Isn't access one of the things covered in planning when developments are approved?

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2014/sandlef...ommon-residents

I think it's a consideration, but developers can find their way around most planning considerations...

In the case of Sandleford I don't think an application has been lodged yet. It's just been selected as a strategic site suitable for accommodating 2000? houses within a certain timeframe. The finer details such as access, infrastructure etc should be tied down when the application is submitted, and insufficient/inadequate access could be a reason for refusal, which is presumably why the developer has made this "offer".

I'm sure the residents of Warren Road are astute enough to see it for what it is. Whether they will succumb to the offer remains to be seen.

Deviating slightly from the thread, I think Mr Norgate might regret this comment:

“It is the lowest form of journalism to ask me to comment on a letter that was sent in private to a resident and I’m not interested in answering your questions about it.”

Well done Dan Cooper & the NWN!

As far as I see it the developer is doing just what they should be doing. Sandleford needs good access onto the Andover Road and the developer is making just the kind of approach they need to make. I can understand the consternation of the folk who live around Warren Road, but if the developer is willing to pay over the odds to buy their houses then to me that seems like a perfectly fair exchange.

I would have liked to see the local politicos taking some responsibility and showing some leadership over this rather than being evasive and vote-grubbing, so it's disappointing to see that neither Cole nor Swift-Hook had anything positive to say for themselves.

I'm not sure you can reasonably expect a politician to behave in a vote losing way, especially this close to an election.

It would suggest the usual thing has happened where we are shown a Beatrix Potter impression of the development, but of course, hidden from the detail is that access is a problem. I wonder what else is in store. Notwithstanding that the language in the letter is not of the most sensitive I have read.

"“As such, I would like to come and discuss with you the ways in which you could benefit from the development happening, as opposed to being a financial victim of it.”

It would suggest then, that if you are in close proximity but don't have land that would be attractive to the developer, you might find yourself being a 'financial victim'.

I expect virtually every politician to do precisely what you imply and say whatever it is they think people want to hear because they're only in politics for the power and they'd make a pact with Old Nick if it would give them what they crave.

But I'm still idealistic enough to want politicians to say what it is they believe in and make decisions that are right for society even if those decisions are locally unpopular.


The threats to the success of Sandleford have always been obvious. Access and traffic is one area, but quality design and the delivery of a sustainably managed and funded Country Park are other biggies. It's possible that Sandleford will be fantastic, but it's very unlikely unless our local politicians make it happen, and all that I see is the Tories saying nothing in the hope that the reactionary Conservative-voting Wash Commoners won't defect to the Lib Dems who are mopping up the Nimbies with their cynical rhetoric.


I don't see it like that. It's always going to be indelicate approaching someone who's antagonised by the thought of the construction of a proletariat spawning-vat on what they have come to think of as their green and pleasant land - if it happened to me I'd be terribly upset too. But if I was offered £50k over and above the value of my house to up-sticks and make way for the hyperspace bypass then, indelicate or not, I'm pretty sure I'd take the money.

Is that how much is on offer or just a guess? When you take into account stamp duty on a new house, removal costs etc plus the stress of moving it might not seem such an attractive offer. And it doesn't factor in the emotional investment in a home.

Complete guess.

We are continually talking about the politicians whenever these types of applications are put forward but I suspect that really they haven't got a clue between them. This statement goes some way towards confirming that for me.

The council’s portfolio holder for planning, Hilary Cole, said that she wasn’t able to confirm or deny whether discussions took place, as they usually occurred between developers and council officers rather than councillors.

However, she added that it wasn’t uncommon for developers to hold pre-planning discussions with a local authority.


Well done Mrs Cole for that gem.

That's the essence of the market; the home owner doesn't need to accept the offer no matter how much is pitched.

The emotional bit is an interesting point. Everyone seems to be screaming about solving our housing shortage. New ones have to go somewhere. Look round Newbury and us there just one site that hasn't attracted vociferous opposition? Ironically, even the 'brown field' one got a lot of stick from the very party promoting it! It's worth remembering that for most of us, the home we've invested emotions in was new once and must have disturbed someone.

In my view, this is exactly why we need some real political leadership and not the consensus of failure we have locally. Let's have a real plan and a real vision which is supported and defended, rather than crocodile tears about potential threats to Flopsy's fictional burrow!

Agreed.

I made no comment about the offer, only the language. I'm only taking the words in good faith as reported, but the language looks to me to be be tactless. The author's response to the NWN suggests they have touched nerve too.

Quite. A clear display of 'disingenuosity'.

We see it differently. I rather liked the directness of the developer's comment. One of the residents who received the approach went to the paper to make some mischief in support of their objection, and that's fair enough, but I see nothing inappropriate in the offer or the language that it's couched in. The development needs a decent access road off the Andover Road and Warren Road is an obvious candidate.

Actually what the south of Newbury needs is a segment of ring road cutting through from the Swan roundabout on the north bank of the Enborne and joining the Andover Road in a big roundabout at the Woodpecker, and the Sandleford estate needs access onto that, but until we get some visionary political leadership and as a community take responsibility for that vision then we'll continue to box ourselves in with piece-meal development and choke the town up irretrievably for lack of infrastructure.

Officially, there hasn't been any offer and language is a matter of choice, but if I were a recipient, I would be offended. I'd also be upset if I was an unfortunate neighbour who wouldn't benefit from the the 'bung' to sell land for a project we were all once united against. It is that line about being a 'financial victim', it is a clumsy comment.


Quite right. Sandleford, right or wrong, is going to happen one day, but I fail to see any suitable preparation for that or other likely developments.

Like Andy I see the approach (as reported) tactless. In fact I'd go further and say that it appears rather aggressive. I have no doubt that pre-planning discussions have taken place with West Berkshire Council officers and that using Warren Road as an access route is a sticking point, but there are (supposedly) democratic methods of a LA going about facilitating strategic development. Hence Ms Cole's attempt to disassociate herself from the issue, and Mr Swift-Hook's comment :

Regarding the letter sent to Wash Common residents, Newbury Town Council leader and West Berkshire councillor Julian Swift-Hook said: “It is certainly news to me that a developer becomes responsible for investigating West Berkshire planning policy.

“A lot of questions need to be answered.”

And I'm very surprised that you would call the person who passed the letter on to the NWN a "mischief maker", even if you did caveat it with a "fair enough".... I'm guessing that the objections to access via Warren Road must have some validity and are not just NIMBYiSM or the approach would not have been made in the first place. (And before you ask I don't live anywhere near Sandleford so am not directly affected!)

It's pretty naive to think that developers of any description don't do a fair bit of preparatory work with all potentially impacted parties before coming out in public. One of the biggest examples round here was Vodafone on the sold Showground at Shaw. Was the first time when anyone knew really when a rough plan was submitted to WBC? Err no! Similarly with our sparkly new Hospital, which suddenly appeared in the much vaunted 'green gap' between Thatcham and Newbury which the then in power political group had pledged to protect. Both were built in contradiction to the local strategic plan.

Someone is making play with the potential developer for Sandleford; but of course, so would I, to get any offer up. Yes, I'd be upset if I were a neighbour; just as much as I would be if my neighbour decided to build two massive sheds in his rear garden and turn his frontage into a caravan park. That's real life I'm afraid.

I'm not suggesting the resident went public with their letter to make mischief for its own sake, but I assume they wanted to embarrass the developer to serve their own interests, and I'm assuming that those interests are frustrating the development of Sandleford.

I think a better strategy for anyone receiving the letter is to thank the developer and name their price. The developer is likely to need to demolish the houses in order to secure planning permission, and while they can probably get the council to use their compulsory purchase powers it's a process that can soak up an awful lot of time and legal costs, on both sides, and the resident only ends up with the market cost, so a much better strategy is to be pragmatic and try to strike a decent bargain with the developer.

Someone tries to embarrass to get their way? Heaven forbid!


The divide and rule strategy. Perhaps the sender of letter has other motives that you haven't aired. Perhaps the sender of the letter is concerned about due process. Sometimes there are things that are more important than money, whether it is your home, public spaces or allotment.

That would be rather nice to think, but by their actions, wouldn't apply to our today's breed of politician and let's face it, the majority of their electors have followed suit, as you've evidenced before with Council house sales. Sadly, today, everyone (the vast majority) does seem to have their price.

Not sure exactly where on the Andover Road the Woodpecker is, but South Newbury would definitely benefit from a direct link between the A34 junction and the Basingstoke Road/old A34 roundabout. Naïvely I assumed that would be an integral part of the Sandleford development.

Like I say, as a tactic it's fair enough, I'm just not swayed by the argument.

My assumptions might be completely wrong, but what I think is that:

• The developer wants to make money and has no other motivation than that.
• The majority of the "No" campaign are reactionary Nimbies who don't want change and aren't interested in the benefits, either to the environment or to people other than themselves.
• The "No" campaigners who front the access road and currently live on a quiet lane are going to live on a reasonably busy road and that will change their homes for the worse.
• The Lib-Dem politicos who are agitating against Sandleford are mostly not motivated by ideology but just grandstanding
• The few Lib Dems who are ideologically motivated are the hair-shirted dog-banning self-flagellating ascetic cyclists who'd have the majority of us living in town-centre high-rises whether we'd like to or not.

I'd like to have a Country Park, and I'd like Sandleford to be a well-designed suburban environment with plenty of green space and no traffic worries, and all of that is possible but it needs our local politicos to ensure we get it, and the Tories have a poor track record.

The Woodpecker is on the junction of the Washwater road and the Andover road. It makes the southern-most extent of the suburban settlement boundary.

No, Sandleford is not currently going to deliver any strategic routes. It's not really a Sandleford issue, I mentioned it because it's just another example of how both lack strategic leadership, and how as a society we don't take responsibility for our strategic development and tend only to act out of direct self-interest - the curse of the Thatcher generation - "there is no such thing as Society".

I doubt there will be any disagreement here.


I see the majority of the 'no' campaigning exercising their freedom to to fight for what they want. Seeing as you would sell up for £50k and sod anyone else says it all.


Quite.


Agreed.


And the Simon Kirby party would have a sod everyone, the market talks. I think that stinks too.


Agreed.

What a load of cobblers. The 'no society' was about people taking responsibility for their lot.

" I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it: 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society.

There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

Oh how very erudite. Do you want to have a reasonable conversation?

Yes, please see above.

I didn't say I'd sell up for £50k, I just guessed that was the bonus on offer. If I was in the situation where my house was blocking the access to what would otherwise be a £500,000,000 housing development I'm pretty sure I'd be asking for a lot more than that.

I don't see the problem in that. I don't owe anyone but myself a duty in this situation.

And yes, I believe in a free market and small state and my politics is generally laissez-faire, but you misunderstand me if you think that means "sod everyone". Quite the opposite, I've been a supported of Sandleford from the start in a community where taking such a position is hardly going to win me any friends, but I feel strongly that people need somewhere decent to live, and I feel stronger still that people should take personal responsibility for societal issues like this and support what are otherwise difficult political decisions to make.

Well, notwithstanding the rudeness of your reply, you're right. I was mistaken and I didn't understand the context of her quote. As it happens I agree with what she said (though not particularly about the obligation/entitlement thing), and I think I could actually have quoted what she said to support my own position here.

Yes, just like the residents on Lower Way in Thatcham who don't seem to grasp the irony of their banners bleating on about not wanting their fabulous view of a run down field destroyed, forgetting that THEIR houses at some stage were built and spoilt the view for residents of older properties of what must have been a bigger field.

It can even impact on the rich and famous... I don't imagine Wayne Rooney gave two stuffs about the blot on the landscape his £5m Cheshire mansion would have at the time, but now that he's been living there and there are plans to build 15 houses nearby (5 of them 'affordable') his wife is getting all uppity and insisting the plans would ‘damage the special landscape, character and appearance of the area’.

Scousers housing development outrage

Banners, signs, petitions, website, action committee. It's a field, no trees, no wildlife, nothing of much apart from the occasional circus. But hey, may damage their property values. But, hey ho.

I'm sorry Simon, the misuse of the 'no society' comment (often conflated by the left with the fictional Gordon Gekko 'greed is good' comment) is a pet hate of mine. Mind you, while it might have been inaccurate I think you were unwittingly half right in that due to policies promoted by her government we are now a nation of home owners and this is bound to cause problems with planning matters which is quite understandable when you consider that there is little value in anything else we can invest in.


I doubt very much that is true.

By the way, I am not against Sandleford development. I just don't trust the way it has come in to being.

That's fair enough, but how would you see it come into being? It's happened in the normal way as far as I can see. That is someone had an idea and works up a proposal. The only other way I can see would be for the planners (i.e the Council) to come up with schemes. I must admit, that would fill me with dread.

Through due process.

But they've been following process? Which bit causes you concern? Frankly, if I was a developer, I'd want to cover all eventualities before I applied for planning permission; to do otherwise means it hasn't been thought through.

The first stage of planning permission is 'outline' - where you'll see what you are up against politically. Outline means you'll have a rough workable scheme, but you clearly won't have invested in the full monty.

Yes,means also means talking to the likely anti's up front, what's wrong with that?

What the anti's say does not enter the equation.....what the developer wants is the be all and end all if it goes the way of every other development that has been carried out in Newbury. Bear in mind also the final development will never look the same as that first proposed and approved if the scheme goes as normal with the Newbury planners and Councillors!

*deep breath* I have not argued against what has happened except to say I think the language of the letter is inappropriate. You, Simon et al. seem to be picking an argument about something few if any are against.

And this is a serious issue. I have no confidence that our local politicos will secure a quality design with excellent amenities along with appropriate community and communications infrastructure, and much lass confidence that the development will deliver a Country Park worthy of the name with accountable community-led governance and an endowment to secure its future indefinitely.

This is what our elected politicians should be securing for us, but they have a poor track record.

However, we - the everyday schmos - we have a personal responsibility too, to support ideas that will benefit our community and to look a little beyond our personal negative reaction to change. People tend only to speak up to object, and when that happens then it's not difficult to see how we get politicos who are frightened to say or do anything, because in that situation the best strategy is always to keep schtum - we get the democracy we deserve.

*look of stunned amazement* arguably it was a private letter between two parties. It wasn't meant for public consumption and was simply trying to engage a legitimate discussion. Arguably, if I really wanted to be pedantic, I'd say the recipient was being inpolite in showing it to the press. For my part, I can't see his that coloured your view of the process, but never mind.

I understand that the letter was unsolicited and privacy should therefore never be assumed, so I don't know why you would feel that. It would be daft to send private letters to people with whom you have no relationship, or are not known.


My views have already been aired previously. I'm not saying that the process has been coloured, I simply think the letter was clumsy, however, others seem to think that the authors actions are extraordinary.

Perhaps we were brought up differently, but if I received a private personal letter I would understand that it would be rude to publish it. I'm not saying I wouldn't publish it, but I'd understand that publishing it would violate a moral code and change the dynamic. Like I said, I think it was fair enough, all's fair etc, but it was somewhat rude all the same.

So it's war is it?


Talk about rude!


Whoopty do; so what, a rude letter is treated with contempt. Anyone'd think you wrote the letter. Under the circumstances, no-one can be surprised if people who object to the development would do or say anything within the law to undermine the development.

As for the development itself, in good faith I suspect that it is the best of less than perfect options, but I can 'hear a noise' that suggests there are some issues that surround Sandleford being selected for development. In this instance, I can't see that the author of the letter has done anything wrong writing to the residents, but it seems that some are insinuating that proper protocol has not being followed.



I too am starting to understand the 'V' word.

Being pedantic, it was the NWN that published extracts from the letter, not a resident (unless you know different?) Presumably it was passed on by one of the residents but we don't know that for sure, and we can only speculate as to motive.

Referring back to the article the bits that concern me are:

"The letter was dated May 20, 2014 and signed by Mark Norgate"

The quote: “I appreciate that you may have been very much against the development at Sandleford Park, but the question as to whether or not it will happen has now been answered.

“As such, I would like to come and discuss with you the ways in which you could benefit from the development happening, as opposed to being a financial victim of it.”

And: "Mr Norgate also says that he had held discussions with West Berkshire Council, which told him that Warren Road would need to be widened.

He added that as a result, he and the council had agreed to ask homeowners in Warren Road if they wanted to sell enough land to accommodate the new road"

My first instinct would be to check with the Council regarding the extent of their involvement, and given that the letter was sent in May you would have thought that they would have been able to clarify that by now. If I was concerned about due process, worried about compulsory purchase, or even wanting to push the price up,I'd probably ask to see his agreement with the Council. And yet there is no comment in the article from the "council spokesperson". Equally we don't know when ( or in what context) Mr Norgate made his "It's the lowest form of journalism" comment.

Lets try another way. When the developer first came up with their big idea, they would have spoken to the planners at the Council. They didn't need to, but it was sensible and prudent. Exactly the same as I would do if I decided to build an extra few rooms on the side of my office. The Council staff would have been independent and impartial, giving only advice. In the Sandleford case, we can safely assume that the planners may well have said that it would help the proposal if Warren Road was widened and that being the case, it would be prudent to get the agreement of the affected residents. All pretty obvious really. Easier said than done, but the developer then starts, or tries to start a conversation with those people. Of course, some are anti from the start. Of course, the proposal is still only a proposal. The developer sent a letter,he could have sent a letter - then we'd have had a 'Developers Heavies at my front door headline! The conversation about widening Warren Road is a commercial discussion and each side will do what it will to get the result they desire. What it doesn't do is demonstrate that the Council have shown any interest or partiality, demonstrate that Sandleford is right or wrong, or demonstrate the developer is acting inappropriately in any way. The only thing publication does show is that the resident is not going to be an easy call; but that's up to them and them alone.

I guess, from some of the replies here that few people know that one of the developer companies is owned by Mark Norgate's mum (Delia)

Do you mean 'could have knocked on doors'?

In that context, we might very well have had that headline, but in May, not in November and the nature of the agreement that the Commercial developer purported to have made with the Council might have been investigated further. Instead it appears that the NWN have lifted quotes straight from the letter, and this particular quote implies that the Council is involved in a commercial process:

"he and the council had agreed to ask homeowners in Warren Road if they wanted to sell enough land to accommodate the new road."

The way I see it, either someone at the Council has overstepped the mark, or the Developer has misinterpreted/overstated the advice he was given.

Sorry, but that's really playing with words. The council had not entered any agreement and couldn't do so without due process. What was meant is that the developer agreed with the advice he'd been given by the Council officers. In any event, what was so wrong about the developer wanting to talk to the householder? If the developer hadn't and he would have been totally within his rights not to, when his plans were made public, we'd have had the resident complaining that it was the first he'd heard about it!

https://www.opencompany.co.uk/profile/25489...a-lynne-norgate

https://www.opencompany.co.uk/company/02796...roperty-limited

So what?

Exactly, the Norgates have always been local developers and obviously when the father died, the company was continued by the family. It isn't dishonourable to earn a living even if the profits might make it a comfortable living but the reverse could be true of course.