Sandleford row erupts again following letter to Wash Common residents Options

[user23]

There are twelve hundred on this forum, have a look. You've made that classic mistake. The Facebook page does as you say have a few thousand 'members' BUT only the same old few contribute!

This is untrue as a look at the first three posts (at the moment, they change regularly) reveals tens of different people have taken part in them.

[Biker1]

it did resolve the problems of Newbury's traffic and it has been a "miraculous saviour to Newbury's traffic problems".

If this is the case why do..

We need an Urban ring road.

And why is there excessive pollution at the BK Roundabout?
And why do people constantly complain about Crookham Hill / Thornford Road expressing a need for a new "relief road"?
And why are people expressing concern at the plans for the Faraday Road link?
And why does the NWN regularly refer to Newbury's motorists as "beleaguered"?
The first 3 and probably more would have been solved with an Eastern route.

[On the edge]

This is untrue as a look at the first three posts (at the moment, they change regularly) reveals tens of different people have taken part in them.

Jolly good, you've now started to recognised the numbers, now understand the dynamics.

[Exhausted]

I have to say, there seemed to a a fair number against the 'brown field' development where I presently live............... It's Catch 22 round here!

Objections to any development usually run to six or seven and if you look at them carefully, you will see that most of them are NIMBY and usually are not valid reasons for rejection. The planning department seem to spend an inordinate amount of time before they get it to the planning committee and it's usually an internal input by the council jobsworths like cycle sheds or bats that cause the delays. It will also require of the planners, a viability study, developer v affordable housing or other S106 monies that WBC want. Their track record is not good and there are very few that get within the 12 week timescale except for the Mrs Jones' minor add on.

Then we have the next hurdle, the planning committee of which there are three in WBC. The Western, the Eastern and the district committee that has to add their soundbite to the recommendation by the planners. These, the Regional, East or West and then, if approved, has to go to the district planning meeting. A load of huff and puff and the bad news here is that these committees are councillors who probably have not even read fully or understood the application and who listen to councillor Bloggs personal vote catcher which he/she knows will be published in the local paper before they hold up their hands.

You're right, it is Catch22 and I sometimes wonder how we ever get anything built in Newbury and when we do, the developer then changes his game plan and the council roll over. For example the affordable housing requirement in Parkway and the total style change to accommodate John Lewis. (They being as far as I can see however the only worthwhile shop in the whole lot.)

[Exhausted]

If this is the case why do.. And why is there excessive pollution at the BK Roundabout? And why do people constantly complain about Crookham Hill / Thornford Road expressing a need for a new "relief road"? And why are people expressing concern at the plans for the Faraday Road link? And why does the NWN regularly refer to Newbury's motorists as "beleaguered"? The first 3 and probably more would have been solved with an Eastern route.

It would be exactly the same with an Eastern route, as it was never, as I've said already, intended to do anything but be a bypass to trunk the A34.

What didn't happen was a local plan to join up and provide an additional road to the A339, close into the town with a rail and river crossing. This should have happened while we had the opportunity post bypass and before pedestrianisation and the closing of the Parkway bridge.

Crookham Hill and Thornford Rd are problems for Thatcham and are not related to Newbury traffic.

The Faraday link is because the A339 carries the brunt of the local traffic and any additional volume will be added to that bit of road as we do not have a ring road. This lack is of course why the motorists are beleaguered. Today the A339 southbound was a nightmare. Race traffic and one car broken down by the NWN offices backing the the traffic right back towards Vodafone.

Pollution at the Burger King. Well partly due to the load of local traffic and the HGV's which come from our local distribution depots and of course the geographical location. Right at the bottom of a steep hill, pollution from accelerating and decelerating vehicles rolling down and being trapped at the bottom where the polluters have to stop for the roundabout and equally, get mixed up with the St Johns Road traffic. A diesel being floored generates a load of particulates so surprise surprise.

[Exhausted]

Just one last thing on the Eastern route. The proposal for that, cut straight across Greenham West fields, Turned around the end of the racecourse over the river and railway by Bull's lock, across the A4 where the local hospital is now and after trundling through Henwick, around the back of Clay Hill to join-up about where Vodafone offices are. So, as you can see, cut deeply into the town at the southern end and would have been nowhere near the Eastern side of Thatcham or the crossing by the station.

[blackdog]

Just one last thing on the Eastern route. The proposal for that, cut straight across Greenham West fields, Turned around the end of the racecourse over the river and railway by Bull's lock, across the A4 where the local hospital is now and after trundling through Henwick, around the back of Clay Hill to join-up about where Vodafone offices are. So, as you can see, cut deeply into the town at the southern end and would have been nowhere near the Eastern side of Thatcham or the crossing by the station.

In terms of local traffic relief this route would have been far more effective than the western route, which really only took A34 through traffic out of the town. While this was a massive relief (and still is) the eastern route would also have taken the Basingstoke to A34 traffic, the Thatcham to A34 (north and south) traffic and the Racecourse traffic out of town. Provision of the eastern route option (still the ideal solution) or a ring road from the north of Newbury, round to the east of Thatcham to the Wash Common A34 junction would take a lot of traffic out of town and solve many of the local traffic problems (for a while).

The problem is funding - government funding was available for the bypass because the Newbury bottleneck was a national problem - today it is no longer such a bottleneck and as a problem it is, essentially, a local one - so the chances of major government funding must be very low, especially in times of austerity. I suspect the only way to attract government funding in the short term (ie within 20 years) would be a plan for a massive expansion of Newbury along the lines of Basingstoke - another 20,000 houses or so on top of the 5,000 currently planned.

[Exhausted]

In terms of local traffic relief this route would have been far more effective than the western route, which really only took A34 through traffic out of the town. While this was a massive relief (and still is) the eastern route would also have taken the Basingstoke to A34 traffic, the Thatcham to A34 (north and south) traffic and the Racecourse traffic out of town. Provision of the eastern route option (still the ideal solution) or a ring road from the north of Newbury, round to the east of Thatcham to the Wash Common A34 junction would take a lot of traffic out of town and solve many of the local traffic problems (for a while).

I hear what you are saying but you have to remember that the Eastern route could not go across Greenham Common and so had to take all the North/South traffic along a widened Newtown Common straight and then through Greenham up by the Bury's Bank Road junction through Pigeon's Farm (now a housing estate) before looping around the racecourse. If it had gone across Greenham Common as perhaps it could today then the Eastern route would have perhaps been, with hindsight, a better option. The Inspector was only interested in one thing though, trunking the A34 and the dialogue about it being for the benefit of Newbury, whilst true, was just to get local support.

There was a proposal by one of the sensible councillors about that time with a plan for Newbury. I can't find that but I bet it's still sitting on someone's computer somewhere.

[MontyPython]

Jolly good, you've now started to recognised the numbers, now understand the dynamics.

User 23 works for WBC who only be able to tackle one variable - and choose the one to suit themselves!

[Biker1]

It would be exactly the same with an Eastern route, as it was never, as I've said already, intended to do anything but be a bypass to trunk the A34.

No, the A339 would have been taken care of and would not still pass through the town past the BK Roundabout (and Sainsbury's) to join the A34 at Chieveley..

The Thornford Road / level crossing issue would have been taken care of. (Traffic from Thatcham etc. to the A339.)

Acres of trees and countryside would not have been lost.

As an aside, even though extremely unlikely, the DNS Railway formation would have been left more intact for any possible reinstatement.

You are quite right, of course, that the by-pass was built to get juggernauts from the Midlands to the coast more quickly and had nothing to do with improving Newbury's traffic problems (any gain was pure coincidence). Therefore the cheapest (financially) route was chosen with no consideration for how it would (or would not) improve things locally.

[r.bartlett]

What are we thinking about the proposed traffic solutions recently put forward. Looks like that area is going to be gridlocked. A new primary school in warren Rd will double congestion along the A34 outside St Georges church. I can't see this being a help or solution.

[Simon Kirby]

What are we thinking about the proposed traffic solutions recently put forward. Looks like that area is going to be gridlocked. A new primary school in warren Rd will double congestion along the A34 outside St Georges church. I can't see this being a help or solution.

It all depends on how well it's designed, and there is a good chance it'll be designed poorly. I'm appalled at how the Sainsbury garage was ever given planning permission because the parking arrangements are hopelessly inadequate and that's causing chaos, so I don't have any confidence that the Sandleford arrangements will be any better.

[blackdog]

The idea of two new primary schools within the Sandleford development is surely so that the children from the development can be educated there without a huge increase in traffic?

[Simon Kirby]

The idea of two new primary schools within the Sandleford development is surely so that the children from the development can be educated there without a huge increase in traffic?

There has been discussion about replacing the existing school on the west of the Andover Road with housing. I suspect this is also related to the Town Council's quiet negotiation with the Charity Commission to have the trust relating to the use of the Wash Common allotment site extinguished so that it might aslo form part of the development.

[blackdog]

There has been discussion about replacing the existing school on the west of the Andover Road with housing. I suspect this is also related to the Town Council's quiet negotiation with the Charity Commission to have the trust relating to the use of the Wash Common allotment site extinguished so that it might aslo form part of the development.

First I've heard of this (Falkland School I assume?) If true it must surely give the Sandleford developers grounds to question the need for two new schools if WBC have one nearby that they are hoping to close?

[r.bartlett]

There has been discussion about replacing the existing school on the west of the Andover Road with housing. I suspect this is also related to the Town Council's quiet negotiation with the Charity Commission to have the trust relating to the use of the Wash Common allotment site extinguished so that it might aslo form part of the development.

I know some developers spoke to the previous headmaster of Falklands to see if he'd support such a proposal. I was led to believe he was sympathetic to such a move as they'd get a brand new school. I haven't heard anything else on this since

(I believe Park house should 'do' a St Barts for the same reason.)

[r.bartlett]

First I've heard of this (Falkland School I assume?) If true it must surely give the Sandleford developers grounds to question the need for two new schools if WBC have one nearby that they are hoping to close?

Could be the reason for the need of two new schools?

[Simon Kirby]

Could be the reason for the need of two new schools?

Quite.

[r.bartlett]

There has been discussion about replacing the existing school on the west of the Andover Road with housing. I suspect this is also related to the Town Council's quiet negotiation with the Charity Commission to have the trust relating to the use of the Wash Common allotment site extinguished so that it might also form part of the development.

Simon
Can you confirm where and who had this discussion as it may affect my future plans. If they did get the Allotment that would put a lot of traffic down that lane by the school although there a second potential entry point by the library?

TIA

[Simon Kirby]

Simon
Can you confirm where and who had this discussion as it may affect my future plans. If they did get the Allotment that would put a lot of traffic down that lane by the school although there a second potential entry point by the library?

TIA

I don't rightly remember. One source on the Falkland development was the Sandleford Development consultation, but I have a feeling I've heard it from other sources too. The Town Council have not to my knowledge openly discussed the de-trusting of the Wash Common allotment site and I can't rightly say where I first heard that linked with the Falkland development, but it is an obvious option.

Here's the former town clerk's submission to the Sandleford consultation:

Hi
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Consultation on the Sandleford Park Draft Supplementary Planning Document. A sub-group of Newbury Town Council has met and formulated this response, which was ratified at the Planning & Highways Committee meeting on 22 April 2013.
a) The Draft SPD is very good in parts, but sketchy in others.
It is good on landscape / topology / country park / woodland / wildlife corridor / houses and their relationship with the countryside / roads and PROWs within the site.
c) It needs more detail on infrastructure aspects, such as community facilities, education facilities.
d) There are still open questions re boundaries, and how the Sandleford Park community will fit with the adjacent Greenham, Wash Common and Newbury Town communities. Although boundary changes don’t necessarily result in integrated communities, the fact that Wash Common already has multiple Community Hall provision might negate the need for such provision in Sandleford Park, if the two communities were to be integrated (with relevant improvements in crossing the A343).
e) Conversely, it may be appropriate for larger scale primary education facilities to be provided on Sandleford Park site, freeing the existing Falkland School site for housing development.
f) More is needed on public transport integration – mandating a bus link from Warren Road to central Newbury and integration with the rest of the local bus network.
g) A clear, timelined, infrastructure implementation plan needs to be mandated, similar to that which appears to being successfully followed at the Racecourse development, with clear dependencies and trigger points.
h) Additional traffic assessments are required urgently, to establish the need for additional access routes beyond those already defined in the Core Strategy.
i) An access onto the A339 at the Amenity Site (with relevant cycle / pedestrian facilities) may assist with A339 traffic calming (safety improvements), the start of better access to Greenham Common (accessibility / integration improvements) and better access to the amenity site from Newbury (environmental improvement).
j) A traffic calmed crossing (or even tunnel / bridge) and additional new PROW access to Greenham Common (south of Sandleford Priory) could be created for cycle / pedestrian access from the end of the existing PROW at the south eastern aspect of the site.
k) There remain concerns about the impact of domestic pets on the ancient woodlands and the corridors between but it is unclear what action could be taken to mitigate.
l) The local generation of renewable energy should be mandated as being beyond the existing requirements of the Core Strategy, with site-wide as well as in-building provision.
m) There is lots of discussion of cycle routes, but very little mention of cycle parking at potential destination points (and covered cycle parking at key locations, such as schools / shops / community areas).
n) Allotments and Community Growing Areas must be mandated, and be accessible for communities outside of Sandleford Park.
o) Has there been any consideration of a public house?
p) We would like to see some recognition of the potential benefits of community ownership e.g. of the Country Park, the Community Hall, Community growing / allotment areas, site-wide renewable energy provision – all of which would assist community integration / adhesion.
Regards
[town clerk]