Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Richard Garvie Dec 2 2011, 10:14 AM

Does anyone know who owns the land at Sandleford where the council want to build 2,000 houses?

Posted by: JeffG Dec 2 2011, 11:54 AM

Why not ask Stuart Goodwill at WYG, since they have been commissioned by the landowners? His email address is in http://www.greenham.gov.uk/sandlefordpark.pdf.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Dec 3 2011, 09:41 AM

For anyone else who is curious, check the bottom of this article:

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/Article.aspx?articleID=6824

Posted by: NWNREADER Dec 3 2011, 03:18 PM

Don't get your point

Posted by: blackdog Dec 3 2011, 05:55 PM

Does it matter?

All the landowners around Newbury are very keen to see their fields covered by housing estates.

The Sandleford site is probably ahead of the others for two reasons:

they have been pushing plans for the development for a long, long time - so it looks ready to go,

and it's a far more sensible place to build than the others in terms of access to amenities and local infrastructure. For instance, in comparison, the Racecourse is an insane place to build 1,500 homes.

Posted by: NWNREADER Dec 3 2011, 08:33 PM

Strange, really, that the previous plan to build at Sandleford was ditched because the racecourse was 'better' (even though the proposal was previously unknown, I believe). Now we are going to build at Sandleford anyway, a site that could've taken all the racecourse housing with far less grief to the infrastructure. But I suppose the racecourse needed its' hotels etc, and the houses pay for them?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Dec 3 2011, 09:17 PM

Racecourse has been given outline permission already, and Sandleford will follow if the Tories get their way. I only ask as I want to know who is pushing this development forward and why the Tories are so keen to support it, despite it coming bottom of the sustainability test...

Posted by: NWNREADER Dec 3 2011, 09:45 PM

Richard, your short term knowledge of the region lets you down..... Sandleford was first proposed long before the Racecourse was mooted, by the then LD administration - not that I think the party name makes a jot of difference. Your party-orientated judgement doesn't work for me when the party identity is not the deciding factor. I don't remember the players in that application, but the Inspector at the Inquiry plucked the racecourse out of the hat and turned down Sandleford, then retired.
The core people pushing the development forward, as anywhere, will be the owners of the land who see their asset going up in value. I'd be amazed if slices of the land were not bought before the last attempt and placed in the land bank ready for whenever a further attempt was possible. Forget party, WBC has always supported the Sandleford development. Whatever sustainability test was made up, the development makes more sense than the racecourse as it does not choke existing infrastructure.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 3 2011, 10:27 PM

I like the Sandleford plans.

I'm one of only a handful of Wash Commoners who actually walk and run accross Sandleford. As a green-field it really doesn't have much to recommend it. You can only walk accross on the foot path, there is no public access to the woodland and that green in the field, well that's what farmers call crops and you'll get a good shouting-at from the farmer if you let your dog run about there - and quite rightly. The development will preserve all of the woodland and create a public park, so as a place to walk it will be far superior, and if the S.106 money is spent well it'll be a country park to be proud of.

In terms of biodiversity, monocultures of field-beans, rape, and barly support pretty-much zero wildlife, and modern farming has no use for hedges so there's very little left of what once would have been a decent wildlife corridor through Sandleford. There's also very little in the way of mamals that might compete with the phaesant shoot. In contrast, housing estates are really rather rich habbitats, and if the estate is integrated well with the parkland and the areas of copse are connected with hedges and integrated with the Enborne riparian habitat then the biodiversity will be fantastic.

As for sustainability, that really all depends on how well the development is designed, and that's why it's so grievous to see our elected so-called representatives courting the nimmby vote when they should be lobying for a well-planned quality development with well-designed access roads, community centres, and green spaces. I'm so not-convinced by the talk of grid-lock - if the Wash Common blue-rinsers don't want affordable housing built near them, I just wish they'd have the honesty to come out and say it. People have to live somewhere.

Posted by: blackdog Dec 3 2011, 11:16 PM

Between them the racecourse and Sandleford will supply about a third of the houses that WBC were tasked with building. They were delighted to find so much of their target in two developments. However, that still left 7,000 more to build elsewhere ...

The government have scrapped the target, but that doesn't mean they want fewer houses built - if anything they want more. Their approach is idealogically different to Labour's. Labour set targets in a top down fashion, forcing councils to sanction developments. Conservatives don't believe in this sort of social control, instead they want to release the market from constraints in the belief that the market will cater for our housing needs. So they are proposing changes to the planning laws - removing many powers from local government so they have to get out of the way of the developers.

Posted by: Ron Dec 3 2011, 11:28 PM

So if it is 2000 houses where are the 6-8000 people going to find a doctors surgery and say 2-4000 children going to find a school, as I understood that neither facility was being provided on the site.

Posted by: blackdog Dec 4 2011, 11:51 AM

These are issues that apply wherever the houses are built, but Sandleford is better equipped than alternative sites to meet the needs of the new residents.

The Falklands Surgery is on a site that would allow it to expand to cater for the new customers.

Primary school provision is not something I know much about - I see that the development is in Falkland Primary's catchment area - an area that has recently been expanded to take parts of John Rankin and St John's catchment areas - suggesting that Falkland could give the new areas back and take on the new development.

Once you get to secondary schools everyone will want their kids to go to St Barts, wherever the houses are built. St Barts and Park House are both within walking distance of the development.

I expect that the schools may also need to expand to cater for a large number of additional pupils but that is what S106 money is for. Sadly this does rely on WBC reaching a good deal with the developers - and sticking to it - not a thought that builds confidence.

Posted by: Bofem Dec 4 2011, 02:46 PM

Agreed. And don't forget the retail park, college, and south facing slopes. Sounds like WBC have found the best spot in Sandleford.

Posted by: Ron Dec 4 2011, 03:42 PM

Falkland Surgery were concerned about a potential small increase in numbers created by the accomodation being constructed beside them at present.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Dec 4 2011, 04:08 PM

That was, to put it crudely, probably on a cost basis; as they are like to be high usage patients in that development.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Dec 4 2011, 05:58 PM

NWNREADER, I understand it was a Lib Dem proposal to begin with, I mentioned the Tories as it is them who are pushing the LDF through. I just want to know why the council chose the least sustainable site and what connection (s) there are with the landowners (if any).

EDIT: When I say least sustainable, the site came bottom of the council's own sustainability appraisal. We all have our own thoughts about it's suitability, but the bottom line is it placed bottom of all the sites suggested in the original appraisal.

Posted by: blackdog Dec 4 2011, 06:28 PM

Surgeries are paid, generally speaking, based on the number of patients signed on their books. A few extra patients mean that the existing doctors etc have to cope with an increased workload for little additional cash. Especialy relevant if the new patients are likely to be high expense patients in a care facility (hopefully they get additional cash in such cases, but I wouldn't bet on it).

However, if they are looking at 3 or 4,000 extra patients there would be enough new cash coming in to hire another doctor or two and to build an extension on the surgery to cater for the increased workload.

Posted by: NWNREADER Dec 4 2011, 06:57 PM

The majority party always pushes its plans through. Who else to do it?

Maybe the site was chosen because it is the best available, despite whatever 'sustainability' means.

I certainly thought Sandleford was a good move previously

Posted by: dannyboy Dec 4 2011, 08:33 PM

The 'sustainability' study is a total load of rubbish. Sandleford scored poorly because it was furthest from the centre of Newbury ( the fact that the site is next door to the retail park does not count apparently ) and because the landscape around the development was considered to be 'valued'

Posted by: Jonno Dec 5 2011, 04:00 PM

I understand the the average ratio in England at the moment is about 1 GP to 1,800 people (Although there is considerable variation).

Posted by: Bofem Dec 5 2011, 04:35 PM

Sounds like the ideal place to build.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 5 2011, 06:26 PM

The Retail Park doesn't have a bus station, a train station, a taxi rank, a cinema, and as much night life as the town centre.

Posted by: dannyboy Dec 5 2011, 06:35 PM

Yes but Sandleford scored nothing for being close to the retail park, ( other amenities such as the college etc ) whereas other proposals which are just as far as Sandleford from the centre were not penalised as heavily....

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 5 2011, 06:38 PM

So the sustainability study was ballsed up?

Posted by: dannyboy Dec 5 2011, 06:42 PM

It did not seem consistent. Outside consultants working to EU regulations....

Posted by: Richard Garvie Dec 5 2011, 10:39 PM

I thought it was the council's own sustainability study?

Posted by: dannyboy Dec 5 2011, 11:16 PM

Councils had to do them. EU thing.

Posted by: gel Dec 9 2011, 10:40 PM

Related article here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2072213/Watership-Down-author-fight-save-destruction-real-life-warren-book-set.html

Posted by: eternalriver Dec 10 2011, 10:50 AM

Simon Kirby, your speling [sic] is appalling. I'd rather see people removed before countryside and open space. People need space.

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 10 2011, 12:23 PM

Hou du u pripose wie du thaht?

Posted by: On the edge Dec 10 2011, 02:18 PM

Seems Sandleford made the national press. Mother's wry comment -seems to be about protecting the fictional home of a bunch of fictional rabbits - glad I've moved away, never did think many Newbury people had much of a grip on reality!

Posted by: Andy Capp Dec 10 2011, 02:45 PM

Yes, they are a unique subset of the human species.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 10 2011, 06:26 PM

*sigh*


If you're into ethnic cleansing you could always go live in the Balkans, plenty of space there I understand.

As for Sandleford as recreational open space, your comment is typical of someone who's never actually taken a walk there. It's currently a footpath across a field. You have no right to access the farmland or woodland. However, the Sandleford development preserves all of the areas of copse for public access, and creates public parkland on pretty much all of the interesting landscape south of the footpath including the Enborne riparian margin, and if the estate is designed well even that will be a pleasure to walk through, and if the S.106 money is spent well there'll be a cafe in the parkland for tea and cake.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 18 2011, 07:12 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/hands-off-our-land/8962223/Hands-Off-Our-Land-A-wound-in-the-loveliest-of-places.html.

Watership Down follows a band of anthopomorphic asylum-seeking bunnies as they migrate from their Berkshire homeland at Sandleford to the Hampshire downs. The neo-zionist Hazel, radicalised by the El-ahrairahn fundamentalist Fiver, leads the band to establish a settlement at Watership Down. This brings them into conflict with the sustainable community of Efrafra who allow only very limited brownfield development within their existing settlement boundary and who are very much opposed to the illegal occupation of the downs by the Sandlefordians and their establishment of settlements in an area of outstanding natural beauty. The novel ends with the murder of the Efrafran planning enforcement officer Woundwort which presages the urbanisation of the downs and the sprawl of Efrafa.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 18 2011, 08:54 PM

Brilliant! Our planning policy dictated by fiction - you couldn't make it up. Anymore than the amazing turnaround by the LibDems - who permitted and even warmly supported the Technical College, Hospital, Vodafone all of which could have been built even more easily on 'brown field sites' rather than eating into green belt.

Posted by: blackdog Dec 18 2011, 11:50 PM

To be fair they did fight against Vodafone building on the green belt in Shaw - but the U turn is still in place, they are now suggesting that the houses should go in that same green belt rather than on the Sandleford site they were once so keen on.

Posted by: Exhausted Dec 19 2011, 10:04 AM

I do agree, why should some old numpty whose claim to fame is that he wrote, amongst other things, a story about rabbits, get national coverage for his claims about spoilng a beauty spot which is not open to the public, the inferrence in the published articles is that the whole site will be built over.
Providing WBC get their act together when the planning applications fall on their desk then we may get a new countryside park just out of town, in public ownership along with housing which has to be in the best possible location for major dwellings.
The opposition, in favouring North Newbury just haven't thought it through. Any development there will have to be ribbon development along the A339 and is really short of amenities to support that type of housing and residents needs.

Posted by: gel Dec 20 2011, 07:37 AM

From the letters page of today's Daily Telegraph:
__________________________________________

"SIR – The economic motivation behind the destruction of the site near Newbury that inspired Richard Adams’s Watership Down (Comment, December 17) is lamentable.

Around Newbury, an acre of greenfield land is worth £7,000. When permission is granted for housing, its value increases to £700,000. For their development of over 100 acres, the landowners will make about £70 million.

The financial incentive to redevelop under-used sites within the town is far smaller since building permission already exists. Within the town of Newbury there are sufficient unused sites to meet our housing needs. However, planners, egged on by rich and powerful property interests, have biased the planning process so that it favours large greenfield developments.

The battle between town developments and the destruction of the countryside is hopelessly rigged in favour of the latter.

Dr David Cooper
Newbury, Berkshire "

Posted by: blackdog Dec 20 2011, 09:18 AM

I would like to know where in Newbury they could fit in 2,000 houses - on top of the hundreds of flats and houses that are already planned and included in the LDF.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 20 2011, 11:30 AM

Dr David Cooper is the Secretary of the http://libdemsalter.org.uk/en/, which describes itself as a group promoting and campaigning for a more sustainable and just resource based economic system.

Dr Cooper lives in Garden Close Lane off the Andover Road, and the Sandleford development is within a couple of hundred metres of his capacious back yard.

This is the street scene on Dr Cooper's road. I don't suppose he has it in mind that the town centre brownfield development would look like this.

Posted by: gel Dec 20 2011, 11:33 AM

Thanks for that.

Room to accommodate a good number of St Paul's protesters over Xmas break perhaps??

Posted by: blackdog Dec 20 2011, 10:30 PM

Looks like there is plenty of room for a bit of infill there - few dozen houses at least. Perhaps this is what he has in mind?

Posted by: blackdog Dec 21 2011, 06:24 PM

The Commons Select Committee on planning has reported on their findings after looking at the Government's planned changes to the planning system. They aren't happy. In particular they don't like the proposal that the default response to a planning application must be yes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/hands-off-our-land/8969883/Hands-Off-Our-Land-planning-guidance-unbalanced-says-Clive-Betts.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/local-government-network/2011/dec/21/nppf-select-committee-review

I wonder if the Government will listen to them?

Posted by: Sherlock Jan 13 2012, 10:34 AM

So, what's the latest on this?

I wasn't at all convinced by the arguments of those campaigning against the development. One of the weakest was that Sandelford would lead to infill. Sandelford IS infill - have they not looked at a map?

It seemed to me that their main objection was the fact that the development is in their back yard and it was deeply disingenuous to claim otherwise. 'Anywhere But Here' would have been a more honest slogan.

Anyway, does anyone know what happens next?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 13 2012, 10:57 AM

Yes, Sandelford will be built on, but NUMBYisum is a fair complaint in my view.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 13 2012, 06:39 PM

Welcome to NewburyToday Sherlock.

Would you like to see the Sandleford development happen?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 13 2012, 06:41 PM

Do you mean it's a fair criticism to call the objectors nimbies, or that the nimbies are entitled to their protest?

Posted by: Sherlock Jan 13 2012, 07:21 PM

Thanks.

I don't particularly like the idea of large numbers of additional houses being squeezed into our already overcrowded area, but there is obviously a demand and people need somewhere to live. Brownfield sites would be my first preference and if there's enough land available that should be the first choice in my view. However, that seems unlikely.

As I said, the arguments put forward by the protestors seem pretty specious to me. Overall, the worst outcome would be for Newbury to end up with an even worse 'solution' simply because some very well heeled and articulate Wash Common residents shout louder than anyone else.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 13 2012, 07:39 PM

The later.

I suspect most people who complain of NIMBYists, are people not affected by the relevant protests either. What is for sure, if one doesn't protest, then one is not in a position to rightly complain if things happen against their will. NIMBYisum is only to be expected when people have investment in their privately owned homes at stake.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 13 2012, 08:23 PM

I live in Wash Common. Not in Garden Lane admittedly, but if there's going to be "gridlock" I'm going to be as inconvenienced as anyone, and unlike virtually all of the nimbies, I regularly walk and run across Sandleford and know very well how the development will preserve the existing copses and how the country park will create biodiversity and access where currently there is none. I'm also fluent in Lapine.

Everyone's entitled to their protest, but I don't believe the argument I've heard is well founded.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 13 2012, 08:40 PM

I tend to agree, though I'm not convinced browndfield development in town should be residential as it's mostly in the industrial quarter, and that area is already screaming out for some strategic planning and throwing some flats up just makes it more confused.

Posted by: Sherlock Jan 13 2012, 11:45 PM

I'm not complaining that people are NIMBYS. No one actually wants hundreds of new homes built next door to them so to that extent we're all NIMBYS. What I'm complaining about is the fact that the campaigners against Sandelford claim that they're not NIMBYS. They're pretending that they've objectively analysed all the pros and cons and come to the considered conclusion that building hundreds of new homes in their back yards is the worst possible option. That's just desperately hypocritical, isn't it Andy?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 14 2012, 10:44 AM

I have not seen or read any of this you claim.

NIMBY is a pejorative term which I believe was originally applied to people that wanted something, but 'not in my back yard' - a power station, for example. I'm not sure that protesting about something being built in close proximity to ones own environment that would be either detrimental to the value of their home, or lifestyle, is wholly unreasonable. Are these people the same people complaining about they needing more homes? If they are, then they are MIMBYs. If not, then they are like any other person, or people, trying to defend their lot.

While I understand Simon Kirby's argument about the area, drawing on my experience in these matters is that what is in front of us, the current proposal, will be just the thin end of the wedge. I don't know the ins and outs of Sandlford, but I suspect the most powerful reason for building there is cost. I suspect it is the cheapest option.

If the proposal is about building loads of modest value homes, then there is a more powerful reason to put it there, but if it is mainly higher value stuff, then I think not. I also have no faith in our council that they will ensure all the infrastructure and facility requirements will be met in a timely manner.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 14 2012, 11:17 AM

I fear the current trend for 'where to build' decisions is the areas in the land banks of developers - often built up over time as opaque deals - and then offered to local authorities who are required to provide housing land. If a farmer wanted to build on a field adjacent to a town he/she would likely get kicked into touch. Developers buy various fields under various names, over time, and put in a major development application they reference to a central requirement and the Council can only assist it happen.
It was so for much of Siege Cross/Floral Way, as I remember.

I have not read the current case in detail, as I have recognised Sandleford is going to happen since way back in time, but I believe the objectors are including acceptance of the need for the housing in their argument, but that it should be elsewhere......

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 14 2012, 11:31 AM

Perhaps Sandleford would be more palatable if it wasn't getting such a high proportion of the homes. If the homes were more evenly spread around the district, it might be more acceptable.

Posted by: blackdog Jan 14 2012, 11:33 AM

NIMBY may be pejorative but, nevertheless refers to anyone whose prime reason for objecting to a development is that it is 'in their back yard'. I suspect that most of the objectors to the Sandleford development fall within this category. This is not unusual, those most effected are those who live nearby and, inevitably, they are the ones who will object the most. Such was the case long before some bright spark thought of decrying them as NIMBYs in an attempt to belittle their objections. However, wherever the development goes it will effect people living nearby - if local objectors win every time there will never be any development. The choice of site should be made on more rational grounds than 'it's too near my house'.

One of the best reasons for selecting Sandleford is the infrastructure issue - of all the sites considered it is the one requiring the least additional infrastructure.

As for the 'cheapest option' - it's irrelevent. Wherever development occurs it will cost WBC nothing - the opposite in fact, WBC will gain from the additional council tax, S106 payments etc.

It is possible that the planners have been influenced by the developer's plans - which are far more advanced than those for alternative sites - so you could wonder how much they have gone for it as the 'quickest option'.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 14 2012, 12:24 PM

'Requiring the least additional infrastructure' isn't the same as having adequate infrastructure.


I wasn't talking about costing WBC. More that the development will be more lucrative (by having cheaper start-up cost).


Highly likely I'd say.

Whether south west Newbury residents are NIMBY or not, I support anything that will hold to account any development on green(belt) land. My point about 'supporting' NIMBYs is that I suspect having an action group like that at Sandleford means the planners will be more certain (I hope - although I have little faith in the planners and councillors in Newbury) about the suitability of the development. I find, in the main, you have NIMBYs and you have anti-NIMBYs, and they seem to be similar animals.

For the record, I'm 'agnostic' about the Sandleford development.

Posted by: Sherlock Jan 14 2012, 02:55 PM

Likewise.

As I said, most people would object to an objectionable development in their 'back yard'. Often, in my experience, those who complain loudest are new to an area and live in houses which were built in someone else's back yard.

Anyway, isn't this partly a political exercise? Google image search suggests that it probably is:

Posted by: blackdog Jan 14 2012, 02:57 PM

Almost all residents everywhere are NIMBYs - the anti-Sandleford campaigners would be matched by the anti-Shaw campaigners or the anti-Siege Cross campaigners. Wherever WBC choose there will be local opposition.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 14 2012, 03:07 PM

The advantage for the Lib Dems, is that they can look like 'Crusaders' for the cause, but won't be responsible for the outcome.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 14 2012, 03:09 PM

Exactly my point, and I think we need them; they might on some occasions have a point. Imagine what it would be like if the authorities could just grant permission at will.

"If you tolerate this, then your children will be next!"

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 14 2012, 05:11 PM

But were they not the majority party when Sandleford was first proposed?

Posted by: On the edge Jan 14 2012, 09:32 PM

As a mere voter - you are not supposed to have remembered that.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 14 2012, 10:16 PM

My real worry is the LDs don't!!!!!

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 14 2012, 10:22 PM

Probably.

Posted by: Sherlock Jan 21 2012, 11:56 AM

I see there's another letter in this week's Newbury Weekly News from someone strenuously asserting that the protesters are not complaining because the development happens to be in Wash Common's back yard.

It's from someone who lives in Wash Common and who is, apparently, organising the protests. He states that they have support from across Newbury, but isn't this mostly from the Libdem supporters who were dragooned into opposing the scheme prior to the last council elections, as noted above?

I'm not sure why we attack people who don't want development in their back yard. None of us want huge housing developments built next door to us. I suppose 'the system' forces people to invent other motives.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 21 2012, 12:50 PM

To me there is a difference between those that say they agree with the need but want it somewhere where it will not affect them, and those who have a case for the need not existing at all.

Thus far I have not seen the latter

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 21 2012, 02:48 PM

Has the case for development on green land like Sandleford been made?

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 21 2012, 03:36 PM

The imposed requirement is for a number of new houses in the area. There has been a case put forward for (even more) infill, but that chokes inner areas and (apparently) does not provide the numbers. The developers will not build high-rise because they don't command the margin (that means no-one wants to buy them). Scattering all over the countryside changes the character of villages and creates other infrastructure problems (and also, apparently, does not provide the numbers).

So... if the case is made for more homes country-wide, and if the case is made for some being in W Berks (neither of which is a WBC decision), then there does not have to be a case for building on fields as there seems to be no viable alternative. Whether Sandleford or wherever is not the core issue, IMHO. However, if there is no alternative to a major development on a green field site, where better? And would that site gain the hearty approval of those living adjacent?

Posted by: On the edge Jan 21 2012, 04:24 PM

When Reading was trying for city status - I seem to remember a presentation which centred on the redevlopment of the middle of the town. This involved large quality high rise blocks - for loft living. Would have meant Reading taking the West Berks new housing allocation. Apparently we wouldn't play because of potential lost community charge income.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 21 2012, 06:47 PM

Why the presumption against green-field development?

If it's on grounds of biodiversity then housing estates are actually much richer habbitats than agro-industrial wastelands. 100 years ago yes, farming practices meant that farmland supported a rich diversity of birds, mammals, invertebrates, and wildflowers in the headlands and hedgerows. Not so now. The only thing that has a niche in a modern green-field is the crop, everything else gets a Monsanto-enema. Housing estates, especiallly estates with gardens, support a rich diversity of song birds and invertebrates, and even urban foxes do rather well.

It can't be on grounds of visual amenity. It's a green-field, full of field beans or barley, and you can only walk across on the footpath. There are much better walks to be had in Wash Common, which is why almost no one walks across Sandleford. However, after the development we'll have a country park and be able to walk all over it and down to the River Enborne, and if the estate is well designed even that will be a pleasure to walk through.

Loss of farmland? That is a bit of an issue, but Sandleford isn't very good ground, it's too thin and stony. Of course the new development should come with its own allotment site, so that helps.

Loss of heritage? I enjoyed Watership Down, though I can't give a rats **** for Capability Brown, but as the Sandleford development creates a country park on the interesting bits of the landscape I can't say we're losing anything, and if we get a Bigwig Cafe in the park we seem to be gaining much more than ever we might lose.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 21 2012, 07:04 PM

Peter Norman and the anti-campaign are saying, as I understand it, that the Sandleford development will create traffic chaos on Monks Lane. They've made other spurious objections and a rather unfocused emotional appeal to our bunny-loving instincts, but it's the Monks Lane traffic that seems to be their substantive objection, though after this week's letter the concern now seems to be the extra town traffic.

They could well be right. If WBC don't plan the roads well it will be chaos, though I'm far from convinced it needs to be. There are larger conurbations than Newbury that appear to manage with mainly single-charriage way feeders. What's frustrating is that traffic density is basic civil engineering, so why can't someone just produce the modelled flows so we can decide on the facts.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 22 2012, 10:13 AM

Because they are not making any more. Once green fields are gone, they're gone.


My understanding is that urbanisation might be adversely affecting song birds, and foxes (who are becoming an increasing nuisance in towns) are thought to be affecting the the hedgehog population. What is the area currently being used as?


You put a strategic 'if' in there, but I see giving access to fields for 'townies' is rarely an ecological step-up.


I'm unsure if this is the case, especially as it is too thin and stony?


You put a strategic 'if' in there, but I see giving access to fields for 'townies' is rarely an ecological step-up.

My point about the case for Sandleford being made is that it is proven that it has the least affect on Newbury interms of sustainability and all the other 'left-wing' arguments.

Posted by: On the edge Jan 22 2012, 04:46 PM

Andy C - I'm making an assumption - but I assume you live in a house. That's a built environment which was once green. Is that OK?

Equally, it probably isn't an old style townie house - that is a tiny terrace in closed court. Or perhaps more up to date indeed, as they are not common in West Berks. - a 'Studio Flat' - One room and a bath room.

Similarly, even if you haven't, you may well kith and kin who have multiplied and now want homes of their own.

Easy to stand in the way of progress but remember people once did to give you that standards you now enjoy.

Like it or not Newbury is no longer a rural backwater.

Posted by: Cognosco Jan 22 2012, 05:58 PM

No I agree only the infrastructer and services are likened to a rural backwater!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 22 2012, 07:06 PM

Yes, I think Sandleford could be really good, but it depends on our politicians keeping their word about the country park and our local politicos are rank liars so that probably won't happen, and then someone will need to manage that park and if the job is given to the Newbury Clown Tonsils they'll make a right miserable mess of it, and while the estate could be a pleasure to walk through and live in if the streets and houses are designed with a bit of care it could equally be a right sh1t hole if the developers are allowed to cram in as much as they can and the planners fall over themselves to accomodate their demands.

This is why I'm unhappy that our councillors are playing party-politics when they ought to be working together in our interests to get the very best design they can.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 22 2012, 07:21 PM

That is correct, but I don't know anyone in Newbury that could have said no.


2 bedrooms, a kitchenette, a bog, and a lounge.


My mum and dad had a council house more generous than the one I have.


And your argument is?


And this means we should or shouldn't what?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 22 2012, 07:26 PM

This is my concern - that our council are inept.

Posted by: On the edge Jan 22 2012, 10:00 PM

I'm simply suggesting you haven't got one either. Simply objecting without any rationale or alternative proposal isn't exactly going to get anywhere.

There is nothing wrong with proposing things shouldn't change - provided that's qualified with a reason.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 22 2012, 11:31 PM

Firstly, I said, 'because they are not making any more' - which I think is a good reason to be sceptical of greenfield developments. Secondly, not having an alternative idea doesn't invalidate my counter arguments.


I'm not proposing things should or shouldn't change. If you were to read back, you would see I have asked if the case for building on a green field has been made in this case. If it has, fair enough, but I am not sure it has.

Posted by: blackdog Jan 23 2012, 12:02 PM

The case for building on greenfield sites has been made at the national level - based on statistics that, like most statistics, you can choose to believe or not.

The argument is simple:

(1) We are not building enough homes to meet demand - the evidence, loads of people who are living with their parents, in substandard accomodation, B&Bs etc.

(2) The lack of building has resulted in house price inflation to the point where buying a houses is out of the reach of the average wage earner.

(3) A large part of the price of a house is the cost of the land it sits on - fueled by the limitations on where one can build. The result: loads of one bedroom flats being built, not many family homes.

The solution - open up more land for building, lowering the cost of building land, increasing the number of houses being built, lowering house prices generally and, ultimately, improving the standard of living of Joe Public as the mortgage/rent burden is eased and more of their income becomes available for spending on a better lifestyle (whatever that might be). After years of pushing brownfield sites it has been recognised that there are not enough of them - the only places left are the green fields. Another minor issue was the designation of gardens as 'brownfield' - resulting in massive 'infilling' and altering the character of our towns. The Coalition removed this brownfield designation very soon after getting into office.

The Labour government went a bit further and decided to force local authorities to meet house building targets - hence the 10,500 target for West Berks. The Coalition has abandoned targets in favour of freeing up the market and allowing market forces to supply the houses - to do this they are changing the planning system to make it easier to find building sites and the get planning permission. Either way Newbury is stuffed - the houses will come as soon as the economy recovers enough to make them profitable. The LDF (Local Development Framework) is WBC's only way of controlling this looming development, without it the developers will be able to build houses on almost every field bordering Newbury or Thatcham.

The Lib-Dems are now arguing about the detail of the LDF saying that there is plenty of 'brownfield' space in Newbury to take the 2,000 homes ultimately destined for Sandleford. The trouble being that (1) they are wrong and (2) any brownfield site will be covered by one/two bed flats rather than family homes. The only alternatives are other greenfield sites.

I happen to believe that Sandleford is the best option available to WBC (Simon's posts illustrate why) - I would prefer that Newbury/Thatcham did not have to grow so much, but sticking my head in the sand will not stop the inevitable.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 23 2012, 02:06 PM

All you previous post is well documented, but...

...this is where I feel there is a lack of data. Why are the Lib Dems wrong? Also, Newbury is surrounded by green fields, why Sandleford?


I'm not sure that Simon's thesis is a good explanation for why Sandleford is the best option. His post contained details on the comparison between leaving the fields as is and building on them; not why it is a better place than others.

Posted by: blackdog Jan 23 2012, 06:52 PM

Why not? What's so special about the fields at Sandleford - apart from their proximity to shops, schools, medical facilties and sports facilities.


Simon's thesis is simple enough - the fields would provide more amenities, better natural habitat, more public access, and better landscape protection if developed according to the plans as proposed. He is cynical enough to be aware that the plans put forward to hook the local authority may not look the same when the houses are built, but, nevertheless it is an impressive proposal that makes the local developments from the last 30 or 40 years look even more dreadful than they generally are.

But, you're right, the fact that the Sandleford site could be improved by the development is not reason enough to pick Sandleford ahead of the alternitives. Sandleford is the best site because it is the best sited in terms of local infrastructure - minimising the need for car journeys and making many of those needed very short.

Much is made of the number of houses being built south of the river - with the suggestion that everyone will be thronging the roads heading for the M4 - some will but all?

Some of Newbury's traffic congestion is caused by school traffic - everyone from north of the river heading for the favoured schools south of the river. Then there are the commuters driving south across the river to the station, or the WBC staff car park, or the most popular town centre car parks at the Kennet Centre and the Wharf.

Wherever you build houses there will be traffic trying to cross the river - northbound or southbound there will always be something across the river, but, in reality, there is as much or more south of the river than north.

The problem of people from Sandleford heading for the M4 will be resolved if the town centre gets congested, surely they will simply drive round to the bypass and take the quicker route to the M4.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 23 2012, 07:03 PM

They are close to Tesco, but I see very few people walking to the shops at the moment, and the queues to the retail park and Tesco are already quite lengthy. Schools: do they have the capacity, especially the junior schools and Park House? The doctors: the last time I asked, the Monks Lane surgery couldn't take any more punters.


That is assuming he is right and assumes no other area meets this criteria as well as Sandlford does.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 23 2012, 07:04 PM

That certainly what I do - onto Essex Street and down the Andover Road to the bypass.

Like I say, I don't believe the nimby objections hold water, but I am disappointed that the developers can't publish the traffic model so we can judge it on the facts.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 23 2012, 07:06 PM

This is the sort of thing I mean. It might be that Sandleford is the best option, but we only seem to hear opinion, rather than fact. I have no confidence that the council will prepare the road network properly to deal with the new developments.

Posted by: blackdog Jan 23 2012, 07:18 PM

The congestion at the retail park is a good argument against building any more houses around Newbury - but that, sadly, is not an option. Wherever the houses are built the occupiers will drive to the retail park and increase the congestion - but the drive from Sandleford will not involve crossing the river (Newbury's critical congestion hot spot). Schools - the plans include a new primary school and an extension to Park House. Monks Lane surgery can't take patients now - but a new estate on the doorstep would make a massive expansion of the surgery not only feasible but also very profitable for the practice (unlike the surgeries to the north of the river there is plenty of space for expansion - and a pharmacy).


The outline plans for Sandleford are available online - Simon's comments seem to be based on these, not some flight of fancy. If another developer comes up with a better plan for one of the alternative sites it will, of course, be worth assessing them. However, despite the owners of the other sites being very keen to call in the builders none have come up with any plans, let alone plans as impressive as those for Sandleford. Call me cynical if you like but I think this is because they have no interest in creating parkland or maintaining historic views - they just want to fill their fields with houses.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 23 2012, 07:28 PM

It will be interesting to see how eco-centric the development ends up. Judging it like other developments, they starts off modest and sympathetic, but once the plans are approved, suddenly developers struggle to make the development profitable enough and we end up with something else.

Posted by: Sherlock Jan 23 2012, 10:20 PM

My guess is that our roads could take a lot more traffic. Even at peak times they are, compared with other places I have lived, still pretty uncongested. My view is that even if the new developments do lead to congestion, we shouldn't spend huge sums building new capacity.

Newbury's roads are really only crowded at peak times and most of the traffic consists of cars with a singe occupant. I expect the vast majority are travelling relatively short distances. A laissez faire approach might force people to think more carefully about how and when they use their cars and while some have little choice I'm sure that there are many who could make changes.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jan 23 2012, 11:02 PM

I can't say i agree. For our council to ignore the potential road congestion would be the laissez faire approach, I think. The problem is Newbury District is built on a side of a hill, and a steep one at that. The top of the hill does have some services, but the main town is at the bottom of the hill and some would consider not realistically walkable for many.