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).
Logged
Male
Female
