IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

10 Pages V  « < 8 9 10  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Thank you Network rail and Thatcham level crossing
user23
post Nov 23 2015, 07:56 PM
Post #181


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,025
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 23 2015, 10:57 AM) *
Or then perhaps our local politicos should have listened a bit harder!

It seems someone has pinched the UKIP crayon doesn't it. How odd, that for years we've been fed that cost, overweening technical difficulties and geographic considerations make a bridge an utterly impossible dream. Yet when a nice development plan gets dropped down, not one, but two bridges become a straightforward practical reality.

Let's face facts, if we are brutally honest, Thatcham and Newbury are really a cohesive whole. A new town has been created by stealth. That was always the plan, even 40 years back. The sooner our local government and thinking catches up with that the better. The political failure to recognise the reality of this has meant that the local infrastructure hasn't kept up with developments and what has been done is no longer fit for purpose.

What we have here is simply the latest manifestation of the real vision for Greater Newbury.
Two bridges become a straightforward practical reality if someone's willing to pay the millions for building them, in this case private money.

This is hardly Greater Newbury, from what I can see most of the proposed development isn't even in Thatcham.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Nov 23 2015, 08:22 PM
Post #182


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (user23 @ Nov 23 2015, 07:56 PM) *
Two bridges become a straightforward practical reality if someone's willing to pay the millions for building them, in this case private money.

This is hardly Greater Newbury, from what I can see most of the proposed development isn't even in Thatcham.


But of course, just as a good few pointed out when the depot the other side of the tracks was developed. As you rightly suggest it always was a feasible and practical reality - just our local politicians didn't want it. I'm simply objecting to the misinformation given out over the years.

Saying the site isn't in Thatcham, is rather like saying Westminster isn't in London. Look at a development map, like it or not, the area even now built up. Drive along the A4, you'll see the famous green gap is essentially little more than a municipal park!

Sleepy Newbury about sums it up, a dormitory / retirement suburb. Nothing wrong with that, and it could be very pleasant indeed BUT only if we recognise and accept what's coming.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spartacus
post Nov 23 2015, 08:54 PM
Post #183


Advanced Member
***

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





I can only think that an office junior at jsa architects has not only borrowed the UKIP crayons but has managed to find a big bag of highlighters in a desk drawer and decided to continue scribbling. I know there's the big 'PRELIMINARY for consultation purposes only' disclaimer but it's a bit 'wooly' and amateurish...

The green area on the western end is marked as 'recreational' space. That seems to ignore the fact that there's already a housing development at Rainsford Farm. It seems a bit pie in the sky to realistically comment on it much at this stage, but it would be interesting to see the detail rather than this poorly scanned children's drawing. If something other than this is in the next NWN it might be worth grabbing a free copy from B&Q (if they still have the pile of free copies).

They intend to "widen parts of Crookham Hill into a dual carriageway", introduce "a 100-berth marina, a sports complex, playing fields and a new primary school", provide 700 new homes and introduce "two new road bridges...between Colthrop Mill and Station Road."

....And all this in an area classified as Flood Zone 2 & 3 type land according to the maps on the Environment Agency website.

I'd suggest that considerable flood mitigation measures will be required if the proposed owners are able to have any chance of getting their houses insured in future.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Nov 23 2015, 09:10 PM
Post #184


Advanced Member
***

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



I wondered about the flood risk too.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spartacus
post Nov 23 2015, 09:11 PM
Post #185


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 23 2015, 10:57 AM) *
How odd, that for years we've been fed that cost, overweening technical difficulties and geographic considerations make a bridge an utterly impossible dream. Yet when a nice development plan gets dropped down, not one, but two bridges become a straightforward practical reality.

There's nothing in that news report to suggest that the 'Colthrop Village Consortium' have the slightest clue what they're putting forward. To me it seems the 'developers' ("a consortium made up of waste management firm Grundon and members of the Henry family") have met up at The Swan pub just by the station and had a few pints before putting any old rubbish down on a plan. I think you're making a few too many assumptions about this OTE to suggest that many grey cells have been wasted putting this together or that anything about this has suddenly become 'a straightforward practical reality'.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Nov 23 2015, 09:25 PM
Post #186


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (spartacus @ Nov 23 2015, 09:11 PM) *
There's nothing in that news report to suggest that the 'Colthrop Village Consortium' have the slightest clue what they're putting forward. To me it seems the 'developers' ("a consortium made up of waste management firm Grundon and members of the Henry family") have met up at The Swan pub just by the station and had a few pints before putting any old rubbish down on a plan. I think you're making a few too many assumptions about this OTE to suggest that many grey cells have been wasted putting this together or that anything about this has suddenly become 'a straightforward practical reality'.


It's a shame then isn't it, but then I wonder why a commercial concern should even waste the time of a few junior people to float such an impractical proposal. Particularly if accepted would make them look foolish or worse unprofitable. Sure, as I've already mentioned, development this side of the railway isn't politically wanted on the pretence that the level crossing inhibits transport. The plan shows how it can be done. One other minor point, I've been wondering how UKIP or Developer crayons and highlighters differ from those used by WBC and NTCs planners and advisors. Do they get them from a different shop?


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Nov 23 2015, 11:02 PM
Post #187


Advanced Member
***

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



Once they get planning permission (okay it won't happen - but just pretend it will) we will hear that the new bridges will only service the new housing, there will be no through route to Crookham. Just like the Racecourse, a major route through a development hits profits.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post Nov 23 2015, 11:29 PM
Post #188


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (blackdog @ Nov 23 2015, 11:02 PM) *
Once they get planning permission (okay it won't happen - but just pretend it will) we will hear that the new bridges will only service the new housing, there will be no through route to Crookham. Just like the Racecourse, a major route through a development hits profits.


Unless they are toll bridges? rolleyes.gif


--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phil_D11102
post Nov 24 2015, 10:45 AM
Post #189


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 403
Joined: 16-April 10
Member No.: 846



On the 12th of November, I attended an event where the Chairman of the West Berkshire Council was present.

I voiced my opinion to him regarding the housing on Lower Way. I asked him why don't they build on the area where buildings where knocked down on the the former air base. Not the common, but where bowling alley was, the dorm, the dining facility and a few other buildings. Access is already there to the 339? The Chairman said nobody would want to live on an industrial estate.

Wouldn't Greenham be a better location for this, and just build another bridge crossing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Nov 24 2015, 11:22 AM
Post #190


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (Phil_D11102 @ Nov 24 2015, 10:45 AM) *
On the 12th of November, I attended an event where the Chairman of the West Berkshire Council was present.

I voiced my opinion to him regarding the housing on Lower Way. I asked him why don't they build on the area where buildings where knocked down on the the former air base. Not the common, but where bowling alley was, the dorm, the dining facility and a few other buildings. Access is already there to the 339? The Chairman said nobody would want to live on an industrial estate.

Wouldn't Greenham be a better location for this, and just build another bridge crossing.


Well, Phil_D11102, you aren't supposed to think laterally or have innovative ideas in West Berkshire! An eminently sensible and because it reuses brown land a sustainable one too. Yet apparently rejected because of the personal preferences of our leaders.

This again illustrates the fossilised thinking of our town planners, who seem stuck in 1945. Everyone must have a brick built three bed semi on a housing estate. Clearly, the Greenham Estate could have been developed as an absolute showpiece - oh well, our loss!


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
motormad
post Nov 24 2015, 04:36 PM
Post #191


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,970
Joined: 29-December 09
From: Dogging in a car park somewhere
Member No.: 592



700 new homes is great.
But I've seen a proliferation of homes build for OAPs , or those which are not suitable for FTB, because they start at £300k.

Why can half of those new homes be sold ONLY to FTB's who do not have other properties?
I am not adversed to 700 new homes being built on the greenham side of the river. I don't suspect this would cause much traffic for Thatcham anyway as MOST people would be working in Newbury or Basingstoke anyway (ergo they would be using the roads the same, or heading in the opposite direction) .

With a decent train connection and buses I can see how you would simply use the train to go to and from work.


--------------------
:p
Grammar: the difference between knowing your poop and knowing you're poop.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

10 Pages V  « < 8 9 10
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 08:58 PM