IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Say No to Sandleford, or yes if you thin it is a good idea!
NWNREADER
post Feb 15 2011, 09:26 PM
Post #21


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Feb 15 2011, 09:28 PM
Post #22


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



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

Especially at Sandleford, home of 'Watership Down'!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Feb 15 2011, 09:54 PM
Post #23


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bofem
post Feb 15 2011, 11:12 PM
Post #24


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 485
Joined: 28-May 10
From: Newbury
Member No.: 924



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.






--------------------
Newbury's #1 ill-informed internet poster
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Feb 16 2011, 03:45 AM
Post #25


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



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 ...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Feb 16 2011, 08:14 AM
Post #26


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ruwan Uduwerage-...
post Feb 16 2011, 09:22 AM
Post #27


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 390
Joined: 26-August 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 303



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Feb 16 2011, 10:10 AM
Post #28


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Feb 16 2011, 10:20 AM
Post #29


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



But low density means more land turned over to housing / development, higher unit cost and less need for infrastructure.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Feb 16 2011, 10:51 AM
Post #30


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Feb 16 2011, 10:51 AM
Post #31


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 5,064
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spartacus
post Feb 16 2011, 11:43 AM
Post #32


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,840
Joined: 24-July 09
Member No.: 221



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Feb 16 2011, 12:23 PM
Post #33


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bofem
post Feb 16 2011, 01:08 PM
Post #34


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 485
Joined: 28-May 10
From: Newbury
Member No.: 924



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!






--------------------
Newbury's #1 ill-informed internet poster
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Feb 16 2011, 06:35 PM
Post #35


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



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.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post Feb 16 2011, 06:45 PM
Post #36


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,452
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212



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


--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Exhausted
post Feb 16 2011, 06:58 PM
Post #37


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,722
Joined: 4-September 09
Member No.: 320



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Feb 16 2011, 08:34 PM
Post #38


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Feb 17 2011, 12:29 AM
Post #39


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Feb 17 2011, 07:42 AM
Post #40


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



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!!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th March 2024 - 03:28 AM