WBC officers endorse QTR's huge warehouse on Greenham Common Options

[Ron]

The point of the councillors is that they should take a strategic view and create the transport infrastructure and designate the land around those transport hubs so that development is planned and ordered and in the right place, and so the town doesn't develop piecemeal with ad-hoc development like this.

That's what councillors are supposed to do.

This kind of thing needs to go up by the motorway.

What happened to the proposal in the past of building a distribution point at the junction of the A34 and the Andover Road? Not quite as good as next to the M4 but better than having all the lorries through Newbury.

[Andy Capp]

Like it or not Greenham is designated as an industrial site. I suspect the only thing that can be used against this application is the traffic issue. It seems that Basingstoke and Deane are against it, I wonder if their planning officers have the same training as WBC's? It could help councillors to reject it if they had expert opinion to counter that of their own officers.

Perhaps a parish councillor who cared about the issue might have tried to find out, but I would imagine being a 'radio mogul' and champion for a viewing platform takes a lot of time up.

Who owns the 'base' anyway? Are we happy that our neighbours will not care who's on the 'base'? They already allowed Ayers Rock, a smelly 'pickled onion' factory, a multi-story container 'Berlin Wall', and that road surface lot that got thrown off by EH to 'spoil the view'. A bit like Parkway which was allowed to fall into ruin, surely it is designated as such because it is allowed to be. What happened to the 'mythical' for small business start-ups policy?

I can remember being at Luker School when it was debated, yet I don't remember the detail now, but there was a basis for rejecting Sainbury's plans for a warehouse up there. Julian Swift-Hook and his chums waved it through with only one councillor, a Tory, who showed any real objection to it; he either abstained or voted against it.

[Exhausted]

The point of the councillors is that they should take a strategic view and create the transport infrastructure and designate the land around those transport hubs so that development is planned and ordered and in the right place, and so the town doesn't develop piecemeal with ad-hoc development like this.

That's what councillors are supposed to do.

This kind of thing needs to go up by the motorway.

Well, you might believe that is the way it works but remember, the councillors that we vote in are not trained nor have any experience in the field of town and country planning. The people who have that professional responsibility are the planning officers. It is they who have had, in theory, years of training in the subject and probably have some sort of degree status. So, my opinion is that the councillors are there to rubber stamp the proposals. I am sure that they may have some minor involvement along the way as it is in the planners interests to keep them sweet but I wonder what input they can possibly have other than perhaps to choose the colour of the tarmac.

Having sat through a few planning meetings, I have sometimes been surprised at the points raised by some of the councillors which, to me, proves that they haven't read the planning notes or failed to understand the application.
Once again, it may be nicer to have a depot closer to a junction but that is not what the planners can decide upon. They cannot say to the applicant, if you move ten miles up the road, that would be a better site. Their remit, is to decide on the application before them, nothing else. They may review the letters from the public that are received but in general, these have to be discounted as most of them do not have valid objections. Not liking a development because it might overlook their garden or because it might cause parking problems are the usual content.

[Andy Capp]

Once again, it may be nicer to have a depot closer to a junction but that is not what the planners can decide upon. They cannot say to the applicant, if you move ten miles up the road, that would be a better site. Their remit, is to decide on the application before them, nothing else. They may review the letters from the public that are received but in general, these have to be discounted as most of them do not have valid objections. Not liking a development because it might overlook their garden or because it might cause parking problems are the usual content.

Like significant heavy vehicular movement through areas in town that breach EU pollution law? Notwithstanding heavy vehicular movement on roads never originally designed for such traffic.

Like I said earlier, this has been brought to us by the owners and the managers of New Greenham Park, with the support of Julian Swift-Hook and his colleagues.

[Exhausted]

Like it or not Greenham is designated as an industrial site. I suspect the only thing that can be used against this application is the traffic issue.

That's what it is all about really.

It seems that Basingstoke and Deane are against it, I wonder if their planning officers have the same training as WBC's? It could help councillors to reject it if they had expert opinion to counter that of their own officers.

That sounds a bit like a NIMBY attitude. They will not get any value from the development either in rental or rates but may have to improve the A339 at their cost. (I'm not sure if this road comes under the heading of a trunk road).
If our WBC planners are not up to the job then the Chief Executive may have some questions to answer. Who is capable of asking those questions is a mute point though.

[Exhausted]

Like significant heavy vehicular movement through areas in town that breach EU pollution law? Notwithstanding heavy vehicular movement on roads never originally designed for such traffic.

This may have some bearing on the planning decision but in reality, the road structure and pollution by HGV's is a bit tenuous as a reason for refusal. The entrance/exits are on an A road and therefore should be capable of handling whatever traffic is likely to pass over it. The council suggesting that they could place an embargo on HGV traffic on the A339 was on April 1st wasn't it. Is there a precedent for that type of ban anywhere.?
London has emission requirements for vehicles entering their boundaries but would that be enforceable on the A339 I wonder.

[Andy Capp]

Anyway, thank you New Greenham Park and Julian Swift-Hook chaired West Berks planning committee (all those years ago) for endorsing this type of use on the base.

[On the edge]

Well, you might believe that is the way it works but remember, the councillors that we vote in are not trained nor have any experience in the field of town and country planning. The people who have that professional responsibility are the planning officers. It is they who have had, in theory, years of training in the subject and probably have some sort of degree status. So, my opinion is that the councillors are there to rubber stamp the proposals. I am sure that they may have some minor involvement along the way as it is in the planners interests to keep them sweet but I wonder what input they can possibly have other than perhaps to choose the colour of the tarmac.

Having sat through a few planning meetings, I have sometimes been surprised at the points raised by some of the councillors which, to me, proves that they haven't read the planning notes or failed to understand the application.
Once again, it may be nicer to have a depot closer to a junction but that is not what the planners can decide upon. They cannot say to the applicant, if you move ten miles up the road, that would be a better site. Their remit, is to decide on the application before them, nothing else. They may review the letters from the public that are received but in general, these have to be discounted as most of them do not have valid objections. Not liking a development because it might overlook their garden or because it might cause parking problems are the usual content.

Yet again, all this proves is that we don't need Councillors. They are now clearly simply just an expensive and outdated anacronisim.

[blackdog]

That sounds a bit like a NIMBY attitude. They will not get any value from the development either in rental or rates but may have to improve the A339 at their cost. (I'm not sure if this road comes under the heading of a trunk road).
If our WBC planners are not up to the job then the Chief Executive may have some questions to answer. Who is capable of asking those questions is a mute point though.

The problem with 'experts' is that there is almost always another 'expert' with an opposing view. I suspect the same may apply to planning officers. However, it may just be Basingstoke & Deane politicos who are moaning about the issue. If so it would be interesting to hear the views of their planners.

I wonder if B&D have any right to S106 money on a development like this? As noted the A339 to Basingstoke and the Newtown - Tot Hill road will take a beating - surely they deserve some of the kick-back to partly cover their maintenance.

[Simon Kirby]

Well, you might believe that is the way it works but remember, the councillors that we vote in are not trained nor have any experience in the field of town and country planning. The people who have that professional responsibility are the planning officers. It is they who have had, in theory, years of training in the subject and probably have some sort of degree status. So, my opinion is that the councillors are there to rubber stamp the proposals. I am sure that they may have some minor involvement along the way as it is in the planners interests to keep them sweet but I wonder what input they can possibly have other than perhaps to choose the colour of the tarmac.

Having sat through a few planning meetings, I have sometimes been surprised at the points raised by some of the councillors which, to me, proves that they haven't read the planning notes or failed to understand the application.
Once again, it may be nicer to have a depot closer to a junction but that is not what the planners can decide upon. They cannot say to the applicant, if you move ten miles up the road, that would be a better site. Their remit, is to decide on the application before them, nothing else. They may review the letters from the public that are received but in general, these have to be discounted as most of them do not have valid objections. Not liking a development because it might overlook their garden or because it might cause parking problems are the usual content.

I'd agree with all of that. When I say the role of the councillor is to take a strategic view I'm talking about a high-level management view - little more that "Newbury needs space for industry to develop to provide jobs and prosperity for the town, and that industry needs to be put somewhere that doesn't interfere with the town's people's enjoyment of where they live, and it needs to be supplied with sufficient infrastructure so that the town doesn't grind to a halt". If the professional town planners aren't drawing up those detailed strategic plans for the next twenty years it's because the councillors aren't insisting on them doing it.

The planners, and for the that matter the councillors, have no choice but to approve the warehouse - it's industrial development in an industrial zone, refusal will inevitably be overturned on appeal. That's unlikely to stop some slack-jawed councillor wheeling out their ill-informed objections, but like you say, the approval now is pretty much inevitable.

The sin is that for the last ten to twenty years our councillors have sat on their hands and allowed Newbury to develop piecemeal without any strategic planning - even the bypass was put in the wrong place!

[Andy Capp]

The sin is that for the last ten to twenty years our councillors have sat on their hands and allowed Newbury to develop piecemeal without any strategic planning

Exactly.

even the bypass was put in the wrong place!

I doubt that was Newbury's fault.

However, Greenham Common was not placed or designed as a ferkin industrial area, that has been allowed to happen!

[Exhausted]

The problem with 'experts' is that there is almost always another 'expert' with an opposing view. I suspect the same may apply to planning officers. However, it may just be Basingstoke & Deane politicos who are moaning about the issue. If so it would be interesting to hear the views of their planners.

I wonder if B&D have any right to S106 money on a development like this? As noted the A339 to Basingstoke and the Newtown - Tot Hill road will take a beating - surely they deserve some of the kick-back to partly cover their maintenance.

I'm afraid to say that Basingstoke and Deane council have written to the WBC planners clearly stating that they have no objection to the application.

S106 can only be paid directly to the council in which the application sits. There is nothing to stop such payment being shared though.

[Simon Kirby]

I doubt that was Newbury's fault.

However, Greenham Common was not placed or designed as a ferkin industrial area, that has been allowed to happen!

Newbury should have taken the initiative and demanded infrastructure that would serve us, not just sat back and watched.

[dannyboy]

You mean the 'build it & they will come' attitude?

[NWNREADER]

I'm afraid to say that Basingstoke and Deane council have written to the WBC planners clearly stating that they have no objection to the application.

S106 can only be paid directly to the council in which the application sits. There is nothing to stop such payment being shared though.

45% of the Highways 106 money will go to Hampshire (it is set out in the documentation for the Planning Meeting)

[Exhausted]

45% of the Highways 1-6 money will go to Hampshire (it is set out in the documentation for the Planning Meeting)

Yes that is the case but the S106 payment is to WBC the 45% for local road improvements etc will be handed over to Hampshire.
The bit that is pocketed for the libraries is for WBC and not shared.

[NWNREADER]

Yes that is the case but the S106 payment is to WBC the 45% for local road improvements etc will be handed over to Hampshire.
The bit that is pocketed for the libraries is for WBC and not shared.

I know..... Not sure what your point is there. Me, I'm trying to think where the Highway money will go....... I believe it has to be on Capital schemes, not maintenance....

[Exhausted]

I know..... Not sure what your point is there. Me, I'm trying to think where the Highway money will go....... I believe it has to be on Capital schemes, not maintenance....

The requirement for the S106 could go partly to subsidising a bus service.

Quote....

Also Thatcham Town Council, Thatcham Vision and WBC Transport Services aspire to having a through Thatcham - Newbury - Greenham Business Park bus service, at least at peak travel times. However, the existing bus service 103 is funded directly by Greenham Business Park, in conjunction with Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council as it also serves Bishops Green. WBC currently does not presently have to contribute funding towards it; however B & DBC are scrutinising their spending with the potential of reducing their funding for the bus service. Therefore there may be the necessity of having to provide funding from WBC to sustain and adapt this service to continue to serve Greenham Park.

Improvements for cyclists between the A339 / B4640 Swan Roundabout and the A339 / Pinchington Lane Roundabout to link Greenham Park including the site better to facilities in southern Newbury

Improvements to the A339 / A343 St Johns Roundabout near Burger King

Improvements to the A339 / B3421 Bear Lane Junction

.....Unquote.
Library money goes to stock and service but my point about that is that the library gets an S106 for every application approved by WBC. I somehow doubt that it actually gets there but helps to build the WBC vanity cash.

Quote...
Library Service contribution towards provision of stock items and all other service improvements for use in all West Berkshire Libraries £3,302

....Unquote

[NWNREADER]

Understood - the Highways Planning Officer report... Not sure how much of a definite those are, or whether they can be delivered for just over £100k......
I wonder if it will include sorting out the 40-yr old flood problem on the A339 east of the Swan RAB?