Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Newbury Today Forum _ Newbury News _ Say No to Sandleford

Posted by: Iommi Feb 14 2011, 11:45 PM

http://www.saynotosandleford.org.uk/

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 15 2011, 12:48 AM

QUOTE (Iommi @ Feb 14 2011, 11:45 PM) *
http://www.saynotosandleford.org.uk/

I walk down there quite often, and I've never seen any of these people down there.

It'll be a blow for the half dozen lapwings that cling on, but farmland is a desert for wildlife which is my concern and a well design residential development is actually an excellent wildlife habitat, especially for songbirds, and even for foxes, and people do have to live somewhere. No, I say Cllr Swift-Hook and his chums can all go silflay hraka.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 15 2011, 12:52 AM

Anyone would think we had elections coming up!

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 15 2011, 12:48 AM) *
It'll be a blow for the half dozen lapwings that cling on, but farmland is a desert for wildlife which is my concern and a well design residential development is actually an excellent wildlife habitat, especially for songbirds, and even especially for foxes, and people do have to live somewhere.

We could do with more hedgerows!

For this to be a credible campaign, the Lib Dems need to explain an alternative plan. It is easy to say No, but harder to explain what.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 15 2011, 05:14 AM

QUOTE (Iommi @ Feb 15 2011, 12:52 AM) *
Anyone would think we had elections coming up!

For this to be a credible campaign, the Lib Dems need to explain an alternative plan. It is easy to say No, but harder to explain what.


Agreed, especially as regards the need to propose an alternative. Nothing easier than to dismiss a proposal but (if) there needs be 2000 houses, so where?

Also notice emphasis of the word 'local' in the pic captions, on a document printed in Yorkshire. No local printers?

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 15 2011, 10:27 AM

I see Alex Payton, who came second in Havant on the Lib Dem ticket is busy adding his name to suport the cause.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 15 2011, 11:05 AM

What I believe our local politicians shold be doing is ensuring that Sandleford is a quality development with open and communal spaces, amenities, and facilities. This kind of thing is difficult if it's developed piecemeal and a strategic approach is difficult if the parish council is fighting the developers rather than working with them.

For starters I'd be really, really disappointed to lose any of the copses as they are good for wildlife and kids needs somewhere to mank about. 2000 new houses is enough to warrant a small recreation ground and a community centre is essential.

And finally something the Greenham Parish Council should have done years ago - provide an allotment site right in the middle of the development - Greenham Parish currently provides zero allotment plots and none of the new residents will be elligable for a plot in Newbury so they need to fulfil their statutory duty (and maybe Alex Payton would like to remind them of that duty), so that's a 10 acre allotment site.

That would be much more constructive than a bit of cynical electioneering.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 15 2011, 11:53 AM

The problem is, as has been proven. Once planning is granted, the developers can just do almost as they please.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 15 2011, 01:52 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 15 2011, 11:05 AM) *
kids needs somewhere to mank about.


Oh dear - allowing children to play in open space is just not on. They must have safely built and installed social space, fenced off from where 'men' might watch, and with smoking shelters for the parent.

Plus staff to supervise them, an ambulance on standby in case of a grazed knee (better include a lawyers office). Oh, somewhere for the Counsellors to discuss abuse with the children.... Better add offices for social workers, police, child psychologists.....

Err,sorry,no space for a play area at all....

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 15 2011, 02:11 PM

Do kids play outside these days?

Far easier to stay indoors on the Xbox.

Posted by: spartacus Feb 15 2011, 03:06 PM

QUOTE (Iommi @ Feb 15 2011, 11:53 AM) *
The problem is, as has been proven. Once planning is granted, the developers can just do almost as they please.

How true! And no finer example of developers doing just that than if you consider the Kennet Heath estate in Thatcham....

The old MOD site was bought by Redrow around 2002/03 and the 'Outline Plans' were for 469 homes... The artists impressions were, well ....errmm...'impressive'. Bags of green open space... trees.. a central community space (with May Pole (?)) and play areas... Those residents who bought 'off plan' for Phase 1 must have thought they were buying into a great new community.

Roll forward to 2006 as Phase 3 was put on hold. Once new Planning Criteria was released by central Govt the developers (Redrow & Barratt) were able to reinvent the site as a Brown Field Development and a higher build density was permitted as it was within easy walking distance from the railway station and had a bus route going through it. The residents therefore would have NO NEED FOR PRIVATE CARS and parking/garaging facilities were slashed...

WBC contested the change at Public Inquiry but against developers cash WBC couldn't afford to keep the objection going too long in court.


The site is now pretty much completed (although roads are not adopted etc) The site has 815 homes contained within it.....
It also has a higher percentage of social housing on site than many residents had anticipated. Lot of problems within this brand new estate. Vandalism and cars parked absolutely everywhere.

Many of the houses in Phase 1 build were £300k-£400 properties.... The residents are feeling just ever so slightly aggrieved at their situation.......

Posted by: Iommi Feb 15 2011, 03:09 PM

Sadly, I suggest, this is a reason for objecting, even if it is for the sake of it. We are seduced by colourful artists impressions, then we get what they really want.

The illusion of democracy.

Posted by: spartacus Feb 15 2011, 03:10 PM

Despite the above, I say YES to Sandleford (we can wriggle and fight but houses have got to go SOMEWHERE..) ... I just wouldn't buy a property there that's all... (and certainly not off Phase One artists sketches...)

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 15 2011, 03:15 PM

It also has a higher percentage of social housing on site than many residents had anticipated. Lot of problems within this brand new estate. Vandalism and cars parked absolutely everywhere.

A good case for reducing the 'affordable' housing at all costs.

Posted by: Brewmaster Feb 15 2011, 04:28 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 15 2011, 12:48 AM) *
I walk down there quite often, and I've never seen any of these people down there.

It'll be a blow for the half dozen lapwings that cling on, but farmland is a desert for wildlife which is my concern and a well design residential development is actually an excellent wildlife habitat, especially for songbirds, and even for foxes, and people do have to live somewhere. No, I say Cllr Swift-Hook and his chums can all go silflay hraka.

Has it ever occurred to you that we need farmland to grow food?

A recent report stated that we import 40% of our food and the proportion is rising.

We need to produce more food and fewer children.


Posted by: dannyboy Feb 15 2011, 04:30 PM

QUOTE (Brewmaster @ Feb 15 2011, 04:28 PM) *
Has it ever occurred to you that we need farmland to grow food?

A recent report stated that we import 40% of our food and the proportion is rising.

We need to produce more food and fewer children.

Does that 40% include pre pack baby vegetables air freighted from Kenya & Peru?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 15 2011, 04:31 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 15 2011, 03:15 PM) *
It also has a higher percentage of social housing on site than many residents had anticipated. Lot of problems within this brand new estate. Vandalism and cars parked absolutely everywhere.

A good case for reducing the 'affordable' housing at all costs.

No, what it means is that piecemeal development doesn't create a sustainable community. It needs a strategic, holistic approach. Politicians need to be brave enough to make the right decisions, and we, the public, have to have the insight to support them.

So I want to see some positive leadership from my local politicians on Sandleford. I want to see them talking to their town planners and the developers and carving out a plan for a sustainable quality development for the whole demographic spectrum. And if they want to talk to me about setting up a ten acre allotment site I'll be very happy to get that organised at very little cost to the state.

Posted by: Iommi Feb 15 2011, 06:14 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 15 2011, 03:15 PM) *
It also has a higher percentage of social housing on site than many residents had anticipated. Lot of problems within this brand new estate. Vandalism and cars parked absolutely everywhere. A good case for reducing the 'affordable' housing at all costs.

A good case to stop building rabbit warrens.

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 15 2011, 06:16 PM

QUOTE (Iommi @ Feb 15 2011, 06:14 PM) *
A good case to stop building rabbit warrens.

do open spaces reduce ASB then?

Posted by: Iommi Feb 15 2011, 06:18 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 15 2011, 06:16 PM) *
do open spaces reduce ASB then?

Badly designed closed spaces (e.g. Sandleford Rise, Nightingales) tends to 'bread' ASB. Anyway, ASB was one of two things mentioned.

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 15 2011, 08:08 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 15 2011, 03:15 PM) *
It also has a higher percentage of social housing on site than many residents had anticipated. Lot of problems within this brand new estate. Vandalism and cars parked absolutely everywhere.

A good case for reducing the 'affordable' housing at all costs.



I have to agree with reduction on the social housing quota especially if the tenants are not carefully screened before being allocated a house but apart from that, it's not a bad place to build a decently planned estate. At least the risk of flooding is low.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 15 2011, 09:26 PM

QUOTE (Iommi @ Feb 15 2011, 06:18 PM) *
Badly designed closed spaces (e.g. Sandleford Rise, Nightingales) tends to 'bread' ASB. Anyway, ASB was one of two things mentioned.



Is that because the people are sandwiched close together and there is no-one to butter up to? No upper crust?
laugh.gif

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 15 2011, 09:28 PM

QUOTE (Iommi @ Feb 15 2011, 06:14 PM) *
A good case to stop building rabbit warrens.

Especially at Sandleford, home of 'Watership Down'!!

Posted by: Iommi Feb 15 2011, 09:54 PM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Feb 15 2011, 09:26 PM) *
Is that because the people are sandwiched close together and there is no-one to butter up to? No upper crust?
laugh.gif

Good job I'm wearing a medical corset. rolleyes.gif tongue.gif

Posted by: Bofem Feb 15 2011, 11:12 PM

I can see why the Libs are against it. It's within cycling distance of a college, supermarket, shops, three schools, 1000 acres of heathland, a rugby club. Why on earth build 2000 houses in the middle of nowhere? The world's gone mad.

But more importantly, I'm taking a leaf out of RG's book, there should be an immediate public inquiry....on why Newbury's Favourite Architect hasn't designed this development.

How can we have a nice town when someone is trying to build a development only 3 storeys high and with no timber cladding. 'Ave a word Carter.





Posted by: blackdog Feb 16 2011, 03:45 AM

QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Feb 15 2011, 09:28 PM) *
Especially at Sandleford, home of 'Watership Down'!!

But the rabbits had to leave Sandleford because the developers were moving in ...

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 16 2011, 08:14 AM

Affordable housing is much different from social housing Exhausted. Affordable housing can is typically housing that is built to lower specification so that it is cheaper for first time buyers.

Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Feb 16 2011, 09:22 AM

QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Feb 16 2011, 08:14 AM) *
Affordable housing is much different from social housing Exhausted. Affordable housing can is typically housing that is built to lower specification so that it is cheaper for first time buyers.


The Home and Communities Agency (HCA) defines 'Affordable Housing' in a less jaundiced manner, and states that it not only includes home for private sale, but includes "homes for social rent". The reality is that along with the rest of the South East we desperately need more homes. At this moment the HCA state that there "are 1.7m households on council waiting lists for rented accommodation, and the national average house price is increasingly out of reach for many". Sadly in this area I have met people who have been on housing lists for suitable accommodation for almost ten years.

Such people urgently require either affordable housing or due to socio-economic and other needs, Social housing, which is housing that is let at low rents and on a secure basis to people in housing need. Such housing is generally provided by councils and not-for-profit organisations such as housing associations. Within West Berkshire the majority of social housing is provided by Housing Associations such as Sovereign. The reality is that we require an increase in ALL types of housing, and the highest standards should be maintained throughout, irrespective of whom the residents are, and how they pay for their homes.

The HCA act in a quality assurance manner and maintain that "all new build affordable homes will have to meet the HCA’s quality and design standards, including environmental sustainability levels and minimum room sizes in excess of those in the private sector". Naturally there is a responsibility on local authorities also to make sure that private building contractors adhere to these standards and that the planning regulations are not breached. There is also a need that appropriate services such as education, health, transport and afforded leisure amenities are included within all new builds, otherwise future problems will be created for the cohesion of these and the surrounding communities. The last thing tat we need to do is create more urban ghettos!

Lastly it is concerning that some people too easily draw a parallel between social and affordable housing with anti-social behaviour, vandalism and criminality. Such stigmatisation of individuals and the communities in which they live, even before such communities have been created is hardly healthy for the development of greater inclusion. As has been evidenced from the development of other communities both within the UK and overseas, much anti-social behaviour and certain crimes can be 'designed out' in the planning stages of establishing new housing. For this to happen though there is a need for a true partnership approach between the private and public sectors, along with knowing what the needs are for the residents of such areas, both today and into the future.

There needs to be an honest and open debate about where new developments should be placed and not whether such developments should be built. The 'not in my back yard' approach is unrealistic in todays society. We live in the South East where there is an urgent need for housing, because this is where there is the greatest demand. Housing is directly linked to economic regeneration, and if the UK wishes to 'bounce back' economically, then its needs to invest in, and improve its infrastructure, and thereby enhance housing, transport, health and education.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 16 2011, 10:10 AM

QUOTE (Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera @ Feb 16 2011, 09:22 AM) *
The Home and Communities Agency (HCA) defines 'Affordable Housing' in a less jaundiced manner, and states that it not only includes home for private sale, but includes "homes for social rent". The reality is that along with the rest of the South East we desperately need more homes. At this moment the HCA state that there "are 1.7m households on council waiting lists for rented accommodation, and the national average house price is increasingly out of reach for many". Sadly in this area I have met people who have been on housing lists for suitable accommodation for almost ten years.

Such people urgently require either affordable housing or due to socio-economic and other needs, Social housing, which is housing that is let at low rents and on a secure basis to people in housing need. Such housing is generally provided by councils and not-for-profit organisations such as housing associations. Within West Berkshire the majority of social housing is provided by Housing Associations such as Sovereign. The reality is that we require an increase in ALL types of housing, and the highest standards should be maintained throughout, irrespective of whom the residents are, and how they pay for their homes.

The HCA act in a quality assurance manner and maintain that "all new build affordable homes will have to meet the HCA’s quality and design standards, including environmental sustainability levels and minimum room sizes in excess of those in the private sector". Naturally there is a responsibility on local authorities also to make sure that private building contractors adhere to these standards and that the planning regulations are not breached. There is also a need that appropriate services such as education, health, transport and afforded leisure amenities are included within all new builds, otherwise future problems will be created for the cohesion of these and the surrounding communities. The last thing tat we need to do is create more urban ghettos!

Lastly it is concerning that some people too easily draw a parallel between social and affordable housing with anti-social behaviour, vandalism and criminality. Such stigmatisation of individuals and the communities in which they live, even before such communities have been created is hardly healthy for the development of greater inclusion. As has been evidenced from the development of other communities both within the UK and overseas, much anti-social behaviour and certain crimes can be 'designed out' in the planning stages of establishing new housing. For this to happen though there is a need for a true partnership approach between the private and public sectors, along with knowing what the needs are for the residents of such areas, both today and into the future.

There needs to be an honest and open debate about where new developments should be placed and not whether such developments should be built. The 'not in my back yard' approach is unrealistic in todays society. We live in the South East where there is an urgent need for housing, because this is where there is the greatest demand. Housing is directly linked to economic regeneration, and if the UK wishes to 'bounce back' economically, then its needs to invest in, and improve its infrastructure, and thereby enhance housing, transport, health and education.


Very good post. It's easy to simply say no to developments. What I believe needs to happen is that any development should be required to deliver certain improvements to infrastructure and quantities of affordable housing. By putting all of our eggs in one basket means being held to ransom by developers.

I think 2,000 houses at Sandleford is too many, and the developers would do well to understand that the market has moved away from the high densities that they would like to see there.

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 16 2011, 10:20 AM

But low density means more land turned over to housing / development, higher unit cost and less need for infrastructure.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 16 2011, 10:51 AM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 16 2011, 10:20 AM) *
But low density means more land turned over to housing / development, higher unit cost and less need for infrastructure.


Exactly right. It's going to be very interesting to see what the Lib Dems propose to do, but I urge them to adopt a similar approach to Labour by scrapping the strategic housing allocation and having a much wider debate as to future growth in the district.

Posted by: Biker1 Feb 16 2011, 10:51 AM

QUOTE (Brewmaster @ Feb 15 2011, 05:28 PM) *
Has it ever occurred to you that we need farmland to grow food?

A recent report stated that we import 40% of our food and the proportion is rising.

We need to produce more food and fewer children.

Oh so true!

Only problem is that even if we produce less offspring we are still importing more people that the country can sustain.
Whoops - wait for the Daily Mail comment! wink.gif

Posted by: spartacus Feb 16 2011, 11:43 AM

QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Feb 16 2011, 10:10 AM) *
What I believe needs to happen is that any development should be required to deliver certain improvements to infrastructure and quantities of affordable housing. By putting all of our eggs in one basket means being held to ransom by developers.

The developers would be required to enter into a Section 106 Agreement in order that planning permission can be granted. This S106 agreement is a way of delivering or addressing matters that are necessary to make a development acceptable in planning terms. They are increasingly used to support the provision of services and infrastructure, such as highways, recreational facilities, education, health and affordable housing.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 16 2011, 12:23 PM

QUOTE (spartacus @ Feb 16 2011, 11:43 AM) *
The developers would be required to enter into a Section 106 Agreement in order that planning permission can be granted. This S106 agreement is a way of delivering or addressing matters that are necessary to make a development acceptable in planning terms. They are increasingly used to support the provision of services and infrastructure, such as highways, recreational facilities, education, health and affordable housing.


But by restricting ourselves to two site, we effectively allow developers to come back and demand certain agreements are dropped. Look at Parkway and look at the Racecourse.

Posted by: Bofem Feb 16 2011, 01:08 PM

QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Feb 16 2011, 12:23 PM) *
But by restricting ourselves to two site, we effectively allow developers to come back and demand certain agreements are dropped. Look at Parkway and look at the Racecourse.


It's a good point, but we don't have much choice.

After Labour threw out Sandleford plans 10 years ago, WBC ended up spreading the 2000 houses over 10 sites. From memory, these were 2 in Hungerford, 1 in Thatcham, 1 in Aldermaston, 2 in Hermitage, 2 in Greenham and 2 in Chieveley. Pretty much nothing in Newbury last time around (maybe the Chase?)

As the AONB covers 74% of district, there's a moratorium on new housing near AWE and in Thatcham, the only places are Tilehurst/Theale or Newbury.

Newbury has c12000 houses......the racecourse and Sandleford will add c4000 or 30%, as I mentioned above. It's a massive change.

So RG, what do you suggest? Perhaps The People's Repubic of Chaddleworth should do their bit. Have a word with Brother Grahame!





Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 16 2011, 06:35 PM

QUOTE (Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera @ Feb 16 2011, 09:22 AM) *
...

Good points well made Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera. Society doesn't stand a chance if we live in enclaves and ghettos, and while it isn't the only issue, an inclusively designed community is essential - but how to convince the decision makers - the very mindset of our local councillors is a gated community - see how many come on here to enage with the great unwashed.

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 16 2011, 06:45 PM

QUOTE (Bofem @ Feb 15 2011, 11:12 PM) *
I can see why the Libs are against it. It's within cycling distance of a college, supermarket, shops, three schools, 1000 acres of heathland, a rugby club. Why on earth build 2000 houses in the middle of nowhere? The world's gone mad.

But more importantly, I'm taking a leaf out of RG's book, there should be an immediate public inquiry....on why Newbury's Favourite Architect hasn't designed this development.

How can we have a nice town when someone is trying to build a development only 3 storeys high and with no timber cladding. 'Ave a word Carter.


Yes we want to stick with the glorified pigeon loft look!!!! tongue.gif

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 16 2011, 06:58 PM

QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Feb 16 2011, 08:14 AM) *
Affordable housing is much different from social housing Exhausted. Affordable housing can is typically housing that is built to lower specification so that it is cheaper for first time buyers.


My comment was about social housing.
Affordable housing may be different but is often taken up by associations who place tenants but nevertheless, the build must meet current building regulations however, they may be smaller with basic kitchen and minimal gardens. Local councils often offer shared ownership to potential low earners whoever they are.

From the premier WBC web site

The Council's Local Plan states that the Local Planning Authority will negotiate to ensure a reasonable proportion of affordable housing (generally 30%) as part of developments of 15 or more dwellings, or sites of 0.5 hectares or more.

Generally, of the affordable housing, 70% will be for affordable rent and 30% will be for low cost home ownership, shared ownership or intermediate rent. The specific proportions for any site will be dependent on a range of factors. The Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) requires affordable housing to be delivered using the rental stream approach. Details of the Council's affordable housing policies can be found in the Local Plan and Housing Strategy.

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 16 2011, 08:34 PM

QUOTE (Exhausted @ Feb 16 2011, 06:58 PM) *
The Council's Local Plan states that the Local Planning Authority will negotiate to ensure a reasonable proportion of affordable housing (generally 30%) as part of developments of 15 or more dwellings, or sites of 0.5 hectares or more.

Generally, of the affordable housing, 70% will be for affordable rent and 30% will be for low cost home ownership, shared ownership or intermediate rent. The specific proportions for any site will be dependent on a range of factors. The Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) requires affordable housing to be delivered using the rental stream approach. Details of the Council's affordable housing policies can be found in the Local Plan and Housing Strategy.


Which is further evidence the local planning strategy is a puppet of central government and leaves councils struggling when a developer wants their own way

Posted by: blackdog Feb 17 2011, 12:29 AM

QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Feb 16 2011, 10:51 AM) *
Exactly right. It's going to be very interesting to see what the Lib Dems propose to do, but I urge them to adopt a similar approach to Labour by scrapping the strategic housing allocation and having a much wider debate as to future growth in the district.

I think you'll find it was the Tories that scrapped the strategic housing allocation - and Labour that introduced it.

Debate is all very well - but you'll have to make some decisions eventually.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 17 2011, 07:42 AM

QUOTE (blackdog @ Feb 17 2011, 12:29 AM) *
I think you'll find it was the Tories that scrapped the strategic housing allocation - and Labour that introduced it.

Debate is all very well - but you'll have to make some decisions eventually.


Locally, I want it scrapped. The Tories have apparently done it nationally, so lets do it here too please. I've already commented extensively on what we would do differently, to the point of sounding like a broken record!!!

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 17 2011, 10:00 AM

QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Feb 17 2011, 07:42 AM) *
Locally, I want it scrapped. The Tories have apparently done it nationally, so lets do it here too please. I've already commented extensively on what we would do differently, to the point of sounding like a broken record!!!

Originally you wanted to ensure developers built up the local infrastructureas they built houses. Now you want small scale development for which there will be no infrastructure required.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 17 2011, 11:53 AM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 17 2011, 10:00 AM) *
Originally you wanted to ensure developers built up the local infrastructureas they built houses. Now you want small scale development for which there will be no infrastructure required.


Where have I said that?

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 17 2011, 11:55 AM

QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Feb 17 2011, 11:53 AM) *
Where have I said that?

on this forum.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 17 2011, 11:58 AM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 17 2011, 11:55 AM) *
on this forum.


Where have I said the bit about small scale development and not upgrading infrastructure?

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 17 2011, 12:05 PM

QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Feb 17 2011, 11:58 AM) *
Where have I said the bit about small scale development and not upgrading infrastructure?
on this thread.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 17 2011, 12:07 PM

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 17 2011, 12:05 PM) *
on this thread.


I don't think I did. Is this another case of you mashing up my quotes again?

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 17 2011, 12:13 PM

QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Feb 17 2011, 12:07 PM) *
I don't think I did. Is this another case of you mashing up my quotes again?

nope.
you said -

By putting all of our eggs in one basket means being held to ransom by developers.

I think 2,000 houses at Sandleford is too many, and the developers would do well to understand that the market has moved away from the high densities that they would like to see there.

to which I pointed out that - low density means more land turned over to housing / development, higher unit cost and less need for infrastructure - & you agreed.


you didn't bother to reply to Bofem.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 17 2011, 01:46 PM

Not quite saying that I want small scale development for which there will be no infrastructure required. You are right that lower densities mean more land turned over to housing / development, higher unit cost and less need for infrastructure in general terms. But I wasn't agrreing with you RE: Sandleford specifically.

You said:

But low density means more land turned over to housing / development, higher unit cost and less need for infrastructure.

I said:

Exactly right. It's going to be very interesting to see what the Lib Dems propose to do, but I urge them to adopt a similar approach to Labour by scrapping the strategic housing allocation and having a much wider debate as to future growth in the district.

It's important that you use the full quote to get the context of my point. You are right in the point you make, but it will be interesting to see what the Lib Dems do now and that they should adopt a similar approach by scrapping the allocation and having a much wider debate.

As far as I can see, I have had said nothing which suggests that I agree with not building infrastructure as part of developments going ahead, in fact I've said completely the opposite throughout this debate.

Posted by: dannyboy Feb 17 2011, 01:52 PM

QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Feb 17 2011, 01:46 PM) *
Not quite saying that I want small scale development for which there will be no infrastructure required. You are right that lower densities mean more land turned over to housing / development, higher unit cost and less need for infrastructure in general terms. But I wasn't agrreing with you RE: Sandleford specifically.

You said:

But low density means more land turned over to housing / development, higher unit cost and less need for infrastructure.

I said:

Exactly right. It's going to be very interesting to see what the Lib Dems propose to do, but I urge them to adopt a similar approach to Labour by scrapping the strategic housing allocation and having a much wider debate as to future growth in the district.

It's important that you use the full quote to get the context of my point. You are right in the point you make, but it will be interesting to see what the Lib Dems do now and that they should adopt a similar approach by scrapping the allocation and having a much wider debate.

As far as I can see, I have had said nothing which suggests that I agree with not building infrastructure as part of developments going ahead, in fact I've said completely the opposite throughout this debate.

But, if the move is to more smaller developments the developers are less responsible for providing improvements to local ammenities & facilities. You need large scale development to ensure infrastructure provision is met.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 17 2011, 01:56 PM

1,000 medium density houses at Sandleford is still a big development. What people are upset about is cramming twice as many high density houses into a smaller area than previously planned.

Posted by: Councilman Feb 17 2011, 05:15 PM

QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Feb 17 2011, 01:56 PM) *
1,000 medium density houses at Sandleford is still a big development. What people are upset about is cramming twice as many high density houses into a smaller area than previously planned.


I've followed this debate with interest... Although Richard Garvie fires off so many arguments at the same time, I sometimes lose the will to live!!! he seems to forget that it was his government that dictated that West berks should have 10,500 houses... and they got to go somewhere!

Now the Libs "say no to Sandleford"..or do they??? They sometimes say they seem to want to minimise the impact... Now that is not a NO to Any Houses.
They sometimes say they want Sandleford as a "reserve site"...whatever that means... but it does imply the possibility of some houses (how many???) at some time.
And of course they did vote for Sandleford park at the Council...
if I was a voter in Greenham, I'd be confused about where where they really stand!!

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 17 2011, 05:24 PM

QUOTE (Councilman @ Feb 17 2011, 05:15 PM) *
I've followed this debate with interest... Although Richard Garvie fires off so many arguments at the same time, I sometimes lose the will to live!!! he seems to forget that it was his government that dictated that West berks should have 10,500 houses... and they got to go somewhere!

Now the Libs "say no to Sandleford"..or do they??? They sometimes say they seem to want to minimise the impact... Now that is not a NO to Any Houses.
They sometimes say they want Sandleford as a "reserve site"...whatever that means... but it does imply the possibility of some houses (how many???) at some time.
And of course they did vote for Sandleford park at the Council...
if I was a voter in Greenham, I'd be confused about where where they really stand!!


Was it my government? I don't think so. Was I even a member of the Labour Party at the time? No, I wasn't. And if I had been, I wouldn't have been happy that certain limits were being enforced upon us. But then I'm free to say what I like. No whips here tongue.gif

What do the Conservative Party stand for on the LDF? It's just I never hear any of them discuss it. In fact, I very hear the Conservatives talk about anything other than the old Labour Government and the Lib Dems not being a credible opposition. What people want to know in West Berkshire is whatthey will get if they vote for your party, and at the minute it looks like it will simply be more cuts (more than £2m already identified for Adult Social Care).

It's about time our elected members (regardless of party) acted in the interests of those who elect them, Not just in West Berkshire, but in Westminster too.

Anyway, what do you think should happen at Sandleford? Do you believe the densities are correct? And why won't Alan Law / Graham Jones simply say how many houses will eventually be built on the site. Honesty is the best policy.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 17 2011, 05:59 PM

The sensible thing to do it seems is for all parties to come to some consensus. No one party will keep everyone happy. How many houses, do the Conservatives think we should have?

Posted by: Cognosco Feb 17 2011, 06:27 PM

QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Feb 17 2011, 05:24 PM) *
Was it my government? I don't think so. Was I even a member of the Labour Party at the time? No, I wasn't. And if I had been, I wouldn't have been happy that certain limits were being enforced upon us. But then I'm free to say what I like. No whips here tongue.gif

What do the Conservative Party stand for on the LDF? It's just I never hear any of them discuss it. In fact, I very hear the Conservatives talk about anything other than the old Labour Government and the Lib Dems not being a credible opposition. What people want to know in West Berkshire is whatthey will get if they vote for your party, and at the minute it looks like it will simply be more cuts (more than £2m already identified for Adult Social Care).

It's about time our elected members (regardless of party) acted in the interests of those who elect them, Not just in West Berkshire, but in Westminster too.

Anyway, what do you think should happen at Sandleford? Do you believe the densities are correct? And why won't Alan Law / Graham Jones simply say how many houses will eventually be built on the site. Honesty is the best policy.


Yes but the problem is it does not get votes does it? So no chance of WBC applying that rule then? wink.gif

Posted by: Richard Garvie Feb 24 2011, 10:03 AM

Letter from Alan Law in the paper today, trying to rip apart the Lib Dems on this. Any truth in what Cllr Law alledges?

Posted by: NWNREADER Feb 24 2011, 02:14 PM

QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Feb 24 2011, 10:03 AM) *
Letter from Alan Law in the paper today, trying to rip apart the Lib Dems on this. Any truth in what Cllr Law alledges?

Yes

Posted by: blackdog Feb 24 2011, 04:54 PM

QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Feb 17 2011, 01:46 PM) *
I said:

Exactly right. It's going to be very interesting to see what the Lib Dems propose to do, but I urge them to adopt a similar approach to Labour by scrapping the strategic housing allocation and having a much wider debate as to future growth in the district.


They have been debating the LDF for years and now you want more debate - when do you think the debate should end and someone actually make a decision?

Personally I would say yes to Sandleford, it's the only site that has the infrastructure to cope. Let's face it the Racecourse is to have 1500 homes with dreadful traffic problems, no shops, no health centre, no schools - Sandleford looks a far better option to me.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)