IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Planned COMPTON Housing Development, Cllr Cole ignoring local opinion..again
gel
post Sep 26 2013, 08:14 AM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 944
Joined: 11-September 09
From: Thames Valley
Member No.: 337



http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2013/framewo...oved-by-council

Compton Animal Institute Site:

Anyone who knows road/(lane really) from middle of Compton to A34 via E Ilsley will know this is very narrow in parts, and locals have rightly expressed concern at several hundred new houses, generating many hundreds of additional car movements, at site in link.

Cllr Cole in her normal manner dismisses local opinion, and sees no worries in that direction at all; remember, several years she was head of the Committee that introduced by stealth, the move to fortnightly waste collections.

There was a scam consultation amongst a tiny % of electorate, and even then it was never on questionnaire that "Would you like a move to fortnightly collections", rather a vague one, so Council got answer they wanted eg "YES" to 'Do you want increased recycling?'.
(Most would answer yes to that I wager).

She represents Chieveley of course so predicted gridlock at rush hour periods at Compton presumably will have no personal impact.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Sep 26 2013, 09:07 AM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 5,056
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (gel @ Sep 26 2013, 10:14 AM) *
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2013/framewo...oved-by-council

Compton Animal Institute Site:

Anyone who knows road/(lane really) from middle of Compton to A34 via E Ilsley will know this is very narrow in parts, and locals have rightly expressed concern at several hundred new houses, generating many hundreds of additional car movements, at site in link.
Cllr Cole in her normal manner dismisses local opinion, and sees no worries in that direction at all; remember, several years she was head of the Committee that introduced by stealth, the move to fortnightly waste collections.

There was a scam consultation amongst a tiny % of electorate, and even then it was never on questionnaire that "Would you like a move to fortnightly collections", rather a vague one, so Council got answer they wanted eg "YES" to 'Do you want increased recycling?'.
(Most would answer yes to that I wager).

She represents Chieveley of course so predicted gridlock at rush hour periods at Compton presumably will have no personal impact.

The population of this country is continually increasing.
Childbirth and immigration see to that.
In addition to that changes in lifestyle, single parent families etc. increase the need for housing.
There is no point in every housing development that is proposed being objected to just because it is "in my back yard" while this need continues.
Every development proposal has its objectors but development is inevitable as long as the growth continues.
The increase has to be absorbed somewhere.
We are just a small island but seem to think we can continue with population growth without the impact being felt personally. It has to go somewhere!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Sep 26 2013, 09:25 AM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (Biker1 @ Sep 26 2013, 10:07 AM) *
The population of this country is continually increasing.
Childbirth and immigration see to that.
In addition to that changes in lifestyle, single parent families etc. increase the need for housing.
There is no point in every housing development that is proposed being objected to just because it is "in my back yard" while this need continues.
Every development proposal has its objectors but development is inevitable as long as the growth continues.
The increase has to be absorbed somewhere.
We are just a small island but seem to think we can continue with population growth without the impact being felt personally. It has to go somewhere!


Well said!

Would have thought that traffic issues would be quite minor, arguably just a different direction morning and evenings, probably less during the day. Good to see brown field site being used.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spartacus
post Sep 26 2013, 10:01 AM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,829
Joined: 24-July 09
Member No.: 221



QUOTE (gel @ Sep 26 2013, 09:14 AM) *
She represents Chieveley of course so predicted gridlock at rush hour periods at Compton presumably will have no personal impact.

Gridlock in Compton??!! Don't make me larf..... laugh.gif laugh.gif Honestly, what rubbish.....

How many people work at the site currently and so commute in and out daily? How many lorry movements are there associated with getting livestock in/out on a weekly basis? That traffic will be removed from Compton and adjacent roads when this site shuts down and in it's place will be some traffic movement from the new properties. Probably very little impact at all.

Save us from scaremongering nimbys....... rolleyes.gif If they were around a few centuries ago Brunel would never have been able to build his railway (though that would have at least meant the Thatcham level crossing wasn't causing a problem...)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Sep 26 2013, 12:25 PM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 5,056
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (spartacus @ Sep 26 2013, 12:01 PM) *
Save us from scaremongering nimbys....... rolleyes.gif If they were around a few centuries ago Brunel would never have been able to build his railway (though that would have at least meant the Thatcham level crossing wasn't causing a problem...)

Very topical actually!
HS2? rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Sep 26 2013, 05:53 PM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

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



I feel that development in the villages is very poor sustainability. Villages aren't large enough to have all the facilities that a family needs like work, and shops, and sometimes even doctors, and schools, etc, so villages always generate a lot of traffic. Development should be limited to towns which are large enough to have most everything a family could need, and the development should be of such high quality that it's actually just as good or better than living in a village.

There is plenty of space around Newbury for well-planned quality development, so let's plan it well and insist on the quality, and leave the villages alone.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Brown
post Sep 27 2013, 07:04 AM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 341
Joined: 21-September 13
Member No.: 10,072



Its pretty clear you don't like newcomers round here, so who ever moves in isn't going to find it easy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Sep 27 2013, 07:43 AM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Sep 26 2013, 06:53 PM) *
I feel that development in the villages is very poor sustainability. Villages aren't large enough to have all the facilities that a family needs like work, and shops, and sometimes even doctors, and schools, etc, so villages always generate a lot of traffic. Development should be limited to towns which are large enough to have most everything a family could need, and the development should be of such high quality that it's actually just as good or better than living in a village.

There is plenty of space around Newbury for well-planned quality development, so let's plan it well and insist on the quality, and leave the villages alone.


Can see what you mean. This would mean a big shift in our present approach and to achieve it would demand some real leadership from local politicians. WE waste huge amounts trying to provide town centre levels of service to these tiny population centres. The 'cost' of country living should be down to the residents.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Sep 27 2013, 07:54 AM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,901
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (On the edge @ Sep 27 2013, 08:43 AM) *
Can see what you mean. This would mean a big shift in our present approach and to achieve it would demand some real leadership from local politicians. WE waste huge amounts trying to provide town centre levels of service to these tiny population centres. The 'cost' of country living should be down to the residents.

They would argue they already get a raw deal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Sep 27 2013, 07:58 AM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 27 2013, 08:54 AM) *
They would argue they already get a raw deal.

Yes they do, and very loudly. That's why we need some real leadership to demonstrate that they don't. One example, country dwellers claim 4x4 vehicles are an essential part of their life style; yet they still want pot holes fixed very quickly.



--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Sep 27 2013, 07:59 AM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 5,056
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Sep 26 2013, 07:53 PM) *
I feel that development in the villages is very poor sustainability. Villages aren't large enough to have all the facilities that a family needs like work, and shops, and sometimes even doctors, and schools, etc, so villages always generate a lot of traffic. Development should be limited to towns which are large enough to have most everything a family could need, and the development should be of such high quality that it's actually just as good or better than living in a village.

There is plenty of space around Newbury for well-planned quality development, so let's plan it well and insist on the quality, and leave the villages alone.

Bigger towns / bigger villages.
Still has to go somewhere.
Most villages these days don't have the facilities you describe anyway.
This is a consequence of modern life designed around the motor car.
They used to have.
What is wrong with going back to that so that villages can accommodate their fair share?
Still think we need to address the main cultural problem which is over population.
Otherwise there's no end to it!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Sep 27 2013, 08:01 AM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,901
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Biker1 @ Sep 27 2013, 08:59 AM) *
Bigger towns / bigger villages.
Still has to go somewhere.
Most villages these days don't have the facilities you describe anyway.
This is a consequence of modern life designed around the motor car.
They used to have.
What is wrong with going back to that so that villages can accommodate their fair share?
Still think we need to address the main cultural problem which is over population.
Otherwise there's no end to it!

Population isn't the biggest problem. I see living-wage jobs as the problem.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Sep 27 2013, 08:01 AM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 5,056
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (Mr Brown @ Sep 27 2013, 09:04 AM) *
Its pretty clear you don't like newcomers round here, so who ever moves in isn't going to find it easy.

Sorry, what brings you to that conclusion?
Surely not because someone disagrees with you?
This is a forum where you air your views and debate issues!? unsure.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Brown
post Sep 27 2013, 09:03 AM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 341
Joined: 21-September 13
Member No.: 10,072



QUOTE (Biker1 @ Sep 27 2013, 09:01 AM) *
Sorry, what brings you to that conclusion?
Surely not because someone disagrees with you?
This is a forum where you air your views and debate issues!? unsure.gif


I don't mind debate, certainly if its based on logic rather than prejudice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Sep 27 2013, 09:06 AM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,901
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Mr Brown @ Sep 27 2013, 10:03 AM) *
I don't mind debate, certainly if its based on logic rather than prejudice.

You didn't answer the question either.

When you said 'you don't like newcomers', was 'you' referring to the locals, or Biker1 in particular?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Brown
post Sep 27 2013, 09:21 AM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 341
Joined: 21-September 13
Member No.: 10,072



A collective you, have a look at the threads, the general tone is anti everything!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Sep 27 2013, 09:23 AM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 5,056
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (Mr Brown @ Sep 27 2013, 10:21 AM) *
A collective you, have a look at the threads, the general tone is anti everything!

It's a debating / discussion forum, what do you expect?
What may appear to be prejudice to you may seem a valid point to others.............so we debate it!
In a debate someone will always appear anti to the opposer??
If we all had the same views, this and other discussion forums would be pointless I think?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Brown
post Sep 27 2013, 09:38 AM
Post #18


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 341
Joined: 21-September 13
Member No.: 10,072



QUOTE (Biker1 @ Sep 27 2013, 10:23 AM) *
It's a debating / discussion forum, what do you expect?
What may appear to be prejudice to you may seem a valid point to others.............so we debate it!
In a debate someone will always appear anti to the opposer??
If we all had the same views, this and other discussion forums would be pointless I think?


To some extent I'd agree, but the general tone is pretty negative. Debate shouldn't be simply plus v minus. I haven't seen any evidence that anyone has changed their mind.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Sep 27 2013, 09:38 AM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,901
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Mr Brown @ Sep 27 2013, 10:21 AM) *
A collective you, have a look at the threads, the general tone is anti everything!

That is the nature of forums, even special interest ones. People who are content have better things to do than chat on forums about it. Look at Facebook, a continual stream of moaning it seems. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Sep 27 2013, 09:41 AM
Post #20


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 5,056
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Sep 27 2013, 10:38 AM) *
Look at Facebook, a continual stream of moaning it seems. wink.gif

What's Facebook? wink.gif
Anyway, just because some (many?) of us appear anti and negative doesn't mean, speaking for myself, that we don't welcome new contributors on here.
Far from it, the more the merrier (or sadder maybe! biggrin.gif )!!
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: 14th August 2020 - 02:14 AM