The following posting is taken from recent literature issued by the "Say No to Sandleford" campaign and does not necessarily reflect the views of newbury.net The posting is intended to stimulate debate. Say NO to 2000 houses on a greenfield site.
West berkshire Council wants to build 2,000 houses on greenfield land at Sandleford Park. "Say no to Sandleford" is a group of local residents who have serious concerns about the proposed development and believe that.
This will cause gridlock in South Newbury.
We will lose valuable green fields and open spaces.
There are OTHER and BETTER solutions for West Berkshire's housing needs! If you agree with our views please join us and help us stop this development - It is not too late!
Go to Newbury Town Council's Public Meeting at Newbury Rugby Club on Wednesday 7th of December.
The decision has NOT yet been made: It's not too late for you to influence the decision; The consultation closes on 16th December. West Berkshire Council recommends Sandleford; The plannig inspector has not agreed.
An unsustainable development 2,000 homes = 3,000 cars... making local roads much more congested.
There are much BETTER options: Revitalise the town centre by converting empty office buildings into flats. Create mixed-use developments with homes above business space. Build smaller, sustainable developments in and around the town.
What action can you take?
Go along to Newbury Town Council's Public meeting at Newbury Rugby Club on Wednesday 7th December at 7pm.
Join us on Facebook: SayNO toSandleford or Twitter: @SandlefordSayNo.
Respond to the consultation directly as an individual on http://www.westberks.gov.uk (The website wwwsaynotosandleford.org.uk has a section to help you do this).
We are organising a weekly walk across the Park
The first one will be this Sunday, 4th December, starting at 11.30am from the Warren Road/Andover Road junction.
Please come along and bring your family, friends and neighbours, pets etc.
The idea is to have protest banners, so anything you can bring along would be great. The press will be invited, so it is important that we get as many people as possible to come along. As the idea takes off we hope that the Sandleford Walk will grow and grow.
And, if you needed an added incentive, we will be heading for the Swan in Newtown, before returning across the Park!
Development in the town won't be enough - green fields somewhere will go.
Given that the Sandleford option looks good to me, schools, surgery, shops, all on the doorstep. The plans to push all the traffic via Monk's Lane is dodgy, but otherwise it seems as sensible a place to build as any.
Other elements of the traffic issue are a red herring - wherever they are built the new homes will increase traffic in the area.
Development in the town won't be enough - green fields somewhere will go.
Given that the Sandleford option looks good to me, schools, surgery, shops, all on the doorstep. The plans to push all the traffic via Monk's Lane is dodgy, but otherwise it seems as sensible a place to build as any.
Other elements of the traffic issue are a red herring - wherever they are built the new homes will increase traffic in the area.
I agree that this is probably the best site to suit the current requirements
What happens in the protestors are successful and the development at Sandelford is blocked? Anyone know? We need to understand the full implications of not going ahead.
What happens in the protestors are successful and the development at Sandelford is blocked? Anyone know? We need to understand the full implications of not going ahead.
The odds are that the houses will be built on another green field site. Several other landowners are in the queue.
well welcome back dodgy to the real world, the plans to build new homes have to to placed somewhere and it is an obvious site. I guess you are a NIMBY so i can understand your comment or are you in collusion with other people to try and stop this development
I heard that if the inspector throws Sandelford out central government will essentially trash the Local Development Plan and give a free-for-all to landowners and developers.
If that's true the consequences for Newbury and West Berkshire could be horrendous, with speculative housing thrown up all over the district. Any thoughts on that, Mr Vickers? If think the objectors have a duty to spell out both sides of the argument.
I heard that if the inspector throws Sandelford out central government will essentially trash the Local Development Plan and give a free-for-all to landowners and developers. .
If the LDF disappears Sandleford would still probably be one of the first sites developed - its only hope is to get the LDF to incorporate an alternative site - none of which, in my opinion, are as suitable.
What happens in the protestors are successful and the development at Sandelford is blocked? Anyone know? We need to understand the full implications of not going ahead.
The only other option on the table is to develop the Fairhursts land around Vodafone HQ (you know, the bit that floods), outside of Newbury parish in Shaw-cum-Donnington. Vodafone have objected strongly. As the Fairhursts are also fighting for the Grundon waste incinerator on their land at Chieveley, people on the north side of town could be in for a shock.
It is quite a big site for development but there is still a lot of parkland and woodland left over which may get more common use after the development so long as it is not retained as private land. If the planning condition identifies this, then I see it as acceptable. Just in case we're not sure, here's the original map of the area.
The only other option on the table is to develop the Fairhursts land around Vodafone HQ (you know, the bit that floods), outside of Newbury parish in Shaw-cum-Donnington. Vodafone have objected strongly. As the Fairhursts are also fighting for the Grundon waste incinerator on their land at Chieveley, people on the north side of town could be in for a shock.
There is also the Siege Cross site that was considered for the LDF - and, lets face it, every other field adjoining Newbury or Thatcham.
I heard that if the inspector throws Sandelford out central government will essentially trash the Local Development Plan and give a free-for-all to landowners and developers.
A great way of frightening people into agreeing with Sandleford, but not true. The existing national planning rules (PPS1, PPS2, PPS 3 etc etc) will still apply regardless, and so will the "saved policies" from the last WBC Local Plan that are still in place.
A great way of frightening people into agreeing with Sandleford, but not true. The existing national planning rules (PPS1, PPS2, PPS 3 etc etc) will still apply regardless, and so will the "saved policies" from the last WBC Local Plan that are still in place.
Existing planning rules are only in force until the planned new rules (National Plannng Policy Framework) are introduced - which will reduce the ability of councils to prevent development.
Some quotes from the framework: Housing Objectives 107. The Government’s key housing objective is to increase significantly the delivery of new homes. 108. To enable this, the planning system should aim to deliver a sufficient quantity, quality and range of housing consistent with the land use principles and other polices of this Framework. 109. To boost the supply of housing, local planning authorities should: • use an evidence-base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full requirements for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, including identifying key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy over the plan period • identify and maintain a rolling supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements. The supply should include an additional allowance of at least 20 per cent to ensure choice and competition in the market for land • identify a supply of specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15 • not make allowance for windfall sites in the first 10 years of supply, or in the rolling five-year supply, unless they can provide compelling evidence of genuine local circumstances that prevent specific sites being identified.
All of which means that, unless WBC identify sites for development (presumably for 10,500 homes or more) the LDF will be pointless. The wishy washy words used by the anti-Sandleford lobby that suggest that there is a viable alternative to Sandleford within brownfield sites in town are meaningless - only used to avoid the reality - green fields somewhere will be built on. If this must happen then Sandleford seems to me to be a better location than the others considered (though I suspect they will all be built on eventually).
A great way of frightening people into agreeing with Sandleford, but not true. The existing national planning rules (PPS1, PPS2, PPS 3 etc etc) will still apply regardless, and so will the "saved policies" from the last WBC Local Plan that are still in place.
If it's true it certainly worries me and we're hearing different stories here. Where can I find published information to corroborate your assertion?
Existing planning rules are only in force until the planned new rules (National Plannng Policy Framework) are introduced - which will reduce the ability of councils to prevent development.
Reduce? Maybe. Totally stop? No. And the NPPF includes replacement national planning rules, not no planning rules. So no "free-for-all", even in the worst case scenario.
Oh, and by the way, the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) is still only draft, so it doesn't yet apply. And by the time it does - next year sometime, maybe - WBC should have been able to sort out the bits that are wrong with their strategy and get it in place. Meanwhile a temporary lack of a core strategy doesn't mean that people can then go around building stuff without applying for planning permission!
Reduce? Maybe. Totally stop? No. And the NPPF includes replacement national planning rules, not no planning rules. So no "free-for-all", even in the worst case scenario.
The emphasis will almost certainly be on the council to approve development unless it fails a more limited set of criteria than are now in place.
Oh, and by the way, the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) is still only draft, so it doesn't yet apply. And by the time it does - next year sometime, maybe - WBC should have been able to sort out the bits that are wrong with their strategy and get it in place. Meanwhile a temporary lack of a core strategy doesn't mean that people can then go around building stuff without applying for planning permission!
By the time Sandleford or any other large development plans get as far as a planning application the NPPF will be in force - it's pointless looking at such an application in terms of the current rules.
As for WBC correct the bits that are wrong - that is a largely subjective issue. I happen to believe that Sandleford is the best place to build a large housing estate - if such a development must be built in this area.
I would prefer that no such development was built, I think Newbury/Thatcham is big enough already - but I also recognize that the government don't agree with me, and that they have a lot more power to see that such development happens than I have to stop it.
The NPPF will require WBC to identify sites for building thousands of new homes in the next few years - unless WBC can be really creative and somehow prove there is no need for these extra homes (pigs might fly).
The anti-Sandleford lobby (http://www.saynotosandleford.org.uk/) says that there is no need to build on greenfield sites and that the 2,000 homes can be built on brownfield sites in town. However, WBC will already have taken into account planned developments such as Faraday Plaza and the West Street flats (replacing office buildings between Cromwell Place and Pembroke Road) - all of which seem to be counted by the anti-Sandleford folk. Counting developments twice does not get twice as many homes built.
Having protested about the loss of a greenfield site they then take aim at another greenfield site - clearly targeting 'north Newbury' - better known as Shaw - as the real alternative. In short they want the houses built someone else and don't really care where - as long as it's not in their back yard.
Having protested about the loss of a greenfield site they then take aim at another greenfield site - clearly targeting 'north Newbury' - better known as Shaw - as the real alternative. In short they want the houses built someone else and don't really care where - as long as it's not in their back yard.
...yes, I found it a bit strange to see Cllr Vickers campaigning vigorously to protect nimbies in Wash Common, and in so doing cause many of his constituents (Northcroft ward abuts Shaw-cum-Donnington) such a massive amount of disruption. Perhaps it's because he doesn't get up that way much.
Huge amounts of coverage for this in the NWN, I see.
Meanwhile what happens in the event that the 'Wrong solution' campaigners get their way seems completely unclear. No one has posted any links to any explanatory material. Councillor Vickers keeps saying 'of course there will be a plan' and 'there won't be a free for all' but he would, wouldn't he? I think I like the idea of using more brownfield sites, but has any credible case been made that there's space available and, if so, the developers would actually use it?
I have no idea whether Sandlesford is the wrong solution or the least worst solution. It's obviously not very popular with quite a few people who live in Wash Common, but I can see that wouldn't be a very good campaign slogan.
I think we need to be sure that, if the campaigners get their way, we don't instead end up with something that turns out to be Newbury - the worst possible solution. Don't we?
I think we need to be sure that, if the campaigners get their way, we don't instead end up with something that turns out to be Newbury - the worst possible solution. Don't we?
The whole idea of the Local Development Framework is to go through a process to decide what is the best possible solution - Sandleford has been chosen after a lengthy process, with public consultation along the way. Needless to say there are those who dislike the result - which would be the case whichever greenfield site was chosen.
The No to Sandleford campaigners just want to stop that particular development - the result they seem to favour is to use some nebulous brownfield sites. However the government won't wear that - WBC must identify sufficient sites to deliver sufficient new homes. The No campaigners next solution is to build on the fields at Shaw - not that they spend much time telling anyone that - but take a look at their website, particularly on the issue of the sustainability appraisal.
In short they want to stop a specific development because it is in their locality - most of them don't care where the houses will be built as long as it is not near them.
Read Simon Kirby's comments on the plans for the development at Shaw - in terms of modern developments this is outstandingly good. Lots of houses (not ideal, but WBC can't choose not to build them, they must go somewhere), lots of land turned from private 'no tresspassing' land into public open space, ancient woodlands preserved and opened to the public, parkland down to the river. Schools provided, shopping on the doorstep. This is the sort of development a local authority could be proud of.
The wishy washy words used by the anti-Sandleford lobby that suggest that there is a viable alternative to Sandleford within brownfield sites in town are meaningless - only used to avoid the reality - green fields somewhere will be built on. If this must happen then Sandleford seems to me to be a better location than the others considered (though I suspect they will all be built on eventually).
When the government inspector threw out the LIB DEM plans to build 1800 in Sandleford 10 years ago, they came up with the same thing then....use smaller sites throughout the district. As a result, the developer contributions were minimised, and fewer amenities were provided.
Of course Cllr Vickers likes to fight against small brownfield developments too, like demolishing houses to make way for flats in Craven Road and Rockingham Road.
With such muddied thinking it's a sure bet that Sandleford will win the day.
There was an excellent article about this by Richard Adams, author of Watership Down, in yesterday's Daily Telegraph. It is online at http://tinyurl.com/c5udy47.
There was an excellent article about this by Richard Adams, author of Watership Down, in yesterday's Daily Telegraph. It is online at http://tinyurl.com/c5udy47.
Yes, a pretty emotional appeal but as he says a couple of times, the land is in private hands and he fails to say that a large proportion of Sandleford remains after the building work is finished, especially down into the valley.
If WBC get their way, I do hope that as part of the deal, the whole area transfers to public ownership and is designated as common land so that no further building can take place on the site. I'm sure this would soften the blow and we would have a new country park which can be accessed easily by the public and provide the refuge for his bunny rabbits and kingfishers.
I used to do a paper round in the old days around Newtown and up across the common and I know the area well. It is already totally different from when I was a lad, as it will be for Richard Adams. There is now the A339 major road, the new, comparitively, road that goes East towards Basingstoke, this road built when the Americans grabbed the common for their airbase, and the intrusive new rubbish transfer depot. Unlike him though, I didn't know that Sandleford was available for the public to walk across. Slightly different if it became as part of the deal a country park where perhaps families could picnic.
I suspect this will end up a done deal so what the nimbys might feel beneficial would be ensuring that the total package transfers into public ownership and that the green bits are designated as protected land. The value of Sandleford as it stands will be multiplied by at least 10 times so for the owners to get their golden egg, they must be pressurised into doing a deal to our, the Council tax payers, benefit. I know WBC don't have a very good track record in that direction (£1.00 car parks and giving major concessions to a developer for instance) but now might be the time for them to redeem themselves.
Yes, a pretty emotional appeal but as he says a couple of times, the land is in private hands and he fails to say that a large proportion of Sandleford remains after the building work is finished, especially down into the valley.
If WBC get their way, I do hope that as part of the deal, the whole area transfers to public ownership and is designated as common land so that no further building can take place on the site. I'm sure this would soften the blow and we would have a new country park which can be accessed easily by the public and provide the refuge for his bunny rabbits and kingfishers.
I used to do a paper round in the old days around Newtown and up across the common and I know the area well. It is already totally different from when I was a lad, as it will be for Richard Adams. There is now the A339 major road, the new, comparitively, road that goes East towards Basingstoke, this road built when the Americans grabbed the common for their airbase, and the intrusive new rubbish transfer depot. Unlike him though, I didn't know that Sandleford was available for the public to walk across. Slightly different if it became as part of the deal a country park where perhaps families could picnic.
I suspect this will end up a done deal so what the nimbys might feel beneficial would be ensuring that the total package transfers into public ownership and that the green bits are designated as protected land. The value of Sandleford as it stands will be multiplied by at least 10 times so for the owners to get their golden egg, they must be pressurised into doing a deal to our, the Council tax payers, benefit. I know WBC don't have a very good track record in that direction (£1.00 car parks and giving major concessions to a developer for instance) but now might be the time for them to redeem themselves.
I do beleive they have gone beyond redemption and we have a council no longer fit for purpose as they no longer represent the views of the taxpayers.
Once building has started on the site you can quickly forget about open spaces and picnic parks. They will be allowed to build to the highest concentration per acre and will expand to the fullest extent that the council can hope to get away with. Remember the developers tell our council what they want and our council falls over backwards to accomodate them. It will be interesting to see what social housing is included and what we actually end up with again? Perhaps a sweepstake on numbers would be a good idea? It would also be very interesting to see how the finished site compares to the original plans. If the usual happens then you will be hard pressed to find any similarities. This is Newbury after all!
Logged
Male
Female
