The Labour Party in West Berkshire have formally objected to plans to build 422 dwellings at Newbury Racecourse. The decision was made by the party after plans revealed a further dilution of affordable housing within the planned development. Under the application submitted, objections may only be made if the proposals vary against the outline planning permission agreed previously.
Richard Garvie, spokesman for Labour in West Berkshire, said that although there was a serious lack of additional infrastructure to make the project viable, he was powerless to call for improvements as the outline planning consent has already been awarded. "It's a shame that the application was given outline planning permission previously as there is a serious lack of improvements to the road network and other infrastructure to make the development sustainable. What we will object to this time around is the amount of affordable housing within the development which, as predicted, has been further diluted to just 26%. The outline planning consent requires 30%, so if that percentage is not met, we will fully expect the officers to recommend refusal."
Mr Garvie stated that should the application be refused, he would like to see a round table discussion to see what infrastructure improvements could be made to the project.
Because the commitment in the LDF for the Racecourse was 35%, which they have since tried to remove (I have consistantly opposed this). I said that without a commitment, we would continue to see further dilution, and I believe this application has proved me right. The council were very clear that any subsequent application which involved less than 30% affordable housing would be refused. Let's hope the council stick to their word.
What was the original proposal for affordable housing at Parkway (percentage)?
I don't see why developers should have to dilute the quality of their development by building council houses because in reality, that's what they are being forced to do. If the council want social housing, or council houses to use an old term, let the council build them. It was the Conservative government that screwed the whole status quo up by selling the council stock cheaply, a Maggie decision, and not rebuilding to compensate. This right to buy is a millstone and it has forced the whole market pricing to spiral upwards.
I don't see why developers should have to dilute the quality of their development by building council houses because in reality, that's what they are being forced to do. If the council want social housing, or council houses to use an old term, let the council build them. It was the Conservative government that screwed the whole status quo up by selling the council stock cheaply, a Maggie decision, and not rebuilding to compensate. This right to buy is a millstone and it has forced the whole market pricing to spiral upwards.
Is this not all factored in the planning process: how much land is worth to develop. If a developer wants to build something, its social impact has to be evaluated. I wouldn't know, but I guess there is a formula somewhere that gives the 'ideal' ecology for a community to function.
At the end of the day, people have to live somewhere and I wouldn't be surprised that a lot of this demand for 'exclusive' homes is born out of the big sell-off in the 80s. If so, then I feel there should be some pay-back for that.
I don't see why developers should have to dilute the quality of their development by building council houses because in reality, that's what they are being forced to do. If the council want social housing, or council houses to use an old term, let the council build them. It was the Conservative government that screwed the whole status quo up by selling the council stock cheaply, a Maggie decision, and not rebuilding to compensate. This right to buy is a millstone and it has forced the whole market pricing to spiral upwards.
You are thinking of social housing, and I accept some of the affordable housing may be purchased by Sovereign. But affordable housing is generally housing that is built to a lower spec to allow first time buyers to get onto the ladder. Nothing to do with council housing.
My argument is that the developer originally proposed 35% in order to be granted planning permission. Now they have permission, they are trying to reduce it to 26%. What's to say it won't end up like Parkway, where there is barely anything left? We need to stop the developers from holding the council to ransom.
You are thinking of social housing, and I accept some of the affordable housing may be purchased by Sovereign. But affordable housing is generally housing that is built to a lower spec to allow first time buyers to get onto the ladder. Nothing to do with council housing.
What is affordable housing and what does building to a lower spec mean. How do two houses side by side qualify one for the sales portfolio the other affordable. Who is in the market for these lower spec cheaper houses if it is not the housing association. How to turn a decent street into a shanty town in two easy lessons. Just take a walk up Pound Street and have a look at the battered down doors on what were decent houses.
What is affordable housing and what does building to a lower spec mean.
Here we go again, and I'm sure you have asked this before. Unofficially an affordable house would be a house that someone/some people can afford who is or on an average income.
Lower spec means just that: smaller/fewer rooms and cupboards, cheaper fixtures and fittings and designs.
How to turn a decent street into a shanty town in two easy lessons. Just take a walk up Pound Street and have a look at the battered down doors on what were decent houses.
A bit presumptuous is it not, considering the community hasn't even been established yet? Let alone snobbish.
10% is what the developers knocked it down to. It was more than that at approval stage. The Tory and Lib Dems blinked first.
0% was what the developers knocked it down to - instead thay paid (or promised to pay) a £100k S106 payment, enough to build one or two cheap houses if you don't have to buy the land.
0% was what the developers knocked it down to - instead thay paid (or promised to pay) a £100k S106 payment, enough to build one or two cheap houses if you don't have to buy the land.
But for clarification, what was the amount requested at the beginning? We've seen how SLI manipulated the council over time, but that is because the council left themselves open to it.
As for the Racecourse development, it's all about principles. They said they would provide 35%. The council let them reduce it to 30% in the outline permission and said that they wouldn't allow it to be diluted further. They need to stand firm and refuse further dilution, and as the reserved matters application suggests 26%, it must be refused otherwise the council stand to be accused of u-turns, broken promises and such like.
But for clarification, what was the amount requested at the beginning? We've seen how SLI manipulated the council over time, but that is because the council left themselves open to it.
As for the Racecourse development, it's all about principles. They said they would provide 35%. The council let them reduce it to 30% in the outline permission and said that they wouldn't allow it to be diluted further. They need to stand firm and refuse further dilution, and as the reserved matters application suggests 26%, it must be refused otherwise the council stand to be accused of u-turns, broken promises and such like.
WBC Refuse an application from a developer? The first part of any application is only to defelect any objectors. In reality the developer does exactly as he wants when has it been any different in Newbury? The planning department only object when local people put in a planning application to try and show that they are worth the taxpayers money. Any developer comes along and they roll over and say of course you can do as you like. That is why Newbury is in the state it is now.
The state it is now? According to you the council could not organise a piss up in a brewery. Good job the council did let the developers do what they want, eh?
Logged
Male
