Sandleford row erupts again following letter to Wash Common residents Options

[Simon Kirby]

I understand that the letter was unsolicited and privacy should therefore never be assumed, so I don't know why you would feel that. It would be daft to send private letters to people with whom you have no relationship, or are not known.

Perhaps we were brought up differently, but if I received a private personal letter I would understand that it would be rude to publish it. I'm not saying I wouldn't publish it, but I'd understand that publishing it would violate a moral code and change the dynamic. Like I said, I think it was fair enough, all's fair etc, but it was somewhat rude all the same.

[Andy Capp]

So it's war is it?

Perhaps we were brought up differently

Talk about rude!

but if I received a private personal letter I would understand that it would be rude to publish it. I'm not saying I wouldn't publish it, but I'd understand that publishing it would violate a moral code and change the dynamic. Like I said, I think it was fair enough, all's fair etc, but it was somewhat rude all the same.

Whoopty do; so what, a rude letter is treated with contempt. Anyone'd think you wrote the letter. Under the circumstances, no-one can be surprised if people who object to the development would do or say anything within the law to undermine the development.

As for the development itself, in good faith I suspect that it is the best of less than perfect options, but I can 'hear a noise' that suggests there are some issues that surround Sandleford being selected for development. In this instance, I can't see that the author of the letter has done anything wrong writing to the residents, but it seems that some are insinuating that proper protocol has not being followed.



I too am starting to understand the 'V' word.

[Lolly]

Perhaps we were brought up differently, but if I received a private personal letter I would understand that it would be rude to publish it. I'm not saying I wouldn't publish it, but I'd understand that publishing it would violate a moral code and change the dynamic. Like I said, I think it was fair enough, all's fair etc, but it was somewhat rude all the same.

Being pedantic, it was the NWN that published extracts from the letter, not a resident (unless you know different?) Presumably it was passed on by one of the residents but we don't know that for sure, and we can only speculate as to motive.

Referring back to the article the bits that concern me are:

"The letter was dated May 20, 2014 and signed by Mark Norgate"

The quote: “I appreciate that you may have been very much against the development at Sandleford Park, but the question as to whether or not it will happen has now been answered.

“As such, I would like to come and discuss with you the ways in which you could benefit from the development happening, as opposed to being a financial victim of it.”

And: "Mr Norgate also says that he had held discussions with West Berkshire Council, which told him that Warren Road would need to be widened.

He added that as a result, he and the council had agreed to ask homeowners in Warren Road if they wanted to sell enough land to accommodate the new road"

My first instinct would be to check with the Council regarding the extent of their involvement, and given that the letter was sent in May you would have thought that they would have been able to clarify that by now. If I was concerned about due process, worried about compulsory purchase, or even wanting to push the price up,I'd probably ask to see his agreement with the Council. And yet there is no comment in the article from the "council spokesperson". Equally we don't know when ( or in what context) Mr Norgate made his "It's the lowest form of journalism" comment.

[On the edge]

Lets try another way. When the developer first came up with their big idea, they would have spoken to the planners at the Council. They didn't need to, but it was sensible and prudent. Exactly the same as I would do if I decided to build an extra few rooms on the side of my office. The Council staff would have been independent and impartial, giving only advice. In the Sandleford case, we can safely assume that the planners may well have said that it would help the proposal if Warren Road was widened and that being the case, it would be prudent to get the agreement of the affected residents. All pretty obvious really. Easier said than done, but the developer then starts, or tries to start a conversation with those people. Of course, some are anti from the start. Of course, the proposal is still only a proposal. The developer sent a letter,he could have sent a letter - then we'd have had a 'Developers Heavies at my front door headline! The conversation about widening Warren Road is a commercial discussion and each side will do what it will to get the result they desire. What it doesn't do is demonstrate that the Council have shown any interest or partiality, demonstrate that Sandleford is right or wrong, or demonstrate the developer is acting inappropriately in any way. The only thing publication does show is that the resident is not going to be an easy call; but that's up to them and them alone.

[Dodgys smarter b...]

I guess, from some of the replies here that few people know that one of the developer companies is owned by Mark Norgate's mum (Delia)

[Lolly]

The developer sent a letter,he could have sent a letter - then we'd have had a 'Developers Heavies at my front door headline!

Do you mean 'could have knocked on doors'?

In that context, we might very well have had that headline, but in May, not in November and the nature of the agreement that the Commercial developer purported to have made with the Council might have been investigated further. Instead it appears that the NWN have lifted quotes straight from the letter, and this particular quote implies that the Council is involved in a commercial process:

"he and the council had agreed to ask homeowners in Warren Road if they wanted to sell enough land to accommodate the new road."

The way I see it, either someone at the Council has overstepped the mark, or the Developer has misinterpreted/overstated the advice he was given.

[On the edge]

Do you mean 'could have knocked on doors'?

In that context, we might very well have had that headline, but in May, not in November and the nature of the agreement that the Commercial developer purported to have made with the Council might have been investigated further. Instead it appears that the NWN have lifted quotes straight from the letter, and this particular quote implies that the Council is involved in a commercial process:

"he and the council had agreed to ask homeowners in Warren Road if they wanted to sell enough land to accommodate the new road."

The way I see it, either someone at the Council has overstepped the mark, or the Developer has misinterpreted/overstated the advice he was given.

Sorry, but that's really playing with words. The council had not entered any agreement and couldn't do so without due process. What was meant is that the developer agreed with the advice he'd been given by the Council officers. In any event, what was so wrong about the developer wanting to talk to the householder? If the developer hadn't and he would have been totally within his rights not to, when his plans were made public, we'd have had the resident complaining that it was the first he'd heard about it!

[r.bartlett]

I guess, from some of the replies here that few people know that one of the developer companies is owned by Mark Norgate's mum (Delia)

https://www.opencompany.co.uk/profile/25489...a-lynne-norgate

https://www.opencompany.co.uk/company/02796...roperty-limited

[On the edge]

I guess, from some of the replies here that few people know that one of the developer companies is owned by Mark Norgate's mum (Delia)

So what?

[Exhausted]

So what?

Exactly, the Norgates have always been local developers and obviously when the father died, the company was continued by the family. It isn't dishonourable to earn a living even if the profits might make it a comfortable living but the reverse could be true of course.

[Lolly]

Sorry, but that's really playing with words.

Not intentionally - I think it's just a difference of interpretation, based on incomplete information

The council had not entered any agreement

How do you know?

and couldn't do so without due process.

I agree they shouldn't do, but the quotes in the letter ( as presented in the article) suggest otherwise.

What was meant is that the developer agreed with the advice he'd been given by the Council officers.

Again, how do you know? That isn't what it says in the NWN. Have you seen the actual letter?

In any event, what was so wrong about the developer wanting to talk to the householder?

Nothing

If the developer hadn't and he would have been totally within his rights not to, when his plans were made public, we'd have had the resident complaining that it was the first he'd heard about it!

Not sure what your point is here? If a developer put forward plans to construct a road on your land without your agreement I think you'd have rather more to complain about than the fact it was the first you'd heard about it, especially if it meant demolition of your house!

[r.bartlett]

Exactly, the Norgates have always been local developers and obviously when the father died, the company was continued by the family. It isn't dishonourable to earn a living even if the profits might make it a comfortable living but the reverse could be true of course.

I guess the issue may lie with the strong possibility the developer will leave a trail of destruction in warren rd (if that is an acceptable term) and move to a big house in Highclere on the profit whilst those left behind have to suffer the consequences of poor planning. As it stands the traffic backs up from the double roundabouts past Warren rd let alone when this comes on full stream.

make no mistake the planning department will fudge the traffic issue now to appease the green 'car free' brigade which will cause serious hold ups for years to come..

Decent open and honest planning would make most of these concerns go away. The battle to save Sandleford is lost lets just not throw in the towel to let them do what they want and to **** with the consequences.

[On the edge]

Not intentionally - I think it's just a difference of interpretation, based on incomplete information


How do you know?



I agree they shouldn't do, but the quotes in the letter ( as presented in the article) suggest otherwise.


Again, how do you know? That isn't what it says in the NWN. Have you seen the actual letter?


Nothing


Not sure what your point is here? If a developer put forward plans to construct a road on your land without your agreement I think you'd have rather more to complain about than the fact it was the first you'd heard about it, especially if it meant demolition of your house!

Whatever the planners may or may not have 'agreed' with the developer, there can be no contract without the authority of the council itself which would have been made public. Search as I might, there is no public record of any such arrangement. Of course, there might have been a secret arrangement but that would be a very serious and different matter.

I have been in the position where a developer was proposing to demolish a block of flats I was living in without making any reference to me. First I knew was an article in the local press. Actually, the only thing I was worried about was the need to have the decision taken quickly; so it had no effect on me selling. One of my neighbours almost begged our Councillor to go yes because she wanted the compensation, another wanted a no because he didn't want the disruption. This is all standard stuff for any new development.

[On the edge]

I guess the issue may lie with the strong possibility the developer will leave a trail of destruction in warren rd (if that is an acceptable term) and move to a big house in Highclere on the profit whilst those left behind have to suffer the consequences of poor planning. As it stands the traffic backs up from the double roundabouts past Warren rd let alone when this comes on full stream.

make no mistake the planning department will fudge the traffic issue now to appease the green 'car free' brigade which will cause serious hold ups for years to come..

Decent open and honest planning would make most of these concerns go away. The battle to save Sandleford is lost lets just not throw in the towel to let them do what they want and to **** with the consequences.

Err what exactly is wrong with that? The developer is making a living like anyone else! At least they are local developers and likely to be spending whatever they make in the locality! Trust you don't shop in Aldi or Lidl who are presently destroying our home supermarkets, but the owners are spending the profits they make in Germany.

The Planning people have to apply formal rules to traffic calculations. If you disagree, then there is a remedy via your local councillor. I'd certainly join you when it comes to the rather daft green rules about car parking spaces in new developments which leads to such stupidities as the Vodafone busses. Again, not the fault of the developer...

[r.bartlett]

Err what exactly is wrong with that? The developer is making a living like anyone else! At least they are local developers and likely to be spending whatever they make in the locality! Trust you don't shop in Aldi or Lidl who are presently destroying our home supermarkets, but the owners are spending the profits they make in Germany.

The Planning people have to apply formal rules to traffic calculations. If you disagree, then there is a remedy via your local councillor. I'd certainly join you when it comes to the rather daft green rules about car parking spaces in new developments which leads to such stupidities as the Vodafone busses. Again, not the fault of the developer...

Not sure why you ask about lidl and Aldi but no we don't shop at either. Apparently Sainsbury is first choice then Tesco and occasionally Budgens

Now no one is overly concerned about anyone making a profit as we apparently live in a capitalist society. However within that there is a sense of social responsibility. Now it can be argued that isn't the concern of the capitalist out to make a buck and indeed that may be so but some have a sense of not slash and burn but work within self imposed guidelines. For instance certain Quakers who built many of the UK's world famous brands and became fabulously wealthy but had a real genuine sense of social responsibility and a concern for the locals.


I wonder where Mr & Mrs Norgate fit in the greater scheme of things?

[Cognosco]

Whatever the planners may or may not have 'agreed' with the developer, there can be no contract without the authority of the council itself which would have been made public. Search as I might, there is no public record of any such arrangement. Of course, there might have been a secret arrangement but that would be a very serious and different matter.

I have been in the position where a developer was proposing to demolish a block of flats I was living in without making any reference to me. First I knew was an article in the local press. Actually, the only thing I was worried about was the need to have the decision taken quickly; so it had no effect on me selling. One of my neighbours almost begged our Councillor to go yes because she wanted the compensation, another wanted a no because he didn't want the disruption. This is all standard stuff for any new development.

I think everyone is aware that it is all cut and dried long before anything leaks to the public?

The charade of the so called planning procedures occur only to try and alleviate the flack the local politicos will face from their electorate. Sweeteners are offered (like a country park) and depending on the reaction from the plebs other sweeteners are offered. Then, miraculously, when permission is granted some time elapses before the climate becomes not conducive to be able to actually produce the sweeteners for whatever reason and for instance the developer will have to pull out if he, or she, has to actually produce the sweeteners. Next comes the developers, because of the difficult financial climate, we wont be able to actually build the x amount of affordable housing as first proposed. This invariably means the precept payers have to give the developer a bung to build any affordable housing that is required. The promised country park, if actually supplied, ends up a very miniscule muddy patch of scrub land that of course eventually has to be built on because it actually is no use as a country park. If all this sounds so familiar I wonder why?

I believe the developers letter stated the truth and it says it all in the one statement:

“As such, I would like to come and discuss with you the ways in which you could benefit from the development happening, as opposed to being a financial victim of it.

Agree or face the financial consequences ultimatum?

This is Newbury of course so what else can we expect?

[r.bartlett]

Agree or face the financial consequences ultimatum?

This is Newbury of course so what else can we expect?

The get out while you can was a very obvious *kind and generous offer


*passive bullying.

[On the edge]

Not sure why you ask about lidl and Aldi but no we don't shop at either. Apparently Sainsbury is first choice then Tesco and occasionally Budgens

Now no one is overly concerned about anyone making a profit as we apparently live in a capitalist society. However within that there is a sense of social responsibility. Now it can be argued that isn't the concern of the capitalist out to make a buck and indeed that may be so but some have a sense of not slash and burn but work within self imposed guidelines. For instance certain Quakers who built many of the UK's world famous brands and became fabulously wealthy but had a real genuine sense of social responsibility and a concern for the locals.


I wonder where Mr & Mrs Norgate fit in the greater scheme of things?

Yes, that's all very well and the way it is. I was just trying to show you it is the same for any entrepreneur or developer. Again, what's so wrong with Mr and Mrs Norgate?

[On the edge]

I think everyone is aware that it is all cut and dried long before anything leaks to the public?

The charade of the so called planning procedures occur only to try and alleviate the flack the local politicos will face from their electorate. Sweeteners are offered (like a country park) and depending on the reaction from the plebs other sweeteners are offered. Then, miraculously, when permission is granted some time elapses before the climate becomes not conducive to be able to actually produce the sweeteners for whatever reason and for instance the developer will have to pull out if he, or she, has to actually produce the sweeteners. Next comes the developers, because of the difficult financial climate, we wont be able to actually build the x amount of affordable housing as first proposed. This invariably means the precept payers have to give the developer a bung to build any affordable housing that is required. The promised country park, if actually supplied, ends up a very miniscule muddy patch of scrub land that of course eventually has to be built on because it actually is no use as a country park. If all this sounds so familiar I wonder why?

I believe the developers letter stated the truth and it says it all in the one statement:

“As such, I would like to come and discuss with you the ways in which you could benefit from the development happening, as opposed to being a financial victim of it.

Agree or face the financial consequences ultimatum?

This is Newbury of course so what else can we expect?

Therein lies the rub. The answer lies with our dear local councillors, it's that political leadership bit again. If the process is being diverted, it can only be with their connivance. Let's see some real accountability - they should be the focus of the protesters attention. If they believe the development is in the public interest, then come out and say so. defend your employees.

The conditions on developments are surely mandatory? For instance, I can't see why the Council aren't telling their legal people to enforce the Parkway condition, rather than using heavy handed tactics on innocent prospective purchasers.

[Simon Kirby]

Therein lies the rub. The answer lies with our dear local councillors, it's that political leadership bit again. If the process is being diverted, it can only be with their connivance. Let's see some real accountability - they should be the focus of the protesters attention. If they believe the development is in the public interest, then come out and say so. defend your employees.

Absolutely. I quite agree with Cognosco's point about broken promises, but you can't blame the commercial developer for trying, the problem is that our local politicos are not ensuring that the public interest is served; they're not paying enough attention to what their officers are doing and they're allowing the developer to wriggle out of its commitments. And as you say, it's the politicos that should be the focus of the protestors' attention, but how do you mobilise the comfortable people of Wash Common to campaign for a quality urban environment with adequate social infrastructure and a financially sustainable Country Park?