IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Say No to Sandleford, or yes if you thin it is a good idea!
Iommi
post Feb 14 2011, 11:45 PM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



http://www.saynotosandleford.org.uk/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Feb 15 2011, 12:48 AM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (Iommi @ Feb 14 2011, 11:45 PM) *

I walk down there quite often, and I've never seen any of these people down there.

It'll be a blow for the half dozen lapwings that cling on, but farmland is a desert for wildlife which is my concern and a well design residential development is actually an excellent wildlife habitat, especially for songbirds, and even for foxes, and people do have to live somewhere. No, I say Cllr Swift-Hook and his chums can all go silflay hraka.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Feb 15 2011, 12:52 AM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



Anyone would think we had elections coming up!

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 15 2011, 12:48 AM) *
It'll be a blow for the half dozen lapwings that cling on, but farmland is a desert for wildlife which is my concern and a well design residential development is actually an excellent wildlife habitat, especially for songbirds, and even especially for foxes, and people do have to live somewhere.

We could do with more hedgerows!

For this to be a credible campaign, the Lib Dems need to explain an alternative plan. It is easy to say No, but harder to explain what.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Feb 15 2011, 05:14 AM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



QUOTE (Iommi @ Feb 15 2011, 12:52 AM) *
Anyone would think we had elections coming up!

For this to be a credible campaign, the Lib Dems need to explain an alternative plan. It is easy to say No, but harder to explain what.


Agreed, especially as regards the need to propose an alternative. Nothing easier than to dismiss a proposal but (if) there needs be 2000 houses, so where?

Also notice emphasis of the word 'local' in the pic captions, on a document printed in Yorkshire. No local printers?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Feb 15 2011, 10:27 AM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



I see Alex Payton, who came second in Havant on the Lib Dem ticket is busy adding his name to suport the cause.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Feb 15 2011, 11:05 AM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

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



What I believe our local politicians shold be doing is ensuring that Sandleford is a quality development with open and communal spaces, amenities, and facilities. This kind of thing is difficult if it's developed piecemeal and a strategic approach is difficult if the parish council is fighting the developers rather than working with them.

For starters I'd be really, really disappointed to lose any of the copses as they are good for wildlife and kids needs somewhere to mank about. 2000 new houses is enough to warrant a small recreation ground and a community centre is essential.

And finally something the Greenham Parish Council should have done years ago - provide an allotment site right in the middle of the development - Greenham Parish currently provides zero allotment plots and none of the new residents will be elligable for a plot in Newbury so they need to fulfil their statutory duty (and maybe Alex Payton would like to remind them of that duty), so that's a 10 acre allotment site.

That would be much more constructive than a bit of cynical electioneering.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Feb 15 2011, 11:53 AM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



The problem is, as has been proven. Once planning is granted, the developers can just do almost as they please.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Feb 15 2011, 01:52 PM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 15 2011, 11:05 AM) *
kids needs somewhere to mank about.


Oh dear - allowing children to play in open space is just not on. They must have safely built and installed social space, fenced off from where 'men' might watch, and with smoking shelters for the parent.

Plus staff to supervise them, an ambulance on standby in case of a grazed knee (better include a lawyers office). Oh, somewhere for the Counsellors to discuss abuse with the children.... Better add offices for social workers, police, child psychologists.....

Err,sorry,no space for a play area at all....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Feb 15 2011, 02:11 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



Do kids play outside these days?

Far easier to stay indoors on the Xbox.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spartacus
post Feb 15 2011, 03:06 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,833
Joined: 24-July 09
Member No.: 221



QUOTE (Iommi @ Feb 15 2011, 11:53 AM) *
The problem is, as has been proven. Once planning is granted, the developers can just do almost as they please.

How true! And no finer example of developers doing just that than if you consider the Kennet Heath estate in Thatcham....

The old MOD site was bought by Redrow around 2002/03 and the 'Outline Plans' were for 469 homes... The artists impressions were, well ....errmm...'impressive'. Bags of green open space... trees.. a central community space (with May Pole (?)) and play areas... Those residents who bought 'off plan' for Phase 1 must have thought they were buying into a great new community.

Roll forward to 2006 as Phase 3 was put on hold. Once new Planning Criteria was released by central Govt the developers (Redrow & Barratt) were able to reinvent the site as a Brown Field Development and a higher build density was permitted as it was within easy walking distance from the railway station and had a bus route going through it. The residents therefore would have NO NEED FOR PRIVATE CARS and parking/garaging facilities were slashed...

WBC contested the change at Public Inquiry but against developers cash WBC couldn't afford to keep the objection going too long in court.


The site is now pretty much completed (although roads are not adopted etc) The site has 815 homes contained within it.....
It also has a higher percentage of social housing on site than many residents had anticipated. Lot of problems within this brand new estate. Vandalism and cars parked absolutely everywhere.

Many of the houses in Phase 1 build were £300k-£400 properties.... The residents are feeling just ever so slightly aggrieved at their situation.......
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Feb 15 2011, 03:09 PM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



Sadly, I suggest, this is a reason for objecting, even if it is for the sake of it. We are seduced by colourful artists impressions, then we get what they really want.

The illusion of democracy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spartacus
post Feb 15 2011, 03:10 PM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,833
Joined: 24-July 09
Member No.: 221



Despite the above, I say YES to Sandleford (we can wriggle and fight but houses have got to go SOMEWHERE..) ... I just wouldn't buy a property there that's all... (and certainly not off Phase One artists sketches...)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Feb 15 2011, 03:15 PM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



It also has a higher percentage of social housing on site than many residents had anticipated. Lot of problems within this brand new estate. Vandalism and cars parked absolutely everywhere.

A good case for reducing the 'affordable' housing at all costs.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brewmaster
post Feb 15 2011, 04:28 PM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 165
Joined: 17-July 09
Member No.: 201



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 15 2011, 12:48 AM) *
I walk down there quite often, and I've never seen any of these people down there.

It'll be a blow for the half dozen lapwings that cling on, but farmland is a desert for wildlife which is my concern and a well design residential development is actually an excellent wildlife habitat, especially for songbirds, and even for foxes, and people do have to live somewhere. No, I say Cllr Swift-Hook and his chums can all go silflay hraka.

Has it ever occurred to you that we need farmland to grow food?

A recent report stated that we import 40% of our food and the proportion is rising.

We need to produce more food and fewer children.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Feb 15 2011, 04:30 PM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (Brewmaster @ Feb 15 2011, 04:28 PM) *
Has it ever occurred to you that we need farmland to grow food?

A recent report stated that we import 40% of our food and the proportion is rising.

We need to produce more food and fewer children.

Does that 40% include pre pack baby vegetables air freighted from Kenya & Peru?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Feb 15 2011, 04:31 PM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 15 2011, 03:15 PM) *
It also has a higher percentage of social housing on site than many residents had anticipated. Lot of problems within this brand new estate. Vandalism and cars parked absolutely everywhere.

A good case for reducing the 'affordable' housing at all costs.

No, what it means is that piecemeal development doesn't create a sustainable community. It needs a strategic, holistic approach. Politicians need to be brave enough to make the right decisions, and we, the public, have to have the insight to support them.

So I want to see some positive leadership from my local politicians on Sandleford. I want to see them talking to their town planners and the developers and carving out a plan for a sustainable quality development for the whole demographic spectrum. And if they want to talk to me about setting up a ten acre allotment site I'll be very happy to get that organised at very little cost to the state.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Feb 15 2011, 06:14 PM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 15 2011, 03:15 PM) *
It also has a higher percentage of social housing on site than many residents had anticipated. Lot of problems within this brand new estate. Vandalism and cars parked absolutely everywhere. A good case for reducing the 'affordable' housing at all costs.

A good case to stop building rabbit warrens.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Feb 15 2011, 06:16 PM
Post #18


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (Iommi @ Feb 15 2011, 06:14 PM) *
A good case to stop building rabbit warrens.

do open spaces reduce ASB then?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Feb 15 2011, 06:18 PM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 15 2011, 06:16 PM) *
do open spaces reduce ASB then?

Badly designed closed spaces (e.g. Sandleford Rise, Nightingales) tends to 'bread' ASB. Anyway, ASB was one of two things mentioned.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Exhausted
post Feb 15 2011, 08:08 PM
Post #20


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 15 2011, 03:15 PM) *
It also has a higher percentage of social housing on site than many residents had anticipated. Lot of problems within this brand new estate. Vandalism and cars parked absolutely everywhere.

A good case for reducing the 'affordable' housing at all costs.



I have to agree with reduction on the social housing quota especially if the tenants are not carefully screened before being allocated a house but apart from that, it's not a bad place to build a decently planned estate. At least the risk of flooding is low.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 27th January 2022 - 12:32 AM