WHO owns the Sandleford housing site??? Options

[blackdog]

Firstly, I said, 'because they are not making any more' - which I think is a good reason to be sceptical of greenfield developments. Secondly, not having an alternative idea doesn't invalidate my counter arguments.

I'm not proposing things should or shouldn't change. If you were to read back, you would see I have asked if the case for building on a green filed has been made in this case. If it has, fair enough, but I am not sure it has.

The case for building on greenfield sites has been made at the national level - based on statistics that, like most statistics, you can choose to believe or not.

The argument is simple:

(1) We are not building enough homes to meet demand - the evidence, loads of people who are living with their parents, in substandard accomodation, B&Bs etc.

(2) The lack of building has resulted in house price inflation to the point where buying a houses is out of the reach of the average wage earner.

(3) A large part of the price of a house is the cost of the land it sits on - fueled by the limitations on where one can build. The result: loads of one bedroom flats being built, not many family homes.

The solution - open up more land for building, lowering the cost of building land, increasing the number of houses being built, lowering house prices generally and, ultimately, improving the standard of living of Joe Public as the mortgage/rent burden is eased and more of their income becomes available for spending on a better lifestyle (whatever that might be). After years of pushing brownfield sites it has been recognised that there are not enough of them - the only places left are the green fields. Another minor issue was the designation of gardens as 'brownfield' - resulting in massive 'infilling' and altering the character of our towns. The Coalition removed this brownfield designation very soon after getting into office.

The Labour government went a bit further and decided to force local authorities to meet house building targets - hence the 10,500 target for West Berks. The Coalition has abandoned targets in favour of freeing up the market and allowing market forces to supply the houses - to do this they are changing the planning system to make it easier to find building sites and the get planning permission. Either way Newbury is stuffed - the houses will come as soon as the economy recovers enough to make them profitable. The LDF (Local Development Framework) is WBC's only way of controlling this looming development, without it the developers will be able to build houses on almost every field bordering Newbury or Thatcham.

The Lib-Dems are now arguing about the detail of the LDF saying that there is plenty of 'brownfield' space in Newbury to take the 2,000 homes ultimately destined for Sandleford. The trouble being that (1) they are wrong and (2) any brownfield site will be covered by one/two bed flats rather than family homes. The only alternatives are other greenfield sites.

I happen to believe that Sandleford is the best option available to WBC (Simon's posts illustrate why) - I would prefer that Newbury/Thatcham did not have to grow so much, but sticking my head in the sand will not stop the inevitable.

[Andy Capp]

All you previous post is well documented, but...

The Lib-Dems are now arguing about the detail of the LDF saying that there is plenty of 'brownfield' space in Newbury to take the 2,000 homes ultimately destined for Sandleford. The trouble being that (1) they are wrong and (2) any brownfield site will be covered by one/two bed flats rather than family homes. The only alternatives are other greenfield sites.

...this is where I feel there is a lack of data. Why are the Lib Dems wrong? Also, Newbury is surrounded by green fields, why Sandleford?

I happen to believe that Sandleford is the best option available to WBC (Simon's posts illustrate why) - I would prefer that Newbury/Thatcham did not have to grow so much, but sticking my head in the sand will not stop the inevitable.

I'm not sure that Simon's thesis is a good explanation for why Sandleford is the best option. His post contained details on the comparison between leaving the fields as is and building on them; not why it is a better place than others.

[blackdog]

...this is where I feel there is a lack of data. Why are the Lib Dems wrong? Also, Newbury is surrounded by green fields, why Sandleford?

Why not? What's so special about the fields at Sandleford - apart from their proximity to shops, schools, medical facilties and sports facilities.

I'm not sure that Simon's thesis is a good explanation for why Sandleford is the best option. His post contained details on the comparison between leaving the fields as is and building on them; not why it is a better place than others.

Simon's thesis is simple enough - the fields would provide more amenities, better natural habitat, more public access, and better landscape protection if developed according to the plans as proposed. He is cynical enough to be aware that the plans put forward to hook the local authority may not look the same when the houses are built, but, nevertheless it is an impressive proposal that makes the local developments from the last 30 or 40 years look even more dreadful than they generally are.

But, you're right, the fact that the Sandleford site could be improved by the development is not reason enough to pick Sandleford ahead of the alternitives. Sandleford is the best site because it is the best sited in terms of local infrastructure - minimising the need for car journeys and making many of those needed very short.

Much is made of the number of houses being built south of the river - with the suggestion that everyone will be thronging the roads heading for the M4 - some will but all?

Some of Newbury's traffic congestion is caused by school traffic - everyone from north of the river heading for the favoured schools south of the river. Then there are the commuters driving south across the river to the station, or the WBC staff car park, or the most popular town centre car parks at the Kennet Centre and the Wharf.

Wherever you build houses there will be traffic trying to cross the river - northbound or southbound there will always be something across the river, but, in reality, there is as much or more south of the river than north.

The problem of people from Sandleford heading for the M4 will be resolved if the town centre gets congested, surely they will simply drive round to the bypass and take the quicker route to the M4.

[Andy Capp]

Why not? What's so special about the fields at Sandleford - apart from their proximity to shops, schools, medical facilties and sports facilities.

They are close to Tesco, but I see very few people walking to the shops at the moment, and the queues to the retail park and Tesco are already quite lengthy. Schools: do they have the capacity, especially the junior schools and Park House? The doctors: the last time I asked, the Monks Lane surgery couldn't take any more punters.

Simon's thesis is simple enough - the fields would provide more amenities, better natural habitat, more public access, and better landscape protection if developed according to the plans as proposed.

That is assuming he is right and assumes no other area meets this criteria as well as Sandlford does.

[Simon Kirby]

The problem of people from Sandleford heading for the M4 will be resolved if the town centre gets congested, surely they will simply drive round to the bypass and take the quicker route to the M4.

That certainly what I do - onto Essex Street and down the Andover Road to the bypass.

Like I say, I don't believe the nimby objections hold water, but I am disappointed that the developers can't publish the traffic model so we can judge it on the facts.

[Andy Capp]

Like I say, I don't believe the nimby objections hold water, but I am disappointed that the developers can't publish the traffic model so we can judge it on the facts.

This is the sort of thing I mean. It might be that Sandleford is the best option, but we only seem to hear opinion, rather than fact. I have no confidence that the council will prepare the road network properly to deal with the new developments.

[blackdog]

They are close to Tesco, but I see very few people walking to the shops at the moment, and the queues to the retail park and Tesco are already quite often congested. Schools: do they have the capacity, especially the junior schools and Park House? The doctors: the last time I asked, the Monks Lane surgery couldn't take anymore patients.

The congestion at the retail park is a good argument against building any more houses around Newbury - but that, sadly, is not an option. Wherever the houses are built the occupiers will drive to the retail park and increase the congestion - but the drive from Sandleford will not involve crossing the river (Newbury's critical congestion hot spot). Schools - the plans include a new primary school and an extension to Park House. Monks Lane surgery can't take patients now - but a new estate on the doorstep would make a massive expansion of the surgery not only feasible but also very profitable for the practice (unlike the surgeries to the north of the river there is plenty of space for expansion - and a pharmacy).

That is assuming he is right and assumes no other area meets this criteria as well as Sandlford does.

The outline plans for Sandleford are available online - Simon's comments seem to be based on these, not some flight of fancy. If another developer comes up with a better plan for one of the alternative sites it will, of course, be worth assessing them. However, despite the owners of the other sites being very keen to call in the builders none have come up with any plans, let alone plans as impressive as those for Sandleford. Call me cynical if you like but I think this is because they have no interest in creating parkland or maintaining historic views - they just want to fill their fields with houses.

[Andy Capp]

The outline plans for Sandleford are available online - Simon's comments seem to be based on these, not some flight of fancy. If another developer comes up with a better plan for one of the alternative sites it will, of course, be worth assessing them. However, despite the owners of the other sites being very keen to call in the builders none have come up with any plans, let alone plans as impressive as those for Sandleford. Call me cynical if you like but I think this is because they have no interest in creating parkland or maintaining historic views - they just want to fill their fields with houses.

It will be interesting to see how eco-centric the development ends up. Judging it like other developments, they starts off modest and sympathetic, but once the plans are approved, suddenly developers struggle to make the development profitable enough and we end up with something else.

[Sherlock]

This is the sort of thing I mean. It might be that Sandleford is the best option, but we only seem to hear opinion, rather than fact. I have no confidence that the council will prepare the road network properly to deal with the new developments.

My guess is that our roads could take a lot more traffic. Even at peak times they are, compared with other places I have lived, still pretty uncongested. My view is that even if the new developments do lead to congestion, we shouldn't spend huge sums building new capacity.

Newbury's roads are really only crowded at peak times and most of the traffic consists of cars with a singe occupant. I expect the vast majority are travelling relatively short distances. A laissez faire approach might force people to think more carefully about how and when they use their cars and while some have little choice I'm sure that there are many who could make changes.

[Andy Capp]

My guess is that our roads could take a lot more traffic. Even at peak times they are, compared with other places I have lived, still pretty uncongested. My view is that even if the new developments do lead to congestion, we shouldn't spend huge sums building new capacity. Newbury's roads are really only crowded at peak times and most of the traffic consists of cars with a singe occupant. I expect the vast majority are travelling relatively short distances. A laissez faire approach might force people to think more carefully about how and when they use their cars and while some have little choice I'm sure that there are many who could make changes.

I can't say i agree. For our council to ignore the potential road congestion would be the laissez faire approach, I think. The problem is Newbury District is built on a side of a hill, and a steep one at that. The top of the hill does have some services, but the main town is at the bottom of the hill and some would consider not realistically walkable for many.