DISTRICT COUNCIL DECLINES TO SUPPORT TOWN COUNCIL PUBLIC MEETING

Newbury Town Council has asked senior District Councillors and Planning Officers to come to its public meeting on 7 December, but the invitation has been declined.

Cllr Julian Swift-Hook (Leader of Newbury Town Council) said, “I'm really disappointed that West Berkshire Council has gone back on its word to us 3 years ago when they killed off the Area Forums.  

“At the time, they promised to support us if we wanted to hold a public meeting on a matter of significant local importance, but now we are actually asking for their support, miraculously nobody is available.”  

Cllr Alan Law, the Executive Portfolio Holder for Planning at West Berkshire Council, has offered instead to meet with Town Councillors to brief them on what he describes as “the benefits and positive impact of the Core Strategy on both the District as a whole and Newbury town in particular."  

“I appreciate Cllr Law’s offer, and I intend to take him up on it,” said Cllr Swift-Hook, “but by declining to attend our public meeting he is avoiding answering questions from the Newbury residents who will be directly affected by his plans."

“Our public meeting is still going ahead on 7th December 2011, at 7pm at Newbury Rugby Club.  We have several eminent speakers coming who will be able to answer residents’ questions."  

Shame about this politicking when Newbury's about to grow by 30%.

The people complaining are Libdems. Given what their coalition government is doing to planning legislation and the free for all for developers and landowners it will unleash, why should we give fig about them? Their forum is completely pointless - at least the Tories have got the courage of their convictions and aren't putting on a pretence of 'listening'.

Not a great surprise. WBC don't like public opinion!  They only hold/attend public meetings when the majority of Council Tax Payers are at work, so the meetings are only attended by pensioners, WBC staff and others who can be easily manipulated!

Quoted from Nobby

Not a great surprise. WBC don't like public opinion!  They only hold/attend public meetings when the majority of Council Tax Payers are at work, so the meetings are only attended by pensioners, WBC staff and others who can be easily manipulated!

That's not true. The one I know of was the Thatcham Area Forum and that was always held in the evenings... WBC Officers would turn up, Town Council Officers, Neighbourhood police, Wardens etc etc... and if you were lucky two or three members of the public would turn up.  It was nothing more than an opportunity for Ward Members such as Keith Woodhams or Owen Jeffery to grandstand and act as if they were addressing vast crowds, or were performing in front of the TV on the Parliament Channel...waving papers and arguing with each other to make the meeting last five times as long as it needed to... when in fact there were more empty chairs than bums on seats......  A laughable waste of time and thank fek they've been binned.......  

A much more exciting prospect would be to come on here!

...but Newbury's going to grow by 30%.

Anyone interested?

Quoted from Muddler

...but Newbury's going to grow by 30%.

Anyone interested?

I can't make up my mind if that is good or bad. From the plus side it could provide more income to the town which would mean it would be more attractive for new shops moving in. The negative side is that the infra structure is creaking now with the through roads always clogged up and with extra housing, school places could be in short supply and medical facilities over stretched. If WBC are providing the space for development, whether the Lib Dems want it or not, then providing the overall plan takes account of this then OK. Mind you, a surfeit of houses for sale in the area could well drive down property values in Newbury.

I can understand WBC not wanting to engage with the town council. they are not decision makers and it is just a ploy by the Lib Dems to try and stir up an already muddied pond. It's no good shouting Fenton now.

Quoted from Muddler

...but Newbury's going to grow by 30%.

Anyone interested?

Yes, but I also know there is nothing I can do about it; the councils and government want it to happen.

Quoted from Greenham Common

Yes, but I also know there is nothing I can do about it; the councils and government want it to happen.

Forget the council, they are irrelevant - the government wants is so it will happen.

Quoted from blackdog

Forget the council, they are irrelevant - the government wants is so it will happen.

The councils are not irrelevant as they will largely decide where the growth will be.  Some areas will support growth better than others.

Quoted from brian

It's no good shouting Fenton now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTNJFpN3-iw&feature=channel_video_title


Threep.

Quoted from Greenham Common

The councils are not irrelevant as they will largely decide where the growth will be.  Some areas will support growth better than others.

Not if the government gets its way.  The new planning laws will make it the developers who decide where to build, councils will be duty bound to approve anything that is not contrary to specific guidelines.  So councils will have a say in a conservation area, in an AONB, on an SSSI, etc - but a farmer's field abutting an existing development in a place like Thatcham or Newbury will be fair game.  If you look at a map of West Berkshire it's almost all AONB except the area along the A4. Newbury/Thatcham will grow, and grow, and grow.  WBC are doing their best to limit building by putting together the Core Strategy, but I fear that it will offer little protection.

What astonishes me about much of the Coalition's policy is not that the Tories propose this sort of thing: it's only to be expected from them. They are the landowner's party after all, not least in the shape of our local representative in the House of Commons.  It's that the Libdems sit on their hands while their partners in crime prepare to destroy the countryside.

Incidentally, who actually owns the land at Sandleford Park and how do they stand to benefit if the huge development there goes ahead? Anyone know?

Ah, coincidentally I see that the 'How Much' question is partially answered in this from the local rag: http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=18547

Claims that value of land rescheduled for housing goes up from £7K to £700K an acre. On that basis I think we can be pretty sure that this development is going to go ahead regardless.  I wonder what instructions Corporal Jones and his colleagues have been given.

Who owns the land at Sandleford???

See p.m.

Quoted from Threepwood

See p.m.

It is that secret is it?

Quoted from noobree

Incidentally, who actually owns the land at Sandleford Park and how do they stand to benefit if the huge development there goes ahead? Anyone know?

It's been run by a property company since 1947, and was apparently owned by the Butler family before that.

If Sandleford Partnership LLP (reg'd March 2011) is the same, then one of the directors is Simon Jacobs, who lives in Wiltshire and runs the Winkworth estate agency office in Devizes...he's also a director of Roxtons.

Threep - is this the chap?

£700k an acre seems cheap - a single building plot can set you back well over £100k.

Quoted from Greenham Common

It is that secret is it?

Nope, bottom line, I was giving some of the background to the land along with why it's proposed development (in the past) had got the Council into the  'Rotten Boroughs' page in Private Eye. Back then it (Sandleford Village) was set up to be one ladies' retirement fund, but that didn't happen.  I would be surprised however if she didn't appear on a Directors list somewhere.


Threep.

These guys weren't too happy about the WBC turnaround and asked a FOI question about why there had been a reversal of the Pincent's Hill site which was high on the housing development list to the least favoured site at Sandleford.
http://www.beyondgreen.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Pincents_Hill_101018.pdf

http://www.beyondgreen.co.uk/w.....ement-June-20111.pdf

Not sure what the FOI requst turned up.