|
|
Administrator |
| February 21, 2011, 1:51am |
|
|
Posts: 858
Posts Per Day: 0.78
|
Group photograph of local councillors and campaigners taken at the launch of the campaign at Falkland Memorial, close to the Sandleford site. Left to right: Diane Smith, Cllr Bob Morgan, Ashley Day (obscured behind the poster!), Cllr Jeff Brooks, Cllr Roger Hunneman, Cllr Julian Swift-Hook, Cllr David Rendel, Cllr Royce Longton, Cllr Billy Drummond West Berkshire’s Liberal Democrats have launched a campaign to stop 2,000 new homes being built on a greenfield site in Greenham. Sandleford Park is West Berkshire Council’s proposed strategic housing site for the next 15 years, but local councillors and campaigners are fighting the plans. “We have been opposing the plans since they were first suggested two years ago,” said Cllr Royce Longton, “but the Conservatives won’t listen, so we are asking local people to sign our petition to ‘Say NO to Sandleford’ and let the Council and the Planning Inspector know that we don’t want it. “There are other previously-developed sites that could provide West Berkshire’s housing needs for the next 15 years,” he continued, “so there is no need to build on Sandleford.” “Greenham already has DOUBLE the number of homes it had 16 years ago,” said Greenham councillor Julian Swift-Hook, “and we now have another 1,500 on the way at the Racecourse, which will double the number of homes in Greenham again. “Enough is enough – we just can’t cope with any more.” |
|
|
|
|
|
brian |
| February 21, 2011, 9:21am |
|
Posts: 1,965
Gender:  Male
Posts Per Day: 1.79
|
They certainly are a glum lot.
“There are other previously-developed sites that could provide West Berkshire’s housing needs for the next 15 years,” he continued, “so there is no need to build on Sandleford.”
Good reason if that was the case but somehow, I doubt it. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 26 |
| February 21, 2011, 12:54pm |
|
Guest User |
If they were in power they'd be developing there. It's just more opportunism. Next they'll be saying they are against tuition fees. They are all as bad as one another and not a single politician deserves a vote. |
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
massifheed |
| February 21, 2011, 1:54pm |
|
Posts: 396
Posts Per Day: 0.36
|
Quoted from 26
If they were in power they'd be developing there. It's just more opportunism. Next they'll be saying they are against tuition fees. They are all as bad as one another and not a single politician deserves a vote.
+1 |
|
|
|
|
|
PaulaM |
| February 21, 2011, 5:37pm |
|
Posts: 512
Posts Per Day: 0.55
|
|
|
|
|
|
LocalRes |
| February 21, 2011, 6:23pm |
|
Posts: 203
Gender:  Male
Posts Per Day: 0.19
|
How about a map highlighting the area in question! |
|
|
|
|
|
Administrator |
| February 21, 2011, 7:37pm |
|
|
Posts: 858
Posts Per Day: 0.78
|
How about a map highlighting the area in question!
If you click on the image above, you should see an enlargement of the proposed development. Items for discussion (Add any others that you feel are significant) 1. The number of dwellings involved. 2. The proximity to Park House School - Will the existing facility be expanded or will a new school be provided. 3. A very large open space/public park is being suggested between the development and the River Enbourne. 4 Where will the vehicular access points be sited? |
|
|
|
|
|
noobree |
| February 22, 2011, 6:02pm |
|
Posts: 394
Posts Per Day: 0.40
|
Luckily that nice Dave Cameron is introducing a Localism bill which means that local people will be 'empowered' and able to make their own decisions on planning without any nasty interference from councils and Whitehall. There's a PDF guide to the legislation here: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/1818597.pdfI believe we were promised that people would be able to vote on planning applications and that they'd only be agreed if they were given a 51% majority. An excellent idea, I'm sure we'd all agree. So presumably, once the legislation is passed, the newly empowered local people in Wash Common will be able to tell the developers precisely where to stick these proposals. They just need to delay any decision until then. I'm confident that our local councillors wouldn't want to rush Sandleford Park through just in case Wash Commoners aren't delighted at the prospect of this exciting new development. All very straightforward, then. Our local Libdems and Conservative representatives will, we can be confident, be working as closely together as Dave and Nick are to ensure that the promised empowerment, big society, etc. etc. is delivered in Newbury. (I do hope that I haven't got this all completely wrong and that 'localism', 'the big society' 'empowerment' and the rest just turns out to be so much eye wash.) |
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
| 78 |
| February 22, 2011, 6:11pm |
|
Guest User |
(I do hope that I haven't got this all completely wrong and that 'localism', 'the big society' 'empowerment' and the rest just turns out to be so much eye wash.)
LOL. As if! |
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
Cognosco |
| February 22, 2011, 7:03pm |
|
Posts: 465
Posts Per Day: 0.82
|
Luckily that nice Dave Cameron is introducing a Localism bill which means that local people will be 'empowered' and able to make their own decisions on planning without any nasty interference from councils and Whitehall. You mean let the plebs decide?? Are you really serious?? Of course you know the council know what is best for us.  |
|
|
|
|
|
| 78 |
| February 22, 2011, 8:57pm |
|
Guest User |
Actually it would be good if we could decide ourselves.
My & my neighbours wanted to build a bar in one of our gardens ( cheep beer, late night parties ) but we were stopped by the Council. Party poopers! |
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
blackdog |
| February 22, 2011, 11:23pm |
|
Posts: 1,321
Posts Per Day: 1.20
|
The first step to localism would be to recognise that the opinions of elected councillors are more important than those of planning officers. Today we are in the state that councillors don't bother to override planning officers recomendations because they know that the developer will probably win any appeal purely of the grounds that the planning officers recommended that councillors approve it. |
|
|
|
|
|
Greenham Common |
| February 22, 2011, 11:39pm |
|
Posts: 1,974
Gender:  Male
Posts Per Day: 1.80
Location: Equine way
|
If we decided for our selves, nothing would get done. |
|
|
|
|
|
richard.garvie |
| February 23, 2011, 9:18am |
|
Posts: 1,074
Posts Per Day: 1.73
|
The first step to localism would be to recognise that the opinions of elected councillors are more important than those of planning officers. Today we are in the state that councillors don't bother to override planning officers recomendations because they know that the developer will probably win any appeal purely of the grounds that the planning officers recommended that councillors approve it.
That's the joy of delegated powers. The powers need to be taken back from the officers. |
|
|
|
|
|
noobree |
| February 24, 2011, 6:37pm |
|
Posts: 394
Posts Per Day: 0.40
|
Do any of the councillors reading this know whether the localism (what a horrible word) bill will actually enable people in, say, Wash Common to have a say in whether hundreds of new houses are built on their doorstep? Or is it actually eyewash, as I surmised?
I see that a jobsworth councillor from Theale or some similarly godforsaken place in that direction has written to the NWN fully supporting Sandleford and making snide comments about his coalition partners. Not surprising at all, is it? Of course he wants thousands of new homes built in Newbury. He's from Theale.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
|