Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 23 2012, 04:24 PM

The Council's Core Strategy with its strategic housing sites is currently being decided by a planning inspector - but if you were to decide the matter what would you do? Try to say why too, as it's always good to know why.

Posted by: spartacus May 23 2012, 04:27 PM

Can't you vote for all of the first three? I would, as none of them are near to my house

Posted by: Newbelly May 23 2012, 04:35 PM

I voted for "Brownfield" on the understanding that this refers to brownfield land.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 23 2012, 04:38 PM

Has to be Sandleford for me. With appropriate access roads it has excellent access to the A34 and A339 which won't trouble the existing traffic densities, and it's close to the town centre and south newbury trading estate. It also somes with a Country Park which creates public access where currently there is none and preserves the Sandleford woodland while losing nothing of any wildlife value in what is currently just a farmer's field.

Shaw and Chieveley are out-of-town developments which will never have the facilities of Newbury, brownfield development is OK if you want a flat in the town but it can't deliver family houses with gardens, and it can't deliver 2,000 new homes, and not building at all is just selfish because people need to live somewhere and Newbury is a good place to live.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 23 2012, 04:41 PM

You can now, though if you've voted already I don't think you can edit your vote, sorry.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 23 2012, 04:41 PM

Can you say which brownfields?

Posted by: Newbelly May 23 2012, 04:46 PM

Maybe one day we can think about something other than ease of transport by car?

Brownfield sites do not just exist in the centre of a town.

Posted by: spartacus May 23 2012, 04:46 PM

How about Brownsfield Road in Thatcham so that the Town Council can be squashed.... The cricket ground would go too which wouldn't be good mind.....

Posted by: spartacus May 23 2012, 04:51 PM

Teleporting may be some way off yet.............

Alternatively (and cheerfully) perhaps a couple of the European 'Stans with their stocks of former Soviet weaponry will have a public squabble over oil and gas reserves and plunge the world into a nuclear winter and back to the Dark Ages.... We'll be back to mutant horses and cart....

Posted by: Andy Capp May 23 2012, 04:57 PM

Not in my back yard!

My vote would be Lambourn, Pangbourne, Tilehurst, and all the above.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 23 2012, 05:00 PM

So it comes down to a choice between Richard Adams' Watership Down and John Wyndham's The Chrysalids.

Posted by: Newbelly May 23 2012, 05:09 PM

What I meant was that planning should be for the long term, and ease of access by car should not always be the primary concern for house building (as the post I was responding to seemed to infer).

Posted by: blackdog May 23 2012, 05:12 PM

Sums it up pretty well, though I'd add the infrastructure around Sandleford (shopping, surgery, secondary school).

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 23 2012, 05:23 PM

With 2,000 new homes there'll be a need for some more infrastructure like a bit of an extension to the Falkland doctor's surgery maybe, but like you say much of the infrstructure is already there and there's plenty of space to accomodate what's lacking. As you posted previously, if the road access onto the A339 and Andover roads was done well there'd be precious little impact on the existing traffic.

Posted by: Newbelly May 23 2012, 05:51 PM

I am not sure how you can say that 2000 new homes will have precious little impact on existing traffic.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 23 2012, 06:04 PM

Yes and I anticipate that it will have an adverse effect on Thatcham's level crossing and the route to it from Greenham.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 23 2012, 06:44 PM

I don't think it will, not if it's planned well. How many homes wil that make in South Newbury, 10,000? That's not exactly a large conurbation and it is well-served by good roads.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 23 2012, 06:46 PM

Why?

Posted by: GMR May 23 2012, 06:50 PM

I suppose the answer to your question is anywhere so long as it isn't near me.

Posted by: On the edge May 23 2012, 06:53 PM

Might also be worth talking to Reading again, they actually wanted a good lump of WBC's allocation a few years back.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 23 2012, 06:53 PM

Have you navigated yourself round Berkley Rd and its surrounding roads lately? That was built without consideration and now it is ridiculous round there.

Cars and their derivatives are not going away. Developments without consideration for traffic is a 'road to héll'.

Posted by: Newbelly May 23 2012, 07:05 PM

So are developments based on everyone having to drive. What about some better public transport and a bit of strategic thinking here?

Posted by: Andy Capp May 23 2012, 07:16 PM

Why would 'everyone driving' be a road to ****? Public transport is dire. It lacks investment and no-one wants it.

When ever a punitive level of parking and traffic management is developed, it results in car-misery for the inhabitants.

Posted by: Newbelly May 23 2012, 07:20 PM

I am not sure I am with you.

You say "no-one wants" public transport. You really mean that?

Posted by: Andy Capp May 23 2012, 07:23 PM

People prefer autonomy. No-one wants to rely on a bus or train that might be late, or to share their space with people that make them feel uncomfortable, or to spend longer travelling than is necessary.

Posted by: On the edge May 23 2012, 07:23 PM

Newbelly

Give them their due, the LibDems do have a policy. Use your bike - bit awkward I know with a week's shopping for a family of five but we all have to make sacrifices.

I go past some fairly new houses up Clay Hill occasionally, apparently under their watch the Council wouldn't permit many parking spaces. So the residents simply park on the road. Beats the cost of chicanes and keeps the local motor part dealers in business with replacement wing mirrors!

So there is a strategy...its just that you want thought as well.

Posted by: On the edge May 23 2012, 07:30 PM

Not strictly true, I spend a lot of time in London, weeks on end periodically. Much prefer using the tube / bus even at times bikes. Again, albeit 30 years back, lived on the 17 bus route in Reading. Car was a complete waste of money, in fact we sold it and just hired one for holidays. People will use public transport if its cheap, frequent and convenient.

The sharing space with other people bit is a society concern - perhaps we've all become rather too insular. It gets me that the Vodafone buses are strictly for employees - are they really that scared of their customers?

Posted by: Newbelly May 23 2012, 07:35 PM

Agree. I am in London tomorrow and will prefer to use public transport.

Andy, not everyone can drive, not everyone can afford a car! Perhaps you are lucky.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 23 2012, 07:39 PM

That is right, although people tend to do what they can afford, and what fits the bill. In your scenario, a car was impractical, although I still maintain that personal transport is preferable when all things are equal.

The problem with Newbury, is that it is built on a steep hill and I'd say that is a negative against Sandleford.

Posted by: dannyboy May 23 2012, 07:48 PM

Exactly. Which is why Sandleford is the best option.

Posted by: Newbelly May 23 2012, 07:54 PM

Sorry, can you explain?

Posted by: Andy Capp May 23 2012, 08:03 PM

A car makes light work of scaling a hill, although they use a lot more fuel per distance than cars on a flat(ish) ground. A push-bike is a non-starter, or a big put-off for many, and a walk is also more unattractive than it might be.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 23 2012, 08:06 PM

It would be if all he said was true and realised.

Posted by: Newbelly May 23 2012, 08:17 PM

I get the impression you have today enjoyed a beer in the sun! Good on you and take care.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 23 2012, 08:23 PM

Are you going to offer anything here, or not?

Personally, I thought it stark raving obvious why building a new village within walking distance of a town that was divided by a big steep hill was an issue.

Posted by: dannyboy May 23 2012, 08:45 PM

Only one way to find out......

but as 10500 houses are apparently required & Sandleford will only give us 2000 of that, I have a feeling new houses will be springing up to the N S E & W of town.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 23 2012, 09:03 PM

And this is why it is such a criminal shame that our politicos are posturing when they need to be constructive. Look at all the development along the Washwater road - utterly hopeless in terms of sustainability, there are no facilities at all within a reasonable walking distance and WBC couldn't even be asked to put in a footpath for anyone who tried. This is just the kind of poorly planned piecemeal sprawl without any infrastructure or facilities that will fill the by-pass gap if we don't put a quality long-term strategic development plan in place.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 23 2012, 09:16 PM

Yes, but which brownfield sites would you develop with 2,000 homes? I'm asking specifically because I don't believe the sites exist, not enough to provide for 2,000 homes with gardens, drives and garages and all the associated amenities and facilities which would go with Sandleford.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 23 2012, 09:35 PM

Which is why I said 'all the above'.

Posted by: dannyboy May 24 2012, 12:19 AM

I can think of one Brownfield site - the land just south of Colthrop on the otherside of the canal. Only problem is that the gravel extractors have got there first.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 24 2012, 07:24 AM

You're saying that Newbury shouldn't get any of the 10,500 new homes then? I'm asking if there are brownfield sites in and around Newbury that will provide all of the amenities of the Sandleford site and provide the family homes that Sandleford can accomodate. Not even the lib dems are promoting the Sterling, so unless they want to pack us into squats in the Kennet Center their talk of brownfield development is just so much hand-waving. When Dr. Cooper can find a brownfield site in Newbury that delivers housing like he enjoys on Garden Close Lane then fine, but there isn't one.

Posted by: dannyboy May 24 2012, 09:09 AM

I'm saying that that is the only BF site I can think of of any size.

Posted by: blackdog May 24 2012, 09:34 AM

Well, WBC can say that 1500 new homes on the racecourse, in an area already afflicted by rush hour gridlock, will be fine.

Wherever they build the homes they will generate traffic - which will impact on roads aroung them. The big advantage of the Sandleford site is that there is so much local infrastructure that the residents will make shorter journeys than they would if they had to go further to shop etc.

The problem with the existing design for Sandleford is the use of Monks Lane for all traffic - a road out to the Andover Road south of Wash Common should be included.

Posted by: blackdog May 24 2012, 10:00 AM

Not strictly true.

The local plan (whatever they are calling it these days) has identified developments around West Berks that will supply most of the 10,500 homes, it also makes assumptions, based on past experience, of the number of small/individual developments they are likely to get.

This totals up to around 10,000 - but is based to some extent on guesswork - so they wanted to identify a site that could be used, if necessary, to take up any slack. This is where Sandleford came in - along with Shaw (north of Vodafone) & Thatcham (east of Floral Way).

The Sandleford developers were very quick of the mark and came up with a lovely proposal - and WBC opted for Sandleford as the contingency site. Since then the owners of the other sites have woken up and are vociferously screaming 'make me richer, make me richer instead'.

What has seemed to happen through the process is that Sandleford has gone (certainly in the public mind) from a contingency that might be approved for housing in ten years time if not enough homes are built elsewhere - to something they will start to build as soon as the local plan is approved. If they fail in their objections I wonder if the Say No To Sandleford campaign may not have made it easier for the developers to go ahead as soon as market conditions suit.

On the brownfield issue - the plan already allows for hundreds of flats in Newbury on such sites - many of which are already in the planning stage, some are already being built. The Lib Dems would like to see more industrial/office areas redesignated for residential use - eg Faraday Road, Mill Lane and town centre offices. Which is all very well but displaced businesses will want to relocate somewhere; do they want businesses to leave the area, or have they identified new greenfield industrial sites?

PS Chieveley has never been an option and why is the Thatcham site not in the poll?

Posted by: blackdog May 24 2012, 10:12 AM

Whilst it may look brown it is probably not designated as 'brownfield' - most gravel extraction schemes, when approved, come with an agreement to turn the site back into greenfield when they have finished.

It would also be difficult to get planning consent there these days when flooding has become a real issue.

The biggest brownfield development in the offing is Faraday Plaza - then there are 175 or so flats in West St (replacing Avonbank House etc). The Sterling Cables site is another that might see housing eventually. The old Travis Perkins site is designated industrial but the owners are keen to get it redesignated for residential. Of course the Parkway flats will probably also count in the 10,000. Between them these sites will probably deliver around 1000 flats.

But how many flats do we need?

Posted by: dannyboy May 24 2012, 11:58 AM

The land I'm thinking of was something to do with the old Colthrop Paper mill - There are still a few old buildings on the site, a water tower & some floodlighting towers.

Flats - the UK demographic is changing and you can get a higher denisty of properties on any given footprint with flats.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 24 2012, 12:29 PM

60s high-rises revisited; social upheaval coming to a town near you.

Posted by: dannyboy May 24 2012, 12:32 PM

I think today they are called appartments, lofts & duplexes.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 24 2012, 02:33 PM

as if by magic...

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 24 2012, 02:36 PM

Little boxes made of ticky-tacky.

Posted by: Peperium May 24 2012, 02:43 PM

I'm waiting for the NoToSandleford campaign to see the Poll. Watch how the early result of 56% in favour of Sandleford changes!

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome May 24 2012, 04:20 PM

If we did not have such ridiculous levels of immigration then we'd not need to build millions of new homes. Spain have 5 million homes sitting empty, more than the WHOLE of the US. Surely the Eurozone should be encouraging immigration to areas of Europe where they have millions of emtpy homes rather than foisting millions more people on an already crowded island.

Posted by: blackdog May 24 2012, 04:36 PM

People generally migrate to work - the empty housing in Spain and Ireland is a sign that there is no work there. Should employers be encouraged to move their work from Britain to Spain to discourage migration to the UK and to fill Spanish houses? With the subsequent loss to the treasury of all the taxes paid by the employers and their employees.

Posted by: dannyboy May 26 2012, 06:26 PM

Those houses were built in the days when if you saw a car you tell everyone about it because they were so rare. So, by that rationale planners today had better ensure new build housing gives provision for what ever form of transort we'll be using in 2112....

Posted by: dannyboy May 26 2012, 06:28 PM

Now, if there was just a central european government, those taxes wouldn't be lost.....just collected in a different region of the United States of Europe.

Posted by: NWNREADER May 26 2012, 06:28 PM

Personal jet packs?

Posted by: dannyboy May 26 2012, 06:28 PM

It must be total chaos tonight then......

Posted by: dannyboy May 26 2012, 06:31 PM

Those & teleporters requiring a roof launch pad. We'll all be sat around in 2112 wondering exactly which idiots were in charge when all these flats were built so that those on any floor but the roof were inconvenienced.

Posted by: Cognosco May 26 2012, 08:03 PM

Do you think anything that was built in the last twenty years will still be standing in that sort of time?

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 26 2012, 08:19 PM

Forget about your silly whim
It doesn't fit the Plan!

Posted by: NWNREADER May 26 2012, 08:21 PM

I doubt we will, and there is the rub..... Plans are made for future generations by those whose interest is affected by the date of the next election

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 26 2012, 09:52 PM

Kind of disapointing that none of the proponents of the brownfield schemes will say what brownfields, and how those sites can deliver either sustainable family homes and a country park. Don't get me wrong, brownfield development is great because derelict sites do nothing for the town, but most of our brownfield sites are ideal for commercial development because most of us need somewhere to work.

Posted by: NWNREADER May 26 2012, 09:59 PM

Bearing in mind how contaminated the Sterling Cables site is, maybe the digging out should double up to provide foundations. Then one of http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/00/13/92/7a/petronas-towers.jpg would fit in and sort out the total requirement. Near the shops and industrial areas, and on the bus/train routes, so no need for the residents to have cars,,,,,,