| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Bert
Advanced Member
484 Posts |
 Posted - 23 Feb 2012 : 15:46:16
|
I am astonished at the quotes in Neil's post. There will be some villagers who support further large scale house building, but I simply do not believe..."...with most villagers attending, keen to see the development go ahead..." I simply do not believe that most villagers want more large scale housing development.
So far as the second quote is concerned, is it possible that this paragraph is a mish/mash of a number of things. It relates to ...
(1)two drop in sessions relating to the ongoing neighbourhood plan and
(2) the presentation by one of the developers the previous week.
Does the final part....."but the general feeling was that the project was well worth doing," ...relate to the development itself, which is very alarming, or does "the project" relate to the two drop in sessions, which was the main subject. I suspect the latter.
Either way, the paragraph is ambiguous and requires urgent clarification by both Angmering Parish Council and the Littlehampton Gazette. |
 |
|
|
Robinf
Senior Member
105 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2012 : 16:22:01
|
I too can’t believe that the local community is keen to see a development on the scale the developers are currently considering / proposing. I attended the second of the two drop in session which was busy to say the least with no room to swing a cat and it was not difficult to earwig various conversations going on. I spent about an hour at the session talking and listening to different groups and during that time I can say that I didn’t hear or have one conversation that supported the proposal. Did anyone else who attended either of the meetings experience the same as me? Maybe I went when the ‘No’ voters were allowed in.
In any event, Bert is spot on – for the avoidance of doubt, clarification is required by APC and perhaps they (APC) could advise where the residents can get a copy of their press release. As with any controversial issue of this type there are those in seats of power and authority who have hidden agendas and the Gazette may well have been encouraged to put a spin on the article by a person or persons unknown just to muddy the waters.. Who knows?
In any event, it’s not necessarily what you read or told that’s important it’s what remains untold that is. And let’s face it, we are all guilty of that one way or another.
|
|
|
|
neil
Forum Owner / Moderator
United Kingdom
2623 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2012 : 16:42:59
|
The Press Release issued by the Parish Council is in the public domain and I reproduce it below in its entirety: quote:
ANGMERING NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Angmering Neighbourhood Development Plan was the subject of drop-in sessions held on 11th and 13th February at the Village Hall, where members of the community had been invited to give their initial views on the work of the Steering Group to date and some guidance as to the formulation of planning policies for the future.
The formulation of a Neighbourhood Development Plan is allowed under the Localism Act 2011, and allows Communities to take a degree of control over what future development is to be allowed in the Parish of Angmering. The drop-ins were a chance for local people to have their say about what should be included.
Over the two sessions, more than 400 people turned up and voiced their opinions, a turn-out much higher than such events in other parishes. There is no doubt that the presentation the previous week by Barratt/David Wilson Homes proposing the building of 300 residential properties on land between Roundstone Lane and the by-pass had generated a lot of interest in the subject, but the general feeling was that the project was well worth doing.
The purpose of the Plan would be to determine the level of development, the type of development and what other needs the village has over the plan period of 15-17 years. Once prepared and agreed by means of a referendum the Plan would then become the standards against which all development in Angmering would be measured when planning applications were received.
The next stage of public consultation for the plan would be a survey for the whole community which needs to be completed and returned by as many people as possible to give the Steering Group directions on what is acceptable and what is not.
As far as the Barratts scheme is concerned, the company is being asked to engage in the plan process in order to ensure that the views of the community are being heard before the wrong houses are built in the wrong place. If the plan was in place before the Barratts planning application was received, then its requirements would have to be included in the eventual development, if any. It is feared, however, that the builders will try to pre-empt the Development Neighbourhood Plan and make its application earlier than implementation date, which is likely to be towards the end of 2012 at the earliest.There will be further pressure from developers over the years, given the stated ‘Presumption to allow sustainable development’ contained in the Government’s Planning Policy Development Framework, currently under consultation and the need to control what happens under this for the future is what is encouraging the team to continue with the Plan.
There is still time to take part in this, so if this inspires you please contact Angmering Parish Clerk, Rob Martin on 01903 772124, email: admin@angmering-pc.gov.uk . The Parish Council is co-ordinating and enabling the project, although participation is for the whole community of Angmering.
When the Press Release talks about the "project", it is contained in a sentence relating to the Barratt/Wilson development. If we give APC the benefit of the doubt, it might just mean the Neighbourhood Plan or the Drop-In Sessions or the previous week's presentation as suggested by Bert.
If it was not intended to relate to the Barratt/Wilson development, then the wording was incredibly badly written which has given rise to this inflammatory piece in today's Gazette. I have to say that the Littlehampton Gazette is not sensationalist and nearly always reports pretty accurately. However, it is extremely damaging for those opposed to this specific land development
I wonder who checked the Parish Clerk's draft before issue. Surely, on such a sensitive matter, the Press Release would have been reviewed and approved by a nominated councillor before issue. |
|
|
|
neil
Forum Owner / Moderator
United Kingdom
2623 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2012 : 16:57:11
|
| ...... and before anyone asks - no, APC did not think of issuing the Press Release to Angmering Village Life for its News page. If it had, I'm sure I would have been able to ask them to issue a revised version to whoever they had sent it to. |
|
|
|
Nigel
Senior Member
United Kingdom
238 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2012 : 18:45:46
|
| Instead of all the Why? If, When,What, speculation of what the Parish Council is doing about 'anything', ask them.There is a APC Question & Answer section within this site and I for one would welcome the chance to see their reply to some of the questions being asked within these forums. |
|
|
|
luckyduck
Moderator
United Kingdom
169 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2012 : 19:25:02
|
You may be interested in the following reply from Roger Green of the Gazette when I asked him to retract the article about the interpretation the Gazette put on the press release referred to above - I quote "Sorry, but I disagree that we have misrepresented what was in the press release. I have read that paragraph several times, and the final phrase could only be taken to be referring to the Barratt/David Wilson Homes scheme – it comes immediately after mention of that proposal.
If you are telling me that the phrase at the end of paragraph was referring to the community led plan weekend meetings, then I’m sorry, but that’s not how I read it now, and it’s clearly not how my colleague read it.
I must admit I was surprised that was what it said, having attended the Barratt/David Wilson Homes myself and been aware of the many people airing their concerns that day, but we took it in good faith that that was what was meant.
I’m not prepared to publish a retraction, because I don’t believe we have done anything wrong. However, I am prepared to clarify what the community-led plan group meant to say through its statement. I do think it’s a pity that the paragraph in question was not much clearer, as we would not be having this discussion now."
So who is going to get this corrected - over to you APC who seem to have dug a deep hole for the village, and helped Barratts and all the other developers.
|
|
|
|
patty
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
738 Posts |
Posted - 23 Feb 2012 : 21:21:17
|
Oh dear, what a total mess.
In the absence of the Clerk I feel it necessary to clarify the following.
The interpretation of the Clerks Press release by the Gazette was and is totally wrong.
I think we have to accept that it was a badly written paragraph that has been totally misconstrued.
I had not seen this before today and am not aware if it had been checked before sending out.
I can assure you that a statement will be sent to Roger Green in time for next weeks publication which will hopefully put the details right.
The clerk was referring to the CLP being the project well worth doing and NOT the development. As many will, I am sure, interpret that the paragraph started off talking about the plan, then introduced facts about Barretts and in honesty, could be read either way.
This will be dealt with.
Having said that, the paragraph stated in the Gazette:
The proposed housing scheme, on land north of Worthing Rugby Club, was a key talking point during the sessions, with most villagers attending keen to see the development go ahead, so long as developers took their concerns on board”.
I cannot see anywhere in the press release, how this conclusion could be made, so have to say that perhaps we do have errors on both sides here.
To clarfy further, this is the report from the chair of the Housing group working party, issued AFTER the drop in session.
The Housing Needs and Development questionnaire was completed by 177 people who attended. An analysis of the responses received is attached and from which the headlines are:
Ø Respondents were almost unanimous in wanting the Parish Council to control the level and look of future development in the parish.
Ø 85% indicated that the level of development over the plan period should be less than 250 new homes, with 62% wanting it limited to 100 or less; no-one polled indicated a desire for 500 or more new homes.
Ø Low cost purchase of properties was seen as the preferred option for affordable homes in the community, although there was a spread of opinion on the other options detailed, and with a preference for affordable housing to be under the control of the Parish Council
Ø No-one supported the development of Greenfield sites, brownfield being the preferred option; although a high proportion of the respondents failed to give a response to this particular section of the questionnaire, perhaps because it was on the reverse of the page?
I hope this clarifies things for the moment and can only offer apologies on behalf of the Parish Council and assure you that this will be dealt with.
|
any comments and views listed above are those of myself personally and not as a Parish Councillor, and in no way reflect opinions of the Parish Council or any other professional bodies |
|
|
|
Stirrer
Junior Member
17 Posts |
Posted - 24 Feb 2012 : 13:53:26
|
| I'm amazed that anyone actually makes it to the events. The organisers of the Save Angmering email campaign have yet to send out an email with the correct dates of events! I'm constantly getting apologies the correct date should be. Absolutely shocking |
|
|
|
derekdainton
deleted
579 Posts |
Posted - 24 Feb 2012 : 13:57:59
|
| Have you nothing more important to complain about? |
|
|
|
deb8
Average Member
59 Posts |
Posted - 24 Feb 2012 : 23:42:57
|
| The entrance (under cover) to Sainsburys would seem an appropriate venue to place a billboard and forms to be signed, providing Sainsbury would give permission. Would alert residents to the problems without incurring costs in posting forms to villagers. |
|
|
|
BFA
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
410 Posts |
Posted - 25 Feb 2012 : 00:22:51
|
Sainsburys would be well up for that I reckon. Last thing they want is more potential customers.  |
|
|
|
deb8
Average Member
59 Posts |
Posted - 25 Feb 2012 : 12:40:31
|
BFA -Of course Sainsbury would like potential new customers but would they want them at the risk of alienating a large majority of their existing Angmering customers by refusing permission to poll locals?
The point is that we can spend hours bitching on this website that we want to "Save Angmering" but actions speak louder than words. If we want signatures then Sainsburys seemed like a good place to start. If APC are perceived as not singing from the same hymn sheet as their parishioners then maybe the parishioners need to be more motivated and clear about what they want.
Has a lucid plan been put together as to why Angmering should not be expanded or are we all bluff? Do we know whether Doctors, Hospitals, Home Health Services, Junior and Secondary Schools etc are over subscribed?
Recently looked at Village website for Adderbury, Oxford who are opposing expansion of their village and action by Cherwell DC. Could any of these points be applied to Angmering for postponing/stopping building or does this only apply to Chipping Norton -ish set?
Do we want to fight this or lie down and let the developments happen?
Flippant posts are all very well but the future of the village is at stake.
|
|
|
|
Stirrer
Junior Member
17 Posts |
Posted - 25 Feb 2012 : 17:33:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by derekdainton
Have you nothing more important to complain about?
sorry Derek if i wanted to actually attend some of the events to do with our village. You'd no doubt be the first to complain if no-one turned up to the events!!! Tell you what, i won't bother attending anything. you obviously don't want my support. good luck everyone else |
|
|
|
derekdainton
deleted
579 Posts |
Posted - 26 Feb 2012 : 09:40:23
|
| Your original criticism seemed to be aimed at the organisers of the meetings for not being able to get the dates right. That, I thought, was petty. I was not suggesting the whole campaign was unimportant. Clearly it is and if you feel strongly about the issue I would hope you would not throw your toys out of the pram but attend any meetings if at all possible. |
|
|
|
Stirrer
Junior Member
17 Posts |
Posted - 26 Feb 2012 : 09:53:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by derekdainton
Your original criticism seemed to be aimed at the organisers of the meetings for not being able to get the dates right. That, I thought, was petty. I was not suggesting the whole campaign was unimportant. Clearly it is and if you feel strongly about the issue I would hope you would not throw your toys out of the pram but attend any meetings if at all possible.
I was criticising the organisers as well. this is an important topic and to get key dates wrong everytime is unacceptable. it will put people off trying to work out when to go to events. the whole campaign is in danger of losing credibility. |
|
|
|
Bert
Advanced Member
484 Posts |
Posted - 29 Feb 2012 : 10:30:26
|
I'm rather concerned about the views of our Local Government representatives in respect of the proposed large scale building developments.
I've seen no views from the three Angmering District Councillors, but I see words such as "impartial" and "neutral," in respect of Angmering Parish Councillors and Angmering Parish Council as a group.
My understanding of these matters, and perhaps I am wrong, is that individuals are voted on to the Parish Council and District Council, specifically to represent the views of the residents. That is their primary role. There are aspects in some decision making processes where they have to be "neutral" and "impartial," but representing their constituents views and wishes, is not one of them.
The Parish Council do not for example have to take account of the wishes and views of national building developers, who have no relationship with our village whatsoever, other than they want to build on land within the parish. No developers voted for our Parish Council or District Council.
I fully appreciate District Council Planning officers have to be "impartial" and"neutral," when dealing with planning applications, but we do not vote for, or elect Planning Officers.
I also appreciate District Councillors on the Planning Committee have to work within the rules, when deciding on planning applications. One of our District Councillors is on the Planning decision making Committee, but that is some way down the road.
My main concern at present is with the Parish Council. If they do not understand at present, that the vast majority of residents do not want further large scale development, then the sooner some form of survey/referendum is held, the better.
|
|
|
|
Euphrosene
Average Member
United Kingdom
44 Posts |
Posted - 29 Feb 2012 : 11:21:55
|
To ensure that any proposed referendum is both understood and responded to, some of us have volunteered to collect forms, including me.
However, I too am disappointed with the Parish Council's apparent (to me) lack of concern for their parishioners including the 'slip' in the press release. If they cannot get that correct, then I wonder what else they are keeping from us.
I went to the Barratt's open day, and it seems to me that they would not have spent so much money on planning design unless they have been given some kind of green light.
Apart from the various concerns about lack of jobs and the effects that will have on ASB - or traffic on environmental issues and congestion - I am also concerned about some of the housing going to Croydon Council's overflow. So many serious issues that do not seem to have been addressed by the PC or not from what I have seen - yet they can rush out a press release that clearly seems one-sided.
Euphrosene |
www.euphrosenelabon.com |
|
|
|
roosterbri
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
553 Posts |
Posted - 29 Feb 2012 : 12:20:11
|
""Apart from the various concerns about lack of jobs and the effects that will have on ASB - or traffic on environmental issues and congestion - I am also concerned about some of the housing going to Croydon Council's overflow""
Uh????????? |
|
|
|
Robinf
Senior Member
105 Posts |
Posted - 29 Feb 2012 : 13:02:21
|
Croydon overflow
I too have heard about this issue. However, I had understood that discussions were between Worthing and Croydon Councils. Can anyone enlighten this forum as to whether or not it is expected that Croydon overflow will be heading in Angmering's direction too? |
|
|
|
neil
Forum Owner / Moderator
United Kingdom
2623 Posts |
Posted - 29 Feb 2012 : 13:58:32
|
Having talked to District Councillor Paul Bicknell (also a Parish Councillor) recently, I know that he does have concerns over the potential large building projects in Angmering. Indeed, it seems it may well have been him who was responsible for getting ADC to include a figure of a maximum number of 150 homes in Angmering in ADC's current emerging strategy.
Angmering Parish Council Village Plan was issued in the Autumn of 2003 and was stated to form their working strategy for the next decade, i.e. to the Autumn of 2013. That Plan stated "Over 600 new houses are currently being built or recently completed and it is believed that this is towards the maximum that the infrastructure can sustain ......". As the PC has not cancelled its Plan, it must therefore be extant and represents their current thinking.
So what has changed since then. OK, a community centre and a skatebowl, but traffic on the A259, in Station Road, Roundstone Lane, the High Street, and Weavers Hill has noticeably increased since the Plan was issued.
The current Plan also states that "The Parish Council will carefully scrutinise all planning applications for additional dwellings in the Parish ........ with the objective of ensuring developers contribute to the infrastructure of the Parish". I wonder what the PC have said to Barratts? |
|
|
|
derekdainton
deleted
579 Posts |
Posted - 29 Feb 2012 : 16:50:01
|
| If only we had the option to vote the PC out if they do not represent the views of residents. But as we don't have elections unless there are potential councillors contesting seats .....! |
|
|
|
roosterbri
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
553 Posts |
Posted - 29 Feb 2012 : 17:09:08
|
Methinks Mr Dainton is a bit harsh and a bit previous. I believe the council do a very good job and as Neil intimates we have yet to see their complete response to the current ongoing scenario.
have you been or applied to be a councillor Mr Dainton???? |
|
|
|
neil
Forum Owner / Moderator
United Kingdom
2623 Posts |
Posted - 29 Feb 2012 : 17:24:30
|
Actually I was not suggesting a "complete response from the PC to the current ongoing situation" although that would, of course, be interesting and welcome as none of us know exactly where they stand as a body on the issue. All I said was that I wondered what the PC had said to Barratts.
On other matters less controversial, the PC has certainly done some good work. |
|
|
|
derekdainton
deleted
579 Posts |
Posted - 29 Feb 2012 : 19:13:45
|
| I also believe that the PC does a good job on the whole but on this issue they are in great danger of eroding trust. |
|
|
|
GreenFields
Average Member
United Kingdom
65 Posts |
Posted - 29 Feb 2012 : 19:35:46
|
Lets hope the PC do step up to the mark and represent the majority of Angmering. Difficulty is getting the majority of Angmering off their backsides to support the campaign and the PC seeing the number of objections.
When I attended the Barrett's presentation the guy I spoke to mentioned that they would contribute a few hundred thousand to a new Primary School. Let's hope that's thrown out by the PC as well as the only possible site for that, is going to be East of Roundstone Lane or Mayflower area. Either option would add even more traffic to that area and the A259 as people South of the A259 would travel to that school.
It's such a shame that these large companies are constantly driven by money and not for the good of society.
I think the Croydon situation is a joke. If they need houses for the people in Croydon then they need to build them close to that area. From memory the Bramley Green estate only had 10% affordable/social housing. Why is the development at 30% (if my maths correct). from the presentation I heard that some developments have none and then they load up on others, Great!
Final question for anyone in the know. I didn't think the large house in Roundstone Lane was included in the original plans yet on the Barrett web site today it is. Has that changed and does that increase the 301 houses or have they always assumed that the people in the property would sell as soon as they saw the plans they were proposing? |
|
|
|
roosterbri
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
553 Posts |
Posted - 01 Mar 2012 : 05:56:36
|
""Actually I was not suggesting a "complete response from the PC to the current ongoing situation""
Oooops...apologies |
|
|
|
BOTFOJ
Senior Member
Kyrgyzstan
161 Posts |
Posted - 12 Mar 2012 : 15:49:09
|
Was chatting to someone at the weekend who mentioned the possible relocation of the rugby club, this is something I recall being mentioned to on here briefly too. According to this person, the proposed site is the field south of the A259, opposite the Swallows Return.
Does anyone know if this has any substance to it, or is just pure speculation? |
|
|
|
HBS
Junior Member
United Kingdom
30 Posts |
Posted - 12 Mar 2012 : 20:37:15
|
| If the traffic chaos on Sunday on the A259 with the reopening of Haskings is anything to go by what will it be like with another 800 homes feeding into Roundstone roundabout? |
|
|
|
Whitarka
New Member
United Kingdom
1 Posts |
Posted - 12 Mar 2012 : 21:55:50
|
| I believe there were 3 potential sites for the new Rugby club. The pitches by Highdown towers, the field north of goring station and the treacle pits in goring. Have the rugby club agreed to sell? Do the APC talk to the rugby club? |
|
|
|
BFA
Advanced Member
United Kingdom
410 Posts |
Posted - 12 Mar 2012 : 22:38:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by HBS
If the traffic chaos on Sunday on the A259 with the reopening of Haskings is anything to go by what will it be like with another 800 homes feeding into Roundstone roundabout?
Roundstone lane was always a very quiet village artery and even since the addition of Bramley Green, still is, just not as.
Another 800 homes using it as their only exit to the village or to the 259 would of course make it busier again, but nothing like as busy as you are suggesting because they all won't be leaving and arriving all at the same time(s) every day.
Traffic problems are not caused by residents, they're caused by through-traffic, and until Crossbush and other bottlenecks are sorted and/or until Angmering gets a bypass that actually takes traffic where it wants to go, there will be problems.
|
|
|
|
Robinf
Senior Member
105 Posts |
Posted - 13 Mar 2012 : 07:42:58
|
APC meeting with Developers 12 March 2012.
I posted a similar message in the wrong forum, so my apologies if you are reading this s second time.
If I were a cynic I would say that APC had deliberately chosen to use a very small room to make it very uncomfortable for the representatives from the developers to make their presentation. If this was the case, it was not a strategy that worked. Not to mention the long suffering members of the public who attended to listen and learn who were obliged to be crammed in the room rather like sardines in a tin. Anyone with a fear of confined spaces would not have survived the hour.
The developers presentation team did themselves no favours either. Their head man (and presentation materials) were late for the meeting, and if they wanted to make a fair fist of it should have been at the meeting room earlier to prepare their presentation material. A very cavalier approach.
However, I came away with the overall opinion that APC were not altogether in favour of the development as has been proposed, but as for the meeting itself, it was a shambles. Whilst I am vehemently opposed to the Barrats et.al. development, I am all in favour of giving the developers a fair crack of the whip at making their pitch. That’s the least they deserve. But clearly they were not given this opportunity since there were no facilities provided by the council, such flip charts, presentation boards, over head projectors and the like. Did APC ask the developers what they needed to make their presentation? Equally, did the developers ask APC to provide these things? Probably neither asked the other, so they both got what they deserved – a less than satisfactory presentation. Had these facilities been available and the developers charts and data been seen clearly by all of APC and the public, then the meeting would have been considerably more informative than what it was. In the end it seemed it was all about who could score cheap points off the other.
APC must have known there would be a reasonable turn out from the village for this controversial issue and should have arranged a more suitable venue that could accommodate the sort of numbers that was experienced when Nick Herbert recently visited where the main topic of conversation surrounded the same issue. And I’m afraid the argument that APC meetings are poorly attended by the public won’t wash on this occasion.
Marks out of 10? APC 4/10, Developers 3/10. Both could do better.
I’ll get off my soap box now and hope that the next time APC hold one of their meetings with the developers, that they ensure both they and the developers are properly prepared in a professional and businesslike way
|
|
|
|
Bert
Advanced Member
484 Posts |
Posted - 13 Mar 2012 : 15:08:23
|
I didn't attend the APC Full Council meeting (last night) 12th March, where Developers had been invited to present their views on one of the proposed sites.
As a consequence, I do not know the context in which the following issue was raised, however, on reading Neil's News page, I see that
"......the Parish Clerk invited the developers to assist in the drawing up of Angmering's Neighbourhood Plan."
On the face of it, I find this nothing short of astonishing. I hope there is a credible reason for such an invitation, due to the general hostility within the village, of the proposed development.
I'm sure we will be told what that credible reason is, sooner rather than later; and whether the Parish Councillors and other Neighbourhood Plan Committee members agreed with that invitation. |
|
|
|
derekdainton
deleted
579 Posts |
Posted - 13 Mar 2012 : 17:24:51
|
So WSCC agree to let the developers erect cameras for some traffic study for which purpose is not made clear.
Then APC suggests they contribute to the Neighbourhood Plan.
Talk about loaded dice. And still we do not know whether APC supports or disagrees with the development being suggested.
It stinks! |
|
|
|
Pansy
Senior Member
United Kingdom
172 Posts |
Posted - 13 Mar 2012 : 17:50:38
|
| The plot thickens! |
|
|
|
only19
New Member
2 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2012 : 10:27:40
|
I am constantly surprised by the hypocrisy of the people I meet in the street with regard to the proposed new housing. When I moved here 21 years ago I had a conversation with a locally born and bred person who said they didn't want the houses we live in built in 1979. Then the Dell was built - which nobody wanted. Then Bramley Green was built - which nobody wanted. Now the residents of Bramley Green don't want the new housing built. Isn't that a bit hypocritical?
If we really feel this way I suggest the solution is a total ban on new housing in the whole of the south east together with a ban on any new business or business expansion. Then businesses would be forced to relocate north where there is plenty of housing stock and/or space available to build without the congestion and water shortage we have here. I'm sure they would be glad of the jobs too! |
|
|
|
derekdainton
deleted
579 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2012 : 15:09:33
|
Much has been commented on the impact of new development on traffic, infrastructure and amenities. But little on pure aesthetics.
The core of any village is very often attractive because of the variety of its buildings but developments in Angmering in post-war years have been marked individually by their sameness - Arundel Road, East Drive Ham Manor, The Dell and Bramley Green. And now the new proposals - houses of varying sizes but all based on the same design framework. Add to that, as with Bramley Green, high density, and you end up with another unimaginative solution.
It's the pile them high, sell them cheap, philosophy of the supermarkets. |
|
|
|
Bert
Advanced Member
484 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2012 : 15:31:28
|
only19...no, I don't see this as hypocritical at all.
When the then residents of Angmering heard about the building of your houses in 1979, they were perfectly entitled to be against them. The fact that the then local authority gave consent to build them, and a developer did build them, was nothing to do with the people who subsequently chose to buy them...including you.
Same for The Dell, and Bramley Green.
It is only hypocritical, if a person is active against a development, already residing in Angmering, and then subsequently purchases one, but even then, somebody will buy them, it doesn't really matter, after the event, who that is.
The vast majority of people who have bought properties as developments are built, (probably including yourself) come from outside Angmering, (we previously lived in Worthing) and had no involvement with being for or against the additional building.
I was against the building of the Community Centre, but it had planning consent, and it was built. I would not be so childish as to say I would not step inside it.
Any person who purchased a new property and moved in last week, is perfectly entitled to take the view that they like the village as it is, probably one of the reasons they chose to buy here, and do not want further housing development.
It has to be considered, that the population of this village is now already over 8,000. More than many small towns, such as Arundel.
I suspect most, whether they moved here in 1979 or last week, feel Angmering has taken more than it's fair share of residential development.
Hypocritical..?.....certainly not. |
|
|
|
GreenFields
Average Member
United Kingdom
65 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2012 : 06:40:27
|
It's about protecting the Village. There is no need for the new housing in Angmering when some many are being built near Wick. The infrastructure can't cope with the extra cars the development would bring.
It would be the tip of the Ice Berg for the development of all the land to the east of Roundstone Lane, and maybe the land that's left west of Roundstone Lane.
Barrett's aren't doing this for the local community, they're doing it for profit, we as the local residents have to try and protect the Village for future generations. |
|
|
|
Robinf
Senior Member
105 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2012 : 10:05:41
|
Well said Bert. I couldn't have put it better myself.
As a build on Bert's comments (no pun intended) I am a Bramley Green resident and am opposed to the proposed developments by Barrats et.al. but don't feel in the slightest hypocritical.
Like paying taxes and death, building houses is inevitably a fact of life because new housing is always going to be needed. The reality is that houses will be built in Angmering but I suggest the current residents do not want house building on the scale or on the locations that the developers would like the residents of Angmering to accept. For all their altruistic/philanthropic posturing to the community at large, at public exhibitions, council meetings, flyer drops, media notices and the like, large developers are only there to create shareholder wealth and to do that they survive on and love economies of scale.
Whichever way you look at their proposals for Angmering, they are all too much too soon after Bramley Green for all sorts of reasons already well documented
|
|
|
|
newbird
Average Member
37 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2012 : 15:26:07
|
I too am a resident of Bramley Green and was worried about seeming hypocritical, but Robin and Bert have summed up my feelings perfectly and I now feel happy to get involved!
I was fortunate enough to be born and bought up in the village of Sutton, just over the downs from Arundel - as my Parents and Grandparents were.
The village is protected and there is no chance whatsoever of new housing being built there which has completely priced me and others I grew up with out of the village. It has also totally changed the dynamics of the village. Most of the houses are larger detached properties, demand is much higher than supply and the prices are such that the only people who can afford them now are the wealthy retired, or people who work in the city and only stay at weekends. Half the village doesn’t know who the other half are! There are half a dozen council owned houses with young families in but when those children grow up they will have no choice but to move away. I can’t help thinking that allowing some housing, (even if only for local people, or people with connections to the area) wouldn’t have been a bad thing and ultimately would have preserved the community.(Dont get me wrong, its still a lovely village and i would love to go back but cant see me winning the lottery any time soon ;0))
I chose Angmering as I am a country girl at heart and can’t think of anything worse than living in the middle of a large town or city. Angmering still maintains a lovely community feel and we are blessed with beautiful countryside surrounding us (for the time being). It is also still affordable compared to many places in West Sussex because the supply can meet the demand.
Robin is right, building houses is inevitable and it’s not always a bad thing – within reason, but this proposed development is NOT within reason.
So whether we moved in 10 days ago, 10 years ago or whenever…… we all chose Angmering for our own reasons, and we all loved it for what it was at the time we were fortunate enough to discovered it.
No one should feel hypocritical for getting involved in something so important to the future of our village.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Building Development in Angmering (Part 1)
Topic Locked
