the core strategy does nothing to help the No To Sandleford campaign - it could even speed up the development.

What they need is for the inspector to accept the strategy with a modification that removes Sandleford. I can't see how he can do this without substituting an alternative - and I can't see how he could justify any specific alternative.

I doubt that he has the power to add something that makes the country park a condition of development, but it would be nice if he could and did.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 03:57 PM