Residents say plans for Winchester housing development are based on "flawed logic" (From Romsey Advertiser)
When news happens, text ROMS and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
Residents say plans for Winchester housing development are based on "flawed logic"
12:00pm Wednesday 6th March 2013 in Winchester By Wesley Rock
Residents are concerned at the loss of green space, such as the one above at Dyson Drive
CAMPAIGNERS have slammed a council document that will decide the future of a Winchester suburb.
Last week civic chiefs endorsed a “planning framework” that will shape the development of 50 new homes in Abbotts Barton.
At an unusually crowded housing committee meeting on February 27, Neil Townsend, of the Abbotts Barton Community Development Action Group, said the document was based on “flawed logic”.
He said: “We were promised by Mr Tait (the city's housing boss) that the framework would address our concerns and we're bitterly disappointed.”
He claimed that residents' concerns centred on three issues: that the report contained flawed logic, that it ignores the council's own policies, and that it ignores the concerns of Abbotts Barton residents.
“Winchester is lacking in green space, so it's contrary to your own policy,” Mr Townsend told councillors.
But the city's corporate director, Steve Tilbury, said there was a “manifest” need for the housing and that 85 per cent of the green space at Charles Close would be retained, and 50 per cent of the green space at Dyson Drive.
“This framework is an effort to be transparent so that proposals are not seen to be coming suddenly and without consultation,” Mr Tilbury said.
Much of the controversy centred on the rejection by housing chiefs' of scrubland surrounding a cadet hut as an area suitable for housing. They instead proposed that it be used as a play area for children.
Councillor Dominic Hiscock said: “We do need some more affordable housing in Winchester. But what we're asking of the people of Abbotts Barton is that they make a considerable sacrifice.
“I also feel we have failed as a council to answer the question of the cadet hut.”
But housing boss Ian Tait insisted: “It's highly unlikely that we would ever be able to get our own planners to approve that site for development.”
Last week the Chronicle reported that the plans were part of an overall programme to build 350 affordable homes in the district in the next 10 years.
The £7.5 million development will see homes built on a mix of open space and garages in Austen Close, Dyson Drive, Charles Close, Hussey Close, Hillier Way and Colbourne Court.
Comments(6)
cardinalfang
says...
3:16pm Mon 11 Mar 13
Local government seems to be as corrupt as central government. Both have forgotten who they represent, the people, not lobbying builders and vested interests.
iantait
says...
5:30pm Mon 11 Mar 13
Abbotts Barton was farm land until 40 years ago and no doubt the farmer was viewed as a profiteer and the people moving in were not considered worthy by the likes of cardinalfang. I do wonder why Philip Ross and cardinalfang don't stand for election and then they can try and tackle the really dis-heartening issues like the chronic shortage of affordable housing and the other difficult problems.
cardinalfang
says...
1:10pm Tue 12 Mar 13
iantait wrote:You ought to save the ad hominem attacks for council chambers. Simply because someone questions your point of view isn't grounds to accuse them of poor character. It shows weakness of argument and a lack of facts.
At present there are 3652 households on Winchester's housing register and for the most part these are people who already live in the Winchester area and are either living in over crowded accommodation, renting in the (expensive) private sector, are sofa surfers, living with parents but can't afford to rent or buy or are just homeless. If cardinalfang belives that the figures are false and just made up by councillors, coucil staff and vested interests then I am not sure where we go from here.
Abbotts Barton was farm land until 40 years ago and no doubt the farmer was viewed as a profiteer and the people moving in were not considered worthy by the likes of cardinalfang. I do wonder why Philip Ross and cardinalfang don't stand for election and then they can try and tackle the really dis-heartening issues like the chronic shortage of affordable housing and the other difficult problems.
Where did I say that the figures were false and where did I state that people were not worthy? My post was entirely that councillors appear to taking advantage of loopholes for their own benefit, not the communities.
That was widely reported in the newspapers, not something I invented. The papers also contained quotes from councillors who seemed quite prepared to push through unnecessary developments for large fees. Again, reported information, not my invention. I merely commented on how it affects planning decisions.
And the reason why I don't stand for election is because I prefer to create wealth rather than spend it. Councils are wasteful and slothful, so I prefer a more fast paced environment where merit is respected and money is spent as if it is your own, because it usually is.
iantait
says...
6:05pm Tue 12 Mar 13
Perhaps cardinalfang is Rupert Murdoch in disguise as good old Rupert certainly makes loads of money (US$ 8.3 billion) and hasn't ever stood for election as far as I know and he doesn't seem to want the press to be regulated. He also mis-trusts all politians so maybe I am right about cardinalfang!
cardinalfang
says...
8:48am Wed 13 Mar 13
iantait wrote:I think you'll find that most people mistrust politicians, hence the result at Eastleigh where the LibDems only got in because they organised the postal votes before all the scandals hit the fan. Without that UKIP would have taken the seat, mainly as they are not Con/Lib/Lab, who are pretty much all social democrats. To be honest I regard that as electoral fraud, but the people of Eastleigh seem content to have more of the same.
I am grateful to cardinalfang for their further post (great latin by the way, clearly a classical scholar) as I clearly mis-judged their views, however after what was revealed by the Leveson Report I do wonder why anyone believes anything published by the various media organisations nowadays.
Perhaps cardinalfang is Rupert Murdoch in disguise as good old Rupert certainly makes loads of money (US$ 8.3 billion) and hasn't ever stood for election as far as I know and he doesn't seem to want the press to be regulated. He also mis-trusts all politians so maybe I am right about cardinalfang!
As for the press, Levenson is clearly vengeance by MPs for being found out with their hands in the till. It is a totally unnecessary move as there are already plenty of laws that could have been used on illegal press activities. Of course the police were complicit as well, so no surprise that the existing laws were not applied.
No-one in positions of "authority" are trusted like they used to be. Why? Well how about the following; one tenth of police officers are under investigation at any one time, thousands die of neglect in hospitals, MPs house flip and fiddle expenses, civil servants and BBC staff cheat the taxman with shell companies, councillors offer to smooth the path for developers.
The list goes on, those that are meant to work for the public abuse their positions more and more openly and don't give a **** what people think. They set the example that everyone now follows, the UK is becoming a nation of cheats and liars because the "elite" make it seem the norm.
On a more positive note, as soon as I can, I'm leaving, which will no doubt
please Mr Tait.
Philip Ross says...
3:38pm Thu 7 Mar 13