"The Great Basingstoke Housing Debate"

Simon Preedy · **Joined:** Fri Mar 07, 2003 5:37 pm **Posts:** 2950

The proposal for development in Kingsclere Road is back; Former Victoria and Eli Lilly Sites! See link:

http://www.basingstoke.gov.uk/planning/kingsclereroad

http://www.basingstokegazette.co.uk/new ... mark_site/

"Talks over future of allotments": Baz Gaz, 4 February.

http://www.basingstokegazette.co.uk/new ... llotments/

Simon Preedy · **Joined:** Fri Mar 07, 2003 5:37 pm **Posts:** 2950

"Warning over slump in new homes": Baz Gaz website

http://www.basingstokegazette.co.uk/new ... new_homes/

Hmm. I still think decisions should be made at a local level rather than targets being set by Labour Central Government and their wish to concrete over the South and South East. Let local areas grow when they want, where they want and decide the type of housing mix that is required... ie: NO MORE FLATS IN OUR BOROUGH! :wink:

Simon Preedy · **Joined:** Fri Mar 07, 2003 5:37 pm **Posts:** 2950

"Shaw on housing targets": Baz Gaz website

http://www.basingstokegazette.co.uk/new ... g_targets/

Yes, our Labour Government just love giving targets to Councils in the South & South East so this area of the UK is covered in concrete don't they! Can we have more even distribution please? I suspect our Labour will be 'out on their ear' come May / June anyway? Just hope if the Conservatives get in, they'll reverse some Policies and give more power back to local authorities? Hmm.

Simon Preedy · **Joined:** Fri Mar 07, 2003 5:37 pm **Posts:** 2950

And some more good reader's comments on this article too. Good post from Leslie!

http://www.basingstokegazette.co.uk/new ... g_targets/

Pansy · **Posted:** Sun Feb 14, 2010 1:27 pm

Hmm - the thing is we aren't sure of the individual circumstances in connection to his/her post.
Whilst employment is desirable I cant agree with the work camp part. As also mentioned in other comments 'good' jobs are not as plentiful as they might once have been - I've voiced concern over the amount of minimum wage positions out-pacing others in the borough for a while - and the 'lets hope you dont fall into poverty' comment one that is worth some thinking about.

The waiting list figure caught my eye - as although it went down sharply another recent piece in the Gazette I'm sure said 4500 ?

I think attempting to provide young, single persons with 'social housing' an area that could be reviewed - whatever happened to the house-shares of years gone by for those who wanted a certain...independence?

The question I think about is what is affordable for low income families? and as interest starts to kick in on some of the original shared-ownership properties, which it must do shortly, will we see another affordability time-bomb explode?

the infrustructure comments are interesting - I've wondered before whether the borough secured sufficient 106 monies for infrustructure - does it read as though the borough ought not to have spent on surveys? Although there may have been investment across the South East that doesn't address the issues still around the borough now does it?

There will be more development in Basingstoke & Deane but important will be keeping it at a lower/slower pace.

Simon Preedy · **Joined:** Fri Mar 07, 2003 5:37 pm **Posts:** 2950

Pansy wrote:

Quote:

Hmm - the thing is we aren't sure of the individual circumstances in connection to his/her post...

Yes, that's true.

Quote:

... the infrustructure comments are interesting - I've wondered before whether the borough secured sufficient 106 monies for infrustructure - does it read as though the borough ought not to have spent on surveys? Although there may have been investment across the South East that doesn't address the issues still around the borough now does it?

There will be more development in Basingstoke & Deane but important will be keeping it at a lower/slower pace.

Good point. And I do really wonder if concreting over the South and South East will be any different under the Conservatives than it is under Labour. We'll see in time after May / June? :wink:

Simon Preedy · **Joined:** Fri Mar 07, 2003 5:37 pm **Posts:** 2950

A NEW “water-rationing scheme” for north Hampshire is being introduced because the Government plans to build thousands of homes, it has been claimed.

Some good thoughts on this matter on the Chineham community Messageboard. And a good point made by Chineham's Independent Councillor, Martin Biermann, too!

http://www.spotlightonchineham.co.uk/fo ... 267224171/

Simon Preedy · **Joined:** Fri Mar 07, 2003 5:37 pm **Posts:** 2950

"'Public need more say over housing'": Baz Gaz, 8th March, Page 6.

http://www.basingstokegazette.co.uk/new ... _housing_/

Too right! "residents' groups"? Is this matter something the Kempshott & District Residents' Association would get involved with I wonder? Hmm. :wink:

http://www.basingstoke.gov.uk/planning/ ... Future.htm

Simon Preedy · **Joined:** Fri Mar 07, 2003 5:37 pm **Posts:** 2950

"Developer makes fresh move over key scheme": Baz Gaz

http://www.basingstokegazette.co.uk/new ... ey_scheme/

And if I recall correctly, it was this property developer that advised local Councillors that they wouldn't Appeal B&DBC's refusal?! Hmm. Just goes to provide imo that "developers don't care!"... or can't be trusted, as per link:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=399

Simon Preedy · **Joined:** Fri Mar 07, 2003 5:37 pm **Posts:** 2950

Simon Preedy wrote on 4 February:

Quote:

"VILLAGE HOMES FURY": Baz Observer, Front Page, 4 February.

Quote:

A band of determined residents have rallied to fight plans for a development that threatens to triple the size of their Village. Developer Wates has applied to build 134 homes on a green field site at Worting Farm, Basingstoke... Now the campaigners have set up a Worting Area Residents' Association (WARA) to fight the plans...

An article is also detailed on Page 17 of today's Baz Gaz:

"Villagers prepare for homes fight":

http://www.basingstokegazette.co.uk/new ... mes_fight/

The site is on land opposite St. Thomas of Canterbury Church in Worting, the other side of the Railway Line to the new development off of Old Kempshott Lane and is detailed on this link: http://www2.basingstoke.gov.uk/test/1/0 ... 845280.PDF

With currently 103 objections

, this planning application goes before B&DBC's Development Control Committee for determination on 12 May. See link:

http://planning.basingstoke.gov.uk/DCOn ... key=117805

Simon Preedy · **Joined:** Fri Mar 07, 2003 5:37 pm **Posts:** 2950

"Building plans out of control": Maria's "How I See It" column, Baz Extra, 24 March, Page 5.

Quote:

Basingstoke has been told by the Government that it has to build another 15,000 houses in the next 15 years - equivalent to building four new housing developments the size of Hatch Warren.

With Government debt levels greater than those facing Greece, it is little wonder that no Government minister has been able to tell me where they will find the extra money to build new roads, schools or doctors' surgeries that this massive scale of development requires.

The result is that if we allow these houses to be built, Basingstoke's local roads and services will reach breaking point, with residents facing an extra 25 minutes added to their car journeys at peak times. We already know the scale of house-building bears no relation to what our community needs. The time has come to call a halt to this senseless way of planning the future of our community. We should not have to fear the future, being told what to do by faceless bureaucrats - we should be able to shape our own future based on what our community needs now and for the future.

It is shameless that residents groups who oppose this unsustainable and needless scale of house-building are being set against each other by a Government intent on destroying Basingstoke residents' quality of life. Residents are right to campaign against unsustainable levels of house-building, whether they are in Norden, Winklebury, Worting, Newnham or Basing.

The truth is that Government house-building targets have been forced on to Basingstoke high-rise tower blocks, which are experiencing worrying levels of drug-related crime and do not fulfil the demand in the community for more affordable family homes. What is needed now is to listen to residents' concerns and allow the community to determine what the right level of growth to meet our needs, not the needs of a national Government.

Well said again Maria.

When controversial major developments are determined by B&DBC's Development Control Committee, what would be good to see publicised in my opinion is the names and numbers of Councillors who vote in support of them, should they be proposed within a Ward of an opposing Political Group. We are told that the DC Committee is not supposed to be political, but I've often seen Labour side with the Lib Dems, and have seen what can only be described as a NIMBY approach, from those across B&DBC's whole political spectrum.

Pansy · **Posted:** Thu Mar 25, 2010 12:01 am

Yes, this reads well........but is, like the traveller theme, targeted as 'on topic' from Conservative proposals should they win the forthcoming election.
(btw 'Maria's law' can actually be traced back to Michael Howard in 2005 :cheese:

)

The Conservatives would scrap the regional housing provision - which could lead to nimbism (not that i agree with current targets!) and a drop-off in development. They also plan to scrap infrustructure levys and replace with a flat rate - which may not realise investment needed given the state of infrustructure already.
Also worth a mention is that incentives would be given for development by central government matching the increase in council tax for 6 yrs.

Liked her mention of the high rise tower blocks - even the Plaza leaves a lot to be desired.
Some of the curtain arrangements made my elderly mother-in-law wonder if some of them weren't 'those sort of houses - the ones with plants'! :lol:

You'll like this one Simon.....Conservatives plan to allow change of use to buildings without the need for planning permission :wink:

Simon Preedy · **Joined:** Fri Mar 07, 2003 5:37 pm **Posts:** 2950

Thanks Pansy. All very interesting... so it appears none of 'em can be trusted then?! :wink:

Seems we all have to read between the lines and, sadly, we can't take anything on face value anymore?

Simon Preedy · **Joined:** Fri Mar 07, 2003 5:37 pm **Posts:** 2950

Taken from the Basingstoke Conservative Party leaflet recently distributed: "Maria Miller MP. Positively the best for Basingstoke":

Quote:

"Right houses, right places"

Maria has campaigned for over seven years with local groups to oppose Labour's excessive, imposed house building.

"I want our community's future planned by local people. Our positive, local priorities are for affordable housing for Basingstoke families, protecting our environment; and ensuring roads, services and new community facilities are built before new houses, not years afterwards. This fairer approach would mean growth in the Borough is planned to meet the needs of Basingstoke, not national government."

Here Here! Note the word "houses" in the heading and "affordable housing for Basingstoke families"... which doesn't mean Flats does it! :wink:

Well said Maria.

And her letter to all Borough households (?), with a postal vote application form enclosed, that I received this morning, also stated:

Quote:

... In particular, I want to see Basingstoke allowed, once again, to decide its own future growth and not forced to build almost 1,000 houses a year without the necessary investment in local services...

Here here! again.

Simon Preedy · **Joined:** Fri Mar 07, 2003 5:37 pm **Posts:** 2950

Simon Preedy wrote on 18 March:

Quote:

With currently 103 objections

, this planning application goes before B&DBC's Development Control Committee for determination on 12 May. See link:

http://planning.basingstoke.gov.uk/DCOn ... key=117805

Land at Worting Farm.

"Say 'no' to homes": Baz Observer, 29 April, Page 3.

http://www.basingstokeobserver.co.uk/ne ... cision-215

Well, the Planning Officer has recommended REFUSAL and the application will still be determined by B&DBC's Development Control Committee on 12 May. Darn right too imo and I hope the Committee refuse the application. Imo it is not necessary to break open a new site that is not currently identified for housing in the Local Plan.

"The Great Basingstoke Housing Debate"

Who is online