Graham,

The original LDF submission is posted here: http://consult.westberks.gov.uk/portal/pla...d=1266958890400 . The changes in the wording of certain bullet points on the LDF will alter the text from Phased delivery of up to 1,450 homes, of which at least 35% will be affordable to "phased delivery of up to 1,500 homes" (see page 8 of attached document). What is to stop the racecourse developer from diluting the percentage of affordable homes within the development after the removal of this text?

It is all very well saying that proposing to dilute the percentage of affordable homes and actually being given permission to do so are completely different things. At the same time, with any alterations to planning policy, there will always be temptation in the future of incentives to award change in consent etc. A few million extra in s106 payments, and suddenly a reduction in affordable housing as part of this development may not appear to be so bad to the councillor taking the decision.

Because the consultation is hidden away and has not been publicised, very few people will know about it. The way the consultation is being carried out, respondents are only allowed to make submissions regarding the legality and soundness of the changes to the text in this document therefore making it almost impossible to stop these alterations. To me, it appears that the 35% inclusion of affordable housing was a carrot to get the development included in the housing strategy, and the plan now is to remove the commitment in the LDF to allow the developer to potentially reduce the percentage of the affordable housing allocation.

I do appreciate you taking time out of your day to speak to me this morning, but as leader of the council I would expect you to know about this consultation at the very least. As leader of the council, it is you who should be directing the officers as to housing policy in the area, not the other way around. If nothing is done to stop this, it will be yet another example of unelected officers railroading their own policy changes through knowing that they are unaccountable to anyone. Maybe this is one of the reasons why the public are becoming increasingly frustrated at the level of poorly though out development in West Berkshire.

I look forward to hearing back from you later today, as I am sure you will appreciate that timing is of the essence with regards to the consultation.

Regards,

Richard Garvie

Quoted from richard.garvie

I look forward to hearing back from you later today,

Don't 'old yer breath...


Threep.

The affordable home element of Parkway was removed in return for a £100k payment - I suspect you are over estimating the S106 payout from the Racecourse.

Other changes to the LDF seem to be reflecting changes to government policy (notably the reduction/removal of housing density requirements).  I wonder if the affordable housing bit is also government influenced.

Labour set targets to pressurise local planners into allowing more building, the Tories seem to want even more building, but haven't quite worked out how to go about it yet.  Heard an item on R4 a few days back - a chap from a group called 250 New Towns (or similar).  He was campaigning for the virtual removal of any powers that enable local authorities to prevent building anywhere - with the aim of building 500,000 new homes every year. A government minister was included and seemed quite sympathetic ...

OK, so I DID recieve a reply (better not post it), but I will summarise for you.

* Core Strategy is due to be examined by an Independent Inspector in a public forum at Shaw House in November, he says the changes will be debated and responses submitted will be considered (although the councils website suggests that only comments regarding "legality" and "soundness" of these changes will be considered).

* Apparently the council have awarded planning permission for 1,500 units, only 30% of which will be affordable so this is why the 35% quota is being removed (as I actually understand it, the 35% applies to the original proposal of 1,400 and when it was increased, the affordable quota became diluted). As a result, West Berks have suggested to the inspector that the change to the LDF is made to reflect the consent given when the increase in units was permitted.

* He goes on to say that any developer can request to change consent on viability, but this doesn't have to be granted. HOWEVER, if the 35% text in the LDF remained, the developer in this case would have to honour it as long as that text was there. Once the text is gone, they could dilute it as much as they want if they did a deal with the council. isn't the problem in West Berkshire a LACK OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING??? Why on earth have they awarded consent with 30% affordable quota when their own LDF demands a 35% quota on this site???

* He says that following the adoption of the Core Strategy and assuming that Policy CS3 is amended as per the proposed changes then any new application for development would have to comply with the adopted policy. Well, that's easy to say once you remove the minimum quota of affordable housing!!!

If I wish to comment further, I can contact Mr Lyttle apparently... I think I'll just try and campaign against this change myself. I would encourage everyone who feels strongly about affordable housing to submit a response to this consultation, even if they fiddle it so that the comments cannot contribute to the overall decision, at least the inspector will see that there is strong local feeling.

Richard

Finally, some of out elected members are starting to twig:

http://newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=14784

For the record:

35% of 1450 units in the original LDF: 507.5
30% of 1500 units that have been given consent would be: 450 units (a reduction of 57.5, so still worse off)
Planning consent actually requires 439 units on the Racecourse site, which is LESS than 30%!!! That is why they can't simply change the text calling for a minimum of 30% affordable housing within the development. Somebody at West Berks wasn't using a calculator!!!

I am still a bit confused about what is an 'affordable house'. Does the developer build 100 houses to a high standard and 35 to a lower standard. i.e. they are cheaper to buy.
Just define for me affordable housing.

I understand, I think, what social housing is, that's what we used to call Council Houses isn't it, administered by sovereign housing.

Quoted from brian

I am still a bit confused about what is an 'affordable house'. Does the developer build 100 houses to a high standard and 35 to a lower standard. i.e. they are cheaper to buy.
Just define for me affordable housing.

I understand, I think, what social housing is, that's what we used to call Council Houses isn't it, administered by sovereign housing.

Social and affordable are similar.  They will be built with modest size rooms, garden space, etc.  They would be priced at no-more than what a typical first time buyer would be looking to pay.

So, why should the developer care then. The assumption is that for say every two normal dwellings he can build, in the same space, he could perhaps fit three affordable homes that he can knock out in half the time and at a lower specification. He can make his profit, therefore what's the big deal regarding these cheapo houses or, are the normal price houses financing them. If that is true, I can understand why developers are keen to dob a few quid to WBC to get their quota down. To be honest, I see no reason why a developer should be forced to build low cost houses within their development anyway. If the government want them then let the government build them.
And, who markets these houses, are they sold through the normal channels or what.

It depends if you think towns like Newbury don't want to see police, nurses, carers, etc, move out of town to seek cheaper equivalent housing.  If you leave development to the developers; what do you think Newbury would look like?

Quoted from richard.garvie

Finally, some of out elected members are starting to twig:

http://newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=14784

For the record:

35% of 1450 units in the original LDF: 507.5
30% of 1500 units that have been given consent would be: 450 units (a reduction of 57.5, so still worse off)
Planning consent actually requires 439 units on the Racecourse site, which is LESS than 30%!!! That is why they can't simply change the text calling for a minimum of 30% affordable housing within the development. Somebody at West Berks wasn't using a calculator!!!

To be fair and judging by their normal budgetting standards this is pretty close!!

Quoted from brian

So, why should the developer care then. The assumption is that for say every two normal dwellings he can build, in the same space, he could perhaps fit three affordable homes that he can knock out in half the time and at a lower specification. He can make his profit, therefore what's the big deal regarding these cheapo houses or, are the normal price houses financing them. If that is true, I can understand why developers are keen to dob a few quid to WBC to get their quota down. To be honest, I see no reason why a developer should be forced to build low cost houses within their development anyway. If the government want them then let the government build them.
And, who markets these houses, are they sold through the normal channels or what.

If you have a lot of 'affordable' housing next door to your 6 bed 4 bath 'executive' homes it makes the latter harder to sell & for less money.

Quoted from Nobby

To be fair and judging by their normal budgetting standards this is pretty close!!

Still seems to be made "off the cuff". Should our authority be run like that?

Quoted from 78

If you have a lot of 'affordable' housing next door to your 6 bed 4 bath 'executive' homes it makes the latter harder to sell & for less money.

That's why provision has to be carefully planned. It's not just key workers it benefits, but the plan is to retain younger generations who work and pay taxes from moving away. Without it, we just have big expensive houses and without the young generation to pay taxes, how will we pay for the ageing population here? The deficit is bad enough now, think about ten years from now. The Tory's and the Lib Dems aren't thinking ahead.

Quoted from 78

If you have a lot of 'affordable' housing next door to your 6 bed 4 bath 'executive' homes it makes the latter harder to sell & for less money.

Which isn't so bad if you are buying!  I would have thought it wouldn't make much difference in this case as the affordable housing element is already there, and one has the choice from the beginning whether it is an issue or not.

Quoted from richard.garvie

That's why provision has to be carefully planned. It's not just key workers it benefits, but the plan is to retain younger generations who work and pay taxes from moving away. Without it, we just have big expensive houses and without the young generation to pay taxes, how will we pay for the ageing population here? The deficit is bad enough now, think about ten years from now. The Tory's and the Lib Dems aren't thinking ahead.

Do only the young pay taxes then? Do only older people buy expensive houses?

Most likely the social housing will be taken by those on benefits. Who pay little tax.

Quoted from richard.garvie

That's why provision has to be carefully planned. It's not just key workers it benefits, but the plan is to retain younger generations who work and pay taxes from moving away. Without it, we just have big expensive houses and without the young generation to pay taxes, how will we pay for the ageing population here? The deficit is bad enough now, think about ten years from now. The Tory's and the Lib Dems aren't thinking ahead.

Do only the young pay taxes then? Do only older people buy expensive houses?

Most likely the social housing will be taken by those on benefits. Who pay little tax.

Quoted from Greenham Common

Which isn't so bad if you are buying!  I would have thought it wouldn't make much difference in this case as the affordable housing element is already there, and one has the choice from the beginning whether it is an issue or not.

It must be an issue, otherwise developmers would be wanting to build more 'affordable' houses, not less.

Quoted from 78

Do only the young pay taxes then? Do only older people buy expensive houses?

I don't think so; who said that was the case?

Quoted from 78

Most likely the social housing will be taken by those on benefits. Who pay little tax.

Most people I know who have a 'social house' are in full-time work.

Although, people have to live somewhere.  I wouldn't mind betting that a number of people who 'benefited' from the bargain sell-off of the 80s, now complain about 'affordable' housing quota.

Quoted from 78

It must be an issue, otherwise developmers would be wanting to build more 'affordable' houses, not less.

Of course; luxury homes are more profitable.

Quoted from 78

Without it, we just have big expensive houses and without the young generation to pay taxes

...in the future.

Quoted from Greenham Common

...in the future.

glad you agree now.

Quoted from 78

glad you agree now.

Agree with what?  And what is 'young'?

Quoted from Greenham Common

Agree with what?  And what is 'young'?

'young' dunno, I didn't write the original quote.

Quoted from 78

Do only the young pay taxes then? Do only older people buy expensive houses?

Most likely the social housing will be taken by those on benefits. Who pay little tax.

You have now added social housing to the affordable homes. Are you saying that affordable homes are in fact social housing. The definitions seem to be a little blurred.
Affordable homes as I see it are low cost and are aimed at the low income who wish to purchase but are not so well paid, although why Greenham included Police in his definition I'm not sure.
Social housing is rental accomodation. Tenants pay a rent but if they are an unmarried mum or a social dropout then their rent and rates are subsidised by the taxpayers.

So am I right here.

Quoted from brian

You have now added social housing to the affordable homes. Are you saying that affordable homes are in fact social housing. The definitions seem to be a little blurred.
Affordable homes as I see it are low cost and are aimed at the low income who wish to purchase but are not so well paid, although why Greenham included Police in his definition I'm not sure.
Social housing is rental accomodation. Tenants pay a rent but if they are an unmarried mum or a social dropout then their rent and rates are subsidised by the taxpayers.  So am I right here.

Affordable housing is built with modest design specifications.  Housing associations do buy affordable housing stock.  Equally, social housing is sometimes sold.  Social housing is government sponsored; affordable isn't necessarily so.  I see social housing as a subset of affordable.

Quoted from Greenham Common

Social and affordable are similar.  They will be built with modest size rooms, garden space, etc.  They would be priced at no-more than what a typical first time buyer would be looking to pay.

I earn around £40k now, and I wouldn't be able to buy on my own in these circumstances, I think like is tough on what I earn!!!

Tough on 40K? Get real.

It was tongue in cheek, hence the !!!

I am very lucky to do what I do, but I'd happily give it up to lead the council on 24k full time!!! It would just mean economies. That being said, I still can't get a mortgage!!!

at a living wage in the coming years. How can a married couple who both have low paid jobs afford to buy . I earn around £40k now, and I wouldn't be able to buy on my own in these circumstances, I think like is tough on what I earn!!! It brings it home when you meet people who are worse off than you are, and this is why I want to do something positive.

Social housing is supposed to be aimed at those who can't afford to buy or pay massively inflated private sector rents.[/quote]

If you can't afford it you can't bloody well have it.
If you struggle on £40k, you are obviously already living above your means!!!

Quoted from dodgy

If you can't afford it you can't bloody well have it.

And that is what happens.

Quoted from dodgy

If you struggle on £40k, you are obviously already living above your means!!!

And that happens as well.

Try about £4K (per annum) for a 40 hour week and see how you all fair ? Maybe I could take myself to an industrial tribunal - but then that would be greedy - wouldn't it  

Before motherhood I earned about £25K PAYE and bought my own house . . . . . which is paid for . . . . it's called saving . . .. not having the flashiest car/PC/TV and all lifes other little "essentials".

Quoted from 78

Tough on 40K? Get real.

Champagne socialism is alive and well in West Berkshire.

Quoted from user23.3

Champagne socialism is alive and well in West Berkshire.

How do you justify this impudence?

Quoted from dodgy

Social housing is supposed to be aimed at those who can't afford to buy or pay massively inflated private sector rents.

That might be the aim of social housing - but is there a check that someone renting a house from Sovereign is still in the needy circumstances that prevailed when they got the house in the first place?  A single mum with three small kids could 10-15 years on be married to a chap on a decent income, working herself and the kids either working or left the nest. Rental for social housing should be set by a simple formula - a significant percentage of the household income (25, 30, 40%?). As the income rises the occupants would be more and more inclined to move on the private rental or to buy - thus releasing the social house for new, deserving, tenants.  If they are determined to stay then they can - the increased rent they are paying would enable the housing association to buy/build more housing.

Quoted from user23.3

Champagne socialism is alive and well in West Berkshire.

Can you justify your comments??? You know nothing about me or my lifestyle. If you can't justify your comments, maybe you can apologise. Alternatively, maybe you could explain your comments to a judge.

Quoted from richard.garvie

Alternatively, maybe you could explain your comments to a judge.

I'm not sure accusations of political ambiguity are litigious, however; despite user23.3's spiteful manner, trying to out him is possibly a little much?

Yes, I think you are right. But if he wants to continue attacking me because I want to see changes in working practices at West Berkshire, maybe people should know who he is and come to their own conclusions about his motives???

Quoted from richard.garvie

Yes, I think you are right. But if he wants to continue attacking me because I want to see changes in working practices at West Berkshire, maybe people should know who he is and come to their own conclusions about his motives???

Think you are right to an extent, but if we did find out, we would then be very un-interested - its like having our very own Stig  

Quoted from richard.garvie

Yes, I think you are right. But if he wants to continue attacking me because I want to see changes in working practices at West Berkshire, maybe people should know who he is and come to their own conclusions about his motives???

I have came close several times myself; but I talk myself out of it!  It is best not to give him, or anyone else, a good excuse as it were.  

The thing is, he is generally pretty talented at what he does with his job and does have genuine points in some cases. With the way the council treats it's employees, I'm amazed he defends them to the extent he does. What would his downtrodden colleagues think??? It just adds weight to the theory that certain officers are genuinely concerned that if Labour took charge at West Berks, there would be a sizeable shift in power back towards members.

Quoted from richard.garvie

It just adds weight to the theory that certain officers are genuinely concerned that if Labour took charge at West Berks, there would be a sizeable shift in power back towards members.

I don't suppose any officers are at all concerned that Labour might take charge at West Berks - they will all be collecting their pensions long before then.

Well, we will have to see. Straight choice between those who created the mess we are in locally and who can fix it.

Quoted from richard.garvie

Well, we will have to see. Straight choice between those who created the mess we are in locally ....

As opposed to the mess nationally? I'd rather a crap bit of paving in the Market Place to the national disaster we now have.

Depends whether you listen to Murdoch and his papers. We were coming out of the recession very strongly until the general election.

My dad used to say "there are no good banks - only good branches". Reckon the same applies to Politics . . . in fact I would even narrow it down to good staff. I ticked the blue box this year, but have since had the pleasure of meeting one of the most intolerable Tory Councillors imaginable.

Quoted from richard.garvie

Can you justify your comments??? You know nothing about me or my lifestyle. If you can't justify your comments, maybe you can apologise. Alternatively, maybe you could explain your comments to a judge.

Yes, of course I can. Why would a judge be interested in my comments?

Are you really going to cry that you're being attacked every time someone questions your often contradictory points of view?

Quoted from user23.3

Yes, of course I can.

Go on then?  

Quoted from user23.3

Why would a judge be interested in my comments?

He wouldn't.  

Quoted from user23.3

Are you really going to cry that you're being attacked every time someone questions your often contradictory points of view?

All we need now is for someone to question these alleged contradictory points of view!  

Quoted from richard.garvie

Well, we will have to see. Straight choice between those who created the mess we are in locally and who can fix it.

It's the last bit you have a problem with - convincing local voters that Labour can fix anything.

I have to say your posturing on these forums is not convincing me - it would help if you did your homework and understood the issues before you mouth off about them.  In a matter of days you have gone from vague support of the pavilion in the park to vehement anti-pavilion statements.  Your stance on the skateboard thingy in the park has also gone from anti NTC spoutings to acceptance of their plans.

What are Labour's policies? What do you expect me to vote for in May?

Being a Labour representative in Newbury is futile.  As far as I can tell most people are quite happy with Newbury.  It is only on the periphery that there are issues; the boundary between conservative and modernist ideals.

I think the councils are in a no win situation, but I resent the permission given to Greenham depot, the cinema, and Parkway.  Other areas that are a problem are the Bear Lane junction and the one way bridge.  I would imagine, however, that  they are like they are for good (financial) reasons.

I do agree with RG about the racecourse development though: one has to wonder what harm the apparent lack of infrastructure will do when that goes live.

Quoted from blackdog

It's the last bit you have a problem with - convincing local voters that Labour can fix anything.

I have to say your posturing on these forums is not convincing me - it would help if you did your homework and understood the issues before you mouth off about them.  In a matter of days you have gone from vague support of the pavilion in the park to vehement anti-pavilion statements.  Your stance on the skateboard thingy in the park has also gone from anti NTC spoutings to acceptance of their plans.

What are Labour's policies? What do you expect me to vote for in May?

Where have I voiced support for the Pavillion. My alternative would be to rebuild the existing hut in the park to include a cafe and boat store. That has been my position all along. As for the Skate Park, I was against the council spending £200k on an outdoor skate facility. I still think it's a lot of money when that money could be spent on an indoor facility. But I gave the youngsters my word that if this is how they want this money spent (the money from Greenham is specifically for the skate park) then I will not object to it. I think that in politics you do have to compromise, and providing the new concrete skate park isn't going to take over Victoria Park then I will not object. I have been asured that the size is only slightly larger than the existing facility, and is more durable than a rebuild of what is there now. My other concerns about some groups of kids not being included have also been addressed. If I hadn't spoken out, those children would not have been involved.

The fact is that West Berks have totally bungled the Pavillion plan anyway, so it's unlikely to go through before the election. Let's leave Victoria Park to NTC, take a million pounds from the cost of the proposed facility to give to NTC to see through their vision for the park and put the other £5m towards building a purpose built youth facility in Newbury and an indoor swimming pool in both Lambourn and Theale leisure centres.

As for our policy, we will announce our manifesto in November. I'll try to answer policy questions before then, but some of my answers will be personal opinion and not party line.

Quoted from Greenham Common

As far as I can tell most people are quite happy with Newbury.  It is only on the periphery that there are issues; the boundary between conservative and modernist ideals.

I'm sure people in towns with real problems would despair if they ever read these forums, but then it really is a tiny, tiny minority that have a moan and sometimes for their own ends. We sometimes seen people "create" a problem that didn't really exist and then propose that they're the person ideally placed to solve it. VBird is the first person that springs to mind as far as this is concerned.