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?
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?
I think Cognosco is suggesting that West Berks cannot oganise a "piss up in a brewery" as you put it, and it's BECAUSE of this the district is in such a mess and developers are allowed to do what they want.
First of all, looking at the planning application detail, I see no mention of the Labour party or its representative making any formal objection to the planning application. So, who was it sent to, when and why is it not within the application. Was this just a release to the local paper. If you can see the objection on the WBC planning Richard then perhaps you could point us to it.
As far as the low cost housing is concerned, there is a paper within the application, which is in the public domain, from Sovereign Housing. From reading the document, it appears that they have been working with David Wilson Homes both in the past and on this development and seem to be quite happy with the proposals for this development and that the expectation is for 30%.
1 Bedroom apartment 16% 2 Bedroom apartment 54% 2 Bedroom house 17% 3 Bedroom house 10% 4 Bedroom house 3%
Their proposal is that of these affordable houses, 70% will be provided for affordable rent and 30% for low cost home ownership. The low cost ownership properties 40% equity will be sold with a rental of 2.75% of the unsold equity.
The precise percentage of affordable housing proposed in the current application is 26.3% (111 units of the 422 proposed in this phase), and I have verified that with the planning department. This is why I was concerned, the documentation and detail in the documents on planning portal mainly relates to the outline planning permission which has already been approved, but this is a reserve matters application which means you can only object against detail that varies from that outline permission.
I have objected via planning portal, here is the confirmation I recieved:
PublicAccess for Planning - Application Comments (11/00723/RESMAJ)
"Richard Garvie", you have been sent this email because you or somebody else has submitted a comment on a Planning Application to West Berkshire DC using your email address.
A summary of your comments is provided below.
Comments were submitted at 19/05/2011 17:17:02 from info@richardgarvie.com
Address: Newbury Racecourse Plc The Racecourse Newbury Berkshire RG14 7NZ
Proposal: Construction of 422 dwellings with associated access and amenities (Reserved Matters) for area "C" Western Area. Matters seeking consent Appearance, Landscaping, Layout, and Scale.
Case Officer: Michael Butler
Customer Details ---------------- Name: Richard Garvie
Address: XXX XXX Thatcham West Berkshire RGXX 3XX Customer objects to the Planning Application.
Comments: I would like to object on the grounds that this application does not meet the outline planning consent regarding affordable housing. In the outline application, we were assured that there would be a minimum requirement of 30%, and the new application suggests just 26.3%. This is unacceptable.
PublicAccess for Planning. (c) CAPS Solutions Ltd.
********************************************************************** This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed may not necessarily represent those of West Berkshire Council.
If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this e-mail in error.
All communication sent to or from West Berkshire Council may be subject to recording and or monitoring in accordance with UK legislation, are subject to the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and may therefore be disclosed to a third party on request.
Logged
Male
