|
|
 blackdog |
| November 7, 2010, 10:20pm |
|
Posts: 1,321
Posts Per Day: 1.20
|
It is the Red House I was thinking of. I've seen a picture of it as The Red House.
Now that's a picture I'd like to see! |
|
|
|
|
|
| Greenham Common |
| November 7, 2010, 11:59pm |
|
Posts: 1,974
Gender:  Male
Posts Per Day: 1.80
Location: Equine way
|
I'm sure the picture is in one of the Newbury history books. |
|
|
|
|
|
| brian |
|
Posts: 1,965
Gender: Male
Posts Per Day: 1.79
|
Just an update to an old thread that wandered a bit off course but started out as the refusal of the site owner's application to build on and decontaminate Sterling Estate`.
A new application has been entered to the planning department after, as far as I know, discussions with WBC with what they will and won't allow. The site owners have gone to great lengths to solve Mr Hunneman's vociferous objections to the "tower blocks" that were in that original application. The highest building is now only seven storeys high and the highest roof line is now comparable with the Railway Road houses. In fact the developers have gone to great trouble to ensure that the Kings Road and Gordon Road residents are not overlooked to any great extent and have added a group of town houses facing Kings Road.
It seems that the link Road is not on the plans but I don't think you can have your cake and eat it and I believe the back room boys at WBC have decided that it is no longer required. Pity they didn't tell Rachael Lancaster of the transport Policy dept of WBC.
There are a couple of knee jerk objections from members of the public who haven't, it seems, taken the trouble to look at the plans as they are still banging on about tower blocks.
The recommendations from the said R Roberts really made me smile. I wondered what planet she currently resides on.
For a 190 apartment development she wants
280 cycle parking spaces
Because it is a residential development, cycling to work should not be included in the travel plan for the development.
As an alternative to the 5 year travel plan she wants the developer to provide cycle training for all residents and provide a discount scheme to enable residents to purchase a cycle.
By the way she identifies the new occupants as "perspective residents". Ah well, even a spell checker won't get that one.
Oh, and the icing on the cake as far as S106 payments, the library has asked for £26,786. Nice one in these times when the council is cutting back on the essential services to the disadvantaged. As far as I'm concerned, libraries should be low on the money grabbing but as of todays date, they are first.
The NWNews suggests that the public consultation ends on Wednesday February 1st so where and when is this going to happen. |
|
|
|
|
|
| brian |
|
Posts: 1,965
Gender: Male
Posts Per Day: 1.79
|
One other thing that Rachael Lancaster slips in is that WBC do not operate a car sharing database. That to me is an error of omission but anyway, I'm not sure if implemented it does work but there are loads of councils that operate a database. A phone call would be good. If she wants the link it's here..... http://www.nationalcarshare.co.uk/downloads/pdfs/how_car_sharing_works.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
| brian |
| February 2, 2012, 12:59pm |
|
Posts: 1,965
Gender: Male
Posts Per Day: 1.79
|
Judging by the results of that august body of persons leading or attempting to lead the town, Newbury Town Council were swayed into objecting to the sterling development plans, based this time mainly on road traffic increase by the apartment occupants who will all drive their cars to the Sainsbury's roundabout just when Mr Hunneman and Mr Anthony Pick want to travel down the A339. Trouble is that the developer has resolved the problem with the building height so Mr Hunneman needed another reason to not want the development to happen. Like a group of sheep, the council followed his lead. In actual fact anybody who thinks through the development would realise that some of the people will be turning right out of the estate to go east and that the percentage of people leaving the estate by car will be considerably less than that from an out of town estate such as that proposed on the racecourse and Sandleford. Equally, if one calculates the amount of traffic on and off the estate today, I doubt there will be any increase in the number of vehicles entering and leaving bearing in mind that today there are four garages which service cars including all their multiple daily van deliveries, a used tyre bay, a car valet business and a company that sells bottled industrial gas with all the commercial movements that go with that. Transforming the estate into a residential development will almost certainly ease the traffic flow down Kings Road not increase it. Pity that somebody didn't do their homework.
The Gordon Road resident believes that the value of his property will be devalued because of being overlooked. Well, lets not build anything because anywhere one builds there will be a matter of overlooking but the bonus point from his point of view is that the contamination will be cleared up and when a prospective purchaser for his property does a land search that will no longer be an issue for them. I wouldn't want to live near that sort of contamination.
What is it with these guys, they didn't want tower blocks and now they have been removed from the plans, they still don't want the development of the biggest eyesore visible to every rail visitor to the town and the potentially dangerous underlying pollution directly on top of our drinking water aquifer. The polluter was the old Newbury Borough Council who owned the original Gas Works and latterly, the Gas board, so might this end up as a taxpayer's problem if the clean up is not done for free by Nelson-Geneva who have no responsibility for the pollution. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 26 |
|
Guest User |
Perhaps they just don't fancy having a building site for a neighbour for the forseeable future? |
|
 Logged |
|
|
|
|
| blackdog |
| February 2, 2012, 10:39pm |
|
Posts: 1,321
Posts Per Day: 1.20
|
They may not be as high as the original proposal but the site would still have some very tall buildings. But the biggest downside of the new plans is the loss of the relief road. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Nobby |
| February 3, 2012, 12:59pm |
|
Posts: 630
Gender: Male
Posts Per Day: 0.58
Location: Newbury
|
................The Gordon Road resident believes that the value of his property will be devalued because of being overlooked. Well, lets not build anything because anywhere one builds there will be a matter of overlooking but the bonus point from his point of view is that the contamination will be cleared up and when a prospective purchaser for his property does a land search that will no longer be an issue for them. I wouldn't want to live near that sort of contamination.
................
Wasn't the land marked as industrial on the Town Plan? Perhaps we should oblige this resident with an indusrial estate! I have objections to some of the large estates (racecourse / Sandleford) on the basis that the infrastrucure roads / water is not able to cope, Smaller estates like this are acceptable. |
|
| Logged |
|
|
|
|
| John C |
|
Posts: 27
Posts Per Day: 0.13
|
How tall is the tower on Sterling Estate or the flats in the Park Way development. So surely if its not as tall as that either of them it should be allright. |
|
|
|
|
|
| brian |
|
Posts: 1,965
Gender: Male
Posts Per Day: 1.79
|
|
|
|
|
|
| brian |
|
Posts: 1,965
Gender: Male
Posts Per Day: 1.79
|
They may not be as high as the original proposal but the site would still have some very tall buildings. But the biggest downside of the new plans is the loss of the relief road.
Possibly, but what the residents of Gordon Road haven't sussed is that at the moment they are sheilded from the Kings Road and Mill lane traffic noise. Stick a road through from SCATS and they will get the full value of the traffic noise in both directions. I believe that the council have doubts about the value of that road proposal and probably don't have enough spare money to develop their bit now or in the future. |
|
|
|
|
|
| blackdog |
| February 4, 2012, 10:44am |
|
Posts: 1,321
Posts Per Day: 1.20
|
Possibly, but what the residents of Gordon Road haven't sussed is that at the moment they are sheilded from the Kings Road and Mill lane traffic noise. Stick a road through from SCATS and they will get the full value of the traffic noise in both directions.
I believe that the council have doubts about the value of that road proposal and probably don't have enough spare money to develop their bit now or in the future.
But doesn't the traffic plan for the racecourse development include it? Regarding the height - I thought the new plans had seven storey blocks - ie the same as Parkway. It seems that successive developments are gradually raising the bar - I'm afraid high rise Newbury is with us for good (10/12 storey on the racecourse). As for the Sterling cables tower, I thought that the owners had an obligation to take down the corrugated iron bit at the top for safety reasons. PS BB - is there any way I can persuade the forum editor to recognise that I am English and that storey and recognise are not incorrectly spelt? Is it the forum or my own settings? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Greenham Common |
| February 4, 2012, 11:59am |
|
Posts: 1,974
Gender: Male
Posts Per Day: 1.80
Location: Equine way
|
PS BB - is there any way I can persuade the forum editor to recognise that I am English and that storey and recognise are not incorrectly spelt? Is it the forum or my own settings?
It is probably your Internet browser set to spellcheck with a US dictionary! |
|
|
|
|
|
| brian |
|
Posts: 1,965
Gender: Male
Posts Per Day: 1.79
|
PS BB - is there any way I can persuade the forum editor to recognise that I am English and that storey and recognise are not incorrectly spelt? Is it the forum or my own settings?
Does the bulletin board have a spell checker, mine doesn't seem to have one. |
|
|
|
|
|
| blackdog |
|
Posts: 1,321
Posts Per Day: 1.20
|
Does the bulletin board have a spell checker, mine doesn't seem to have one.
Must be something on my machine then. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
