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!
dannyboy
post Feb 17 2011, 10:00 AM
Post #41


Advanced Member
***

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



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Feb 17 2011, 11:53 AM
Post #42


Advanced Member
***

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



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Feb 17 2011, 11:55 AM
Post #43


Advanced Member
***

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



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

on this forum.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Feb 17 2011, 11:58 AM
Post #44


Advanced Member
***

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



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Feb 17 2011, 12:05 PM
Post #45


Advanced Member
***

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



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Feb 17 2011, 12:07 PM
Post #46


Advanced Member
***

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



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Feb 17 2011, 12:13 PM
Post #47


Advanced Member
***

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



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Feb 17 2011, 01:46 PM
Post #48


Advanced Member
***

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



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Feb 17 2011, 01:52 PM
Post #49


Advanced Member
***

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



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Feb 17 2011, 01:56 PM
Post #50


Advanced Member
***

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



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Councilman
post Feb 17 2011, 05:15 PM
Post #51


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 16-February 11
Member No.: 3,037



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!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Feb 17 2011, 05:24 PM
Post #52


Advanced Member
***

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



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Feb 17 2011, 05:59 PM
Post #53


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post Feb 17 2011, 06:27 PM
Post #54


Advanced Member
***

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



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


--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Feb 24 2011, 10:03 AM
Post #55


Advanced Member
***

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



Letter from Alan Law in the paper today, trying to rip apart the Lib Dems on this. Any truth in what Cllr Law alledges?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Feb 24 2011, 02:14 PM
Post #56


Advanced Member
***

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



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Feb 24 2011, 04:54 PM
Post #57


Advanced Member
***

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



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.
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 - 01:59 PM