Two pages of letters this week! Nice to have a good smattering of opinion.

Two letters about Sandleford from the tories replying to last week's from the lib dem camp. Depressing seeing them swinging their political handbags. It's a serious business that will affect a lot of people so it would be good to see it discussed reasonably.

For all their noise the anti-sandlefordians have made a poor job of articulating their legitimate concerns, or a poor job at any rate of legitimising what concerns they have. There's been a lot of emotional nonsense about Watership Down which has undermined their credibility and done nothing to mitigate the obvious suspicion of nimbyism. Traffic congestion has been mentioned and that's the only concern that resonates for me, but the argument hasn't been developed in any sensible way.

The lib dems have no doubt done a good job at organising the opposition, but their political motivation it's transparently obvious, and Alan Law gives Tony Vickers a good drubbing in the letters page for this. Tony Pick also attacks the flimsyness of the anti-sandlefordians' brownfield strategy. Brownfield is very much a pet policy of the lib dems but like much political dogma it makes little sense in the real world.

More troubling is that Alan Law still doesn't say anything positive about the country park, and not a peep from any of the local WBC tories, and I'd have really expected them to have a view. A country park is definitely something worth shouting about, so why is no one even talking about it? Do the tories not actually want a country park?

Or are they afraid of associating themselves with a popular idea that they are unable to be sure of delivering?

That's possible, at least for Alan Law. I suspect the local tories just don't want to associate themselves with an unpopular housing development. Wash Common is tory heartland and those tory voters don't want a housing development in their back yard whether or not it comes with a country park.

Country Park - you mean a bit a green space in a housing estate.

Sorry, can you explain what you mean?

I mean it won't be a 'Country Park' it will be a bit of green open space in the middle of a housing estate.

'Country Park' is a gloss. It sounds so much nicer than open amenity land.

Both the developers and WBC are calling it a "country park". I'm guessing that the developers will just hand the land over to the park owners and that it will be up to them to turn it from open amenity land into into a country park, so I take it you're saying that WBC have no intention of doing that and that they're deliberately mis-selling the development on the basis of that false promise. Do I understand you right?

I'm saying that whatever it is called it will be nothing more than a bit of grass in the middle of a housing estate. Newbury already has at least one of these - with a wood in it - at the end of Battle Road up at Wash Common.

Naturally those wishing to profit ( in both meanings of the word ) from the development will use words which convey an image which favours their intentions.

I wouldn't call it 'mis-selling', or 'false promise' at all. Just poetic license.

Estate agents do it all the time - what sounds better - 'Hardstanding to front of property' or 'Approach via gravelled driveway'.

The romantic / gullible fall for it, the cynical ignore it.

I'm aware of the possibility that WBC might not intend to deliver on the promise of a country park, but I really like the idea of a country park for newbury and if Sandleford gets through planning on the understanding that it comes with a country park then I'd like to do what I can to ensure that WBC delivers it - it deos have some history of failing to deliver on these promises. As I've posted before what I think is necessary if for the developers to gift the land to a community trust that will manage the park (like GCT, or maybe GCT itself), and to ensure that the park can be realized and maintained going forward WBC need to contract with the trust to cover the running costs. If WBC can't do any of that then the promise is revealed to be hollow and it gives the No to Sandlefordians some useful extra ammunition.

It will be delivered - there will be some green space in the middle of the estate.

Your idea of a 'Country Park' & mine are obviously different. I see it as being identical to the open grassed area around the water tower a Wash Common. An area that needs no community trust to manage it.
What are you envisaging?

I am envisaging the open space promised in the developer's proposal. This includes several small woods and plenty of open space stretching down to the River Enborne, none of it in the middle of the estate.

I'm as cynical as anyone when it comes to developer's promises - but it would be great if it was delivered.

That is what I foresee to.

A grassed area, with trees in the middle of a housing estate.

Sorry, Simon, but I don't see how they are going to fit something like Snelsmore into that area, which is what I understand by "country park".

Yes, it is quite small, but a "country park" is more about the facilities than the size, so I'd expect some kind of toilet/cafe/shop building possibly with a meeting/lecture room, decent car parking, picknic tables, mown ball-games area, various kinds of play equipment for all ages, some meadow areas, areas of copse, maybe some formal planting, possibly some livestock, and accessable paths throughout the park linking it all together. It would be good if Sandleford also had a USP of some kind that could engage people in the way Exbury has its train. All of that is possible in much less space than Sandleford, though it might present an opportunity to link with Greenham Common and the Civil War site with a cycle path or something, and maybe provide cycle hire from Sandleford.

I don't see the developers as the issue, it's all about WBC.

On a smaller scale, development in Kintbury was conditional on the gift of some open space opposite the sports hall and WBC made a complete **** of the handover from developer to parish council so the village ended up with less than they'd been promised.

If the Sandleford site is just handed to WBC without any secure agreement about what WBC will do with it and where the money will come from to maintain it then we won't get a country park, it'll just be waste land and less accessable than now.

Even if WBC make a start, I don't see that they'll keep at it - the future of Thatcham Lakes is very far from secure so it's hard to see how an additional park at Sandleford will fare any better.

I doubt there will be any of the above at all. save the meadow areas & kids play facilities.

No, it will be a grassed area in a housing estate.

To some extent it depends on ownership of the site as a whole. Is there one owner or owning group who acually own and will develop the whole site or do we see a group of unrelated or unconnected owners who between them will stick loads of houses on their bit and the park will never come to fruition. When it's all over and done, it might be a bit late.

The bridge over the railway from the racecourse is something we may draw a parallel from. If that happens, I will have more confidence in the ability of WBC to deliver

I guess it depends on the interpretation of the word 'park'.

Is there anything in the plans to indicate the kind of tourist attraction SK would like to see? I can't see that as happening & think the undelevoped land will consit of grass & trees with a few play facilities - exactly the same as at Battle Road in Wash Common.

You haven't seen the proposal then?

It will not be a grassed area in a housing estate. It will (if the developer delivers what is shown in the proposal) be woods and open space adjoining a housing estate.

If that's what you'd like, then OK, but I'd like a country park. What we get depends on what we insist on, and I'd like to encourage Newbury to aspire to something really great such as I've described. I'm sorry I haven't persuaded you.

Okay, so woods & open ( grassed ) space along side a housing estate. Where is the indication for cafes & facilities?

There is also the same kind of thing, on a much smaller scale, at Manor Park I believe.

You want a second nature discovery centre. But one based around open grassland & not water. I can't see that happening.

I doubt if the new residents of Sandleford would want it either. At least, not on their doorsteps.

See for example wikipedia:


I've visited a few country parks, and they're do have all those facilities. You're describing a "recreation ground" which typically has little more than grass with maybe some swings and such, like the recreation ground at Wash Common.

I don't understand your problem. I'd like a country park. Do you have any good reason for supposing that the Sandleford residents wouldn't want a country park in their back yard? It's been in the plans from the start so if they're that opposed they don't have to move in. I'd have though a country park would be a good thing to live near.

I agree. But recration ground does not sound as nice as 'county park'. I have a feeling country park was a bad choice of words, given that some will assume this means the kind of thing the wiki article describes.

I'm cynical - I have a feeling what 'country park' means in this context is a recreation ground.

Right, I'm with you, and yes, that's my concern. A recreation ground doesn't offer very much, it'll be less interesting to walk there than it is already, and it's already one of the least interesting places to walk.