WHO owns the Sandleford housing site??? Options

[gel]

Thanks for that.

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

[blackdog]

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.

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?

[blackdog]

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...live-Betts.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/local-government...ommittee-review

I wonder if the Government will listen to them?

[Sherlock]

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?

[Andy Capp]

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

[Simon Kirby]

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?

Welcome to NewburyToday Sherlock.

Would you like to see the Sandleford development happen?

[Simon Kirby]

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

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

[Sherlock]

Welcome to NewburyToday Sherlock.

Would you like to see the Sandleford development happen?

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.

[Andy Capp]

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

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.

[Simon Kirby]

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.

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.

[Simon Kirby]

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.

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.

[Sherlock]

I suspect most people who complain of NIMBYists, are people not affected by the relevant protests either.

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?

[Andy Capp]

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?

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.

[NWNREADER]

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......

[Andy Capp]

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......

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.

[blackdog]

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'.

[Andy Capp]

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.

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

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

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'.

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.

[Sherlock]

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

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:

[blackdog]

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.

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.

[Andy Capp]

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:

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