Borough council forms special committee to debate Manydown development

Basingstoke Gazette: Borough council forms special committee to debate Manydown development Borough council forms special committee to debate Manydown development

A NEW scrutiny committee has been formed to debate future plans for the Manydown development.

Councillors from Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council agreed to set up a Manydown overview and scrutiny committee at their latest full council meeting.

The new committee will work in conjunction with the existing Manydown executive committee – a committee of the borough’s cabinet who have the power to make decisions in relations to the council’s ownership, development and disposal of the land.

In addition to the Manydown executive committee, an informal joint group of planning officers from the borough council and Hampshire County Council work together to manage the project, including work on the draft plan allocation and planning applications.

The new committee will scrutinise issues of the Manydown development and will provide comments to the Manydown executive committee on future plans for the site.

Eight councillors have been chosen to sit on the new committee after 46 borough councillors voted to create the group. Councillors Robert Donnell and Hayley Eachus decided to vote against the creation of the new committee with eight abstentions at the 56-strong council meeting.

Conservative councillors Terri Reid, John Leek, Diane Taylor and Marilyn Tucker were chosen to represent the Tory part on the committee.

The Labour group will be represented by Cllr David Potter and Cllr Sean Keating, and Liberal Democrat councillor Paula Baker and Independent membe Cllr, Ian Tilbury, are also included in the committee.

The eight councillors voted to appoint Cllr Reid as the chairman of the committee, and Cllr Baker will serve as the vice-chairman.

Cllr Reid told The Gazette: “It is extremely important that if we have a meeting, the public can come along and have the chance to make comments.

“Up to this point, there has been scoping work done but it has not been done in the public forum, whereas this will be a public forum meeting.”

She added: “Manydown is going to affect a huge amount of people and it covers such a wide area. There are so many settled communities that will be affected, who will want to have a say in how it develops.”

Comments (20)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:05pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Jemmy1970 says...

I'm very sorry to say, but I am so concerned with the amount of development that is due to take place in this town over the coming years, that I plan to move my family out of the area at the earliest opportunity. Where the people are coming from I don't know (but I can guess), but taking into account that at certain times it can take 40 minutes to get from Kempshott to the Reading Road in Chineham, the target of approx 550 houses every year for 20 years is utterly frightening. I trust the Cllr's are aware of the responsibility they are entrusted with.
I'm very sorry to say, but I am so concerned with the amount of development that is due to take place in this town over the coming years, that I plan to move my family out of the area at the earliest opportunity. Where the people are coming from I don't know (but I can guess), but taking into account that at certain times it can take 40 minutes to get from Kempshott to the Reading Road in Chineham, the target of approx 550 houses every year for 20 years is utterly frightening. I trust the Cllr's are aware of the responsibility they are entrusted with. Jemmy1970
  • Score: 9

1:46pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Jonty11 says...

Good luck with the move - but be careful where you choose to go!

If you look at any of the surrounding local authorities, they all have extremely high numbers of developments coming through.....so unless you choose a 'cute' village protected by conservation + national park status - chances are you'll be swapping one set of congestion for another!
Good luck with the move - but be careful where you choose to go! If you look at any of the surrounding local authorities, they all have extremely high numbers of developments coming through.....so unless you choose a 'cute' village protected by conservation + national park status - chances are you'll be swapping one set of congestion for another! Jonty11
  • Score: 18

10:48am Fri 21 Mar 14

popleyrebel2 says...

Before any new committee is formed the Council should come clean about their catastrophic attempt to defend their stand on Manydown in the high court that cost the borough dearly, not only financially but bringing the Council in to disrepute.
I requested the information (freedom of information act) only to be fobbed off with crap that would insult most people’s intelligence, and of course they used Section 21.
“Section 21 of the FOI allows the Council to claim an exemption and not provide direct and detailed answers.”
My request was quite simple as shown below.

‘Regarding to the High court judgement that ruled against Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council in favour of the Manydown Company (2012)
REQUEST
Breakdown of all costs associated directly and indirectly with the failed attempt by the Council to resist the High Court application made about the Council's failure to develop the site - contrary to the purposes it was originally purchased for. As stated in the Judgement of the High Court.
LEGAL ADVICE /REPRESENTATION.
This should include all Solicitors/ Barristers fees for original advice and the preparation of the case at the High Court together with the preparation of all documents and affidavits also the names of law firms that advised and represented the Council.
WORKING HOURS.
Calculation of working hour (Senior Level) within the Council in support of the high court action.
Before any new committee is formed the Council should come clean about their catastrophic attempt to defend their stand on Manydown in the high court that cost the borough dearly, not only financially but bringing the Council in to disrepute. I requested the information (freedom of information act) only to be fobbed off with crap that would insult most people’s intelligence, and of course they used Section 21. “Section 21 of the FOI allows the Council to claim an exemption and not provide direct and detailed answers.” My request was quite simple as shown below. ‘Regarding to the High court judgement that ruled against Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council in favour of the Manydown Company (2012) REQUEST Breakdown of all costs associated directly and indirectly with the failed attempt by the Council to resist the High Court application made about the Council's failure to develop the site - contrary to the purposes it was originally purchased for. As stated in the Judgement of the High Court. LEGAL ADVICE /REPRESENTATION. This should include all Solicitors/ Barristers fees for original advice and the preparation of the case at the High Court together with the preparation of all documents and affidavits also the names of law firms that advised and represented the Council. WORKING HOURS. Calculation of working hour (Senior Level) within the Council in support of the high court action. popleyrebel2
  • Score: 5

10:28am Sat 22 Mar 14

Peter H. says...

popleyrebel2 wrote:
Before any new committee is formed the Council should come clean about their catastrophic attempt to defend their stand on Manydown in the high court that cost the borough dearly, not only financially but bringing the Council in to disrepute.
I requested the information (freedom of information act) only to be fobbed off with crap that would insult most people’s intelligence, and of course they used Section 21.
“Section 21 of the FOI allows the Council to claim an exemption and not provide direct and detailed answers.”
My request was quite simple as shown below.

‘Regarding to the High court judgement that ruled against Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council in favour of the Manydown Company (2012)
REQUEST
Breakdown of all costs associated directly and indirectly with the failed attempt by the Council to resist the High Court application made about the Council's failure to develop the site - contrary to the purposes it was originally purchased for. As stated in the Judgement of the High Court.
LEGAL ADVICE /REPRESENTATION.
This should include all Solicitors/ Barristers fees for original advice and the preparation of the case at the High Court together with the preparation of all documents and affidavits also the names of law firms that advised and represented the Council.
WORKING HOURS.
Calculation of working hour (Senior Level) within the Council in support of the high court action.
I suspect the Council would also have told you that Section 21 applies when the information you want is already available. It's a polite way of saying 'look it up for yourself'.

Indeed, a quick look at the their website shows this:

http://www.basingsto
ke.gov.uk/browse/adv
ice-and-benefits/you
r-right-to-know/our-
spending-and-account
s/

In fairness to the Council, they are usually very good and responding to FOI's provided they don't take a disproportionate amount of time to get the information and that you don't expect to be spoon fed. Council Staff already have a lot to do and responding to FOI's costs money too.
[quote][p][bold]popleyrebel2[/bold] wrote: Before any new committee is formed the Council should come clean about their catastrophic attempt to defend their stand on Manydown in the high court that cost the borough dearly, not only financially but bringing the Council in to disrepute. I requested the information (freedom of information act) only to be fobbed off with crap that would insult most people’s intelligence, and of course they used Section 21. “Section 21 of the FOI allows the Council to claim an exemption and not provide direct and detailed answers.” My request was quite simple as shown below. ‘Regarding to the High court judgement that ruled against Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council in favour of the Manydown Company (2012) REQUEST Breakdown of all costs associated directly and indirectly with the failed attempt by the Council to resist the High Court application made about the Council's failure to develop the site - contrary to the purposes it was originally purchased for. As stated in the Judgement of the High Court. LEGAL ADVICE /REPRESENTATION. This should include all Solicitors/ Barristers fees for original advice and the preparation of the case at the High Court together with the preparation of all documents and affidavits also the names of law firms that advised and represented the Council. WORKING HOURS. Calculation of working hour (Senior Level) within the Council in support of the high court action.[/p][/quote]I suspect the Council would also have told you that Section 21 applies when the information you want is already available. It's a polite way of saying 'look it up for yourself'. Indeed, a quick look at the their website shows this: http://www.basingsto ke.gov.uk/browse/adv ice-and-benefits/you r-right-to-know/our- spending-and-account s/ In fairness to the Council, they are usually very good and responding to FOI's provided they don't take a disproportionate amount of time to get the information and that you don't expect to be spoon fed. Council Staff already have a lot to do and responding to FOI's costs money too. Peter H.
  • Score: 3

2:32pm Sat 22 Mar 14

KateBrowne says...

Have they really taken out the proposal for "green break belts" between new and existing development? This would be such a lost opportunity to enhance and improve Basingstoke's Green routes, besides protecting the amenity of neighbours under the Saved Policy E1 Development Control
Have they really taken out the proposal for "green break belts" between new and existing development? This would be such a lost opportunity to enhance and improve Basingstoke's Green routes, besides protecting the amenity of neighbours under the Saved Policy E1 Development Control KateBrowne
  • Score: -1

10:40am Sun 23 Mar 14

popleyrebel2 says...

Section 21 is a complex and controversial part of the freedom of information act 2000, it was introduced in to act as a short cut for the requester and of course (in my case the Council)
However, since the act of 2000 there have been many cases passed on to the Information Commission, the most common being the abuse of section 21.
Section 21 clearly states and I quote,
“Section 21, this exemption means that public authorities don’t have to provide requested information that the requesters could reasonably easily obtain for themselves” un-quote.
The Council responded to my request for information by sending me links to Council meetings

The information you have requested is available on our website at the links given below:

http://www.basingsto
ke.gov.uk/browse/cou
ncil-and-democracy/c
ouncillors-democracy
-and-elections/counc
ilmeetings?meetingid
=1671 – Full Council Meeting – 17 May 2012
http://www.basingsto
ke.gov.uk/browse/cou
ncil-and-democracy/c
ouncillors-democracy
-and-elections/commi
tteemeetings?mode=me
eting&meetingid=1835 – Audit, Governance and Accounts Committee – 7 November 2012
http://www.basingsto
ke.gov.uk/browse/cou
ncil-and-democracy/c
ouncillors-democracy
-and-elections/commi
tteemeetings?mode=me
eting&meetingid=1809 - Audit, Governance and Accounts Committee – 18 February 2013
http://www.basingsto
ke.gov.uk/browse/cou
ncil-and-democracy/c
ouncillors-democracy
-and-elections/commi
tteemeetings?mode=me
eting&meetingid=1810 - Audit, Governance and Accounts Committee – 8 April 2013
http://www.basingsto
ke.gov.uk/browse/cou
ncil-and-democracy/c
ouncillors-democracy
-and-elections/commi
tteemeetings?mode=me
eting&meetingid=1811 - Audit, Governance and Accounts Committee – 3 June 2013

Peter H, do think it’s reasonable to ask someone to scroll through 19 hour of webcast of Council meeting to obtain answers under the freedom of information act 2000?
Section 21 is a complex and controversial part of the freedom of information act 2000, it was introduced in to act as a short cut for the requester and of course (in my case the Council) However, since the act of 2000 there have been many cases passed on to the Information Commission, the most common being the abuse of section 21. Section 21 clearly states and I quote, “Section 21, this exemption means that public authorities don’t have to provide requested information that the requesters could reasonably easily obtain for themselves” un-quote. The Council responded to my request for information by sending me links to Council meetings The information you have requested is available on our website at the links given below: http://www.basingsto ke.gov.uk/browse/cou ncil-and-democracy/c ouncillors-democracy -and-elections/counc ilmeetings?meetingid =1671 – Full Council Meeting – 17 May 2012 http://www.basingsto ke.gov.uk/browse/cou ncil-and-democracy/c ouncillors-democracy -and-elections/commi tteemeetings?mode=me eting&meetingid=1835 – Audit, Governance and Accounts Committee – 7 November 2012 http://www.basingsto ke.gov.uk/browse/cou ncil-and-democracy/c ouncillors-democracy -and-elections/commi tteemeetings?mode=me eting&meetingid=1809 - Audit, Governance and Accounts Committee – 18 February 2013 http://www.basingsto ke.gov.uk/browse/cou ncil-and-democracy/c ouncillors-democracy -and-elections/commi tteemeetings?mode=me eting&meetingid=1810 - Audit, Governance and Accounts Committee – 8 April 2013 http://www.basingsto ke.gov.uk/browse/cou ncil-and-democracy/c ouncillors-democracy -and-elections/commi tteemeetings?mode=me eting&meetingid=1811 - Audit, Governance and Accounts Committee – 3 June 2013 Peter H, do think it’s reasonable to ask someone to scroll through 19 hour of webcast of Council meeting to obtain answers under the freedom of information act 2000? popleyrebel2
  • Score: 5

3:03pm Sun 23 Mar 14

jonone says...

Jemmy1970 wrote:
I'm very sorry to say, but I am so concerned with the amount of development that is due to take place in this town over the coming years, that I plan to move my family out of the area at the earliest opportunity. Where the people are coming from I don't know (but I can guess), but taking into account that at certain times it can take 40 minutes to get from Kempshott to the Reading Road in Chineham, the target of approx 550 houses every year for 20 years is utterly frightening. I trust the Cllr's are aware of the responsibility they are entrusted with.
So, you object to development and people coming to live here and so will move your family elsewhere. OK for you to move into a new area, but not others eh? Nice.

To address other factors of your post, there is talk (but no plans that I have seen) for a road linking the M3 @ J7 with the A339.
[quote][p][bold]Jemmy1970[/bold] wrote: I'm very sorry to say, but I am so concerned with the amount of development that is due to take place in this town over the coming years, that I plan to move my family out of the area at the earliest opportunity. Where the people are coming from I don't know (but I can guess), but taking into account that at certain times it can take 40 minutes to get from Kempshott to the Reading Road in Chineham, the target of approx 550 houses every year for 20 years is utterly frightening. I trust the Cllr's are aware of the responsibility they are entrusted with.[/p][/quote]So, you object to development and people coming to live here and so will move your family elsewhere. OK for you to move into a new area, but not others eh? Nice. To address other factors of your post, there is talk (but no plans that I have seen) for a road linking the M3 @ J7 with the A339. jonone
  • Score: -5

4:18pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Jemmy1970 says...

"So, you object to development and people coming to live here and so will move your family elsewhere. OK for you to move into a new area, but not others eh? Nice."

Yes it is JonOne, because we are one family, who would be moving into an already built house, in said area, not 11,000 families or more moving in to the area, ripping up trees, ancient common land, 100 year old Deer Park Golf Courses (Basingstoke) and beautiful green fields. You get the drift now? You will when it all happens...
"So, you object to development and people coming to live here and so will move your family elsewhere. OK for you to move into a new area, but not others eh? Nice." Yes it is JonOne, because we are one family, who would be moving into an already built house, in said area, not 11,000 families or more moving in to the area, ripping up trees, ancient common land, 100 year old Deer Park Golf Courses (Basingstoke) and beautiful green fields. You get the drift now? You will when it all happens... Jemmy1970
  • Score: 7

4:50pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Peter H. says...

jonone wrote:
Jemmy1970 wrote:
I'm very sorry to say, but I am so concerned with the amount of development that is due to take place in this town over the coming years, that I plan to move my family out of the area at the earliest opportunity. Where the people are coming from I don't know (but I can guess), but taking into account that at certain times it can take 40 minutes to get from Kempshott to the Reading Road in Chineham, the target of approx 550 houses every year for 20 years is utterly frightening. I trust the Cllr's are aware of the responsibility they are entrusted with.
So, you object to development and people coming to live here and so will move your family elsewhere. OK for you to move into a new area, but not others eh? Nice.

To address other factors of your post, there is talk (but no plans that I have seen) for a road linking the M3 @ J7 with the A339.
I sympathise with both comments, though I understand the target is now 748 homes (not houses) per year for 15 years.

It’s a case of chickens coming home to roost, for years there has been a consistent shortfall in house building. It’s reckoned we now need to build about 240,000 homes a year nationally, roughly double what we are currently achieving.

No wonder some politicians and indeed a few tabloids, like to blame the situation on immigration. It is a factor, but the bigger issue is demographics.

The major change in recent years has been the extraordinary growth of single person households. There are nearly 8 million people living alone - about a third of all homes - double the number from a few years ago. Strangely, the fastest growth is coming from the 45-64 age group (now almost 2.5 million).

Added to this are people moving from other parts of the country (esp. London) due to affordability and job prospects.

We also have an aging population; ten years from now 25% of us will be retired and most will not want to ‘downsize’. This adds more pressure and, unless our expectations change, immigration will also have to continue - to help pay for all the growing social, health and pension costs.

So, like or not, we need more building. For those of us with a home, it’s probably not what we want to hear, but for those who haven’t (including our children) it’s a different story.

Popleyrebel2: The Council website appears to offer a lot of detail concerning Manydown, including reports and minutes. It also provides contact details to obtain audits. Failing that, why not contact your local councillor?
[quote][p][bold]jonone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jemmy1970[/bold] wrote: I'm very sorry to say, but I am so concerned with the amount of development that is due to take place in this town over the coming years, that I plan to move my family out of the area at the earliest opportunity. Where the people are coming from I don't know (but I can guess), but taking into account that at certain times it can take 40 minutes to get from Kempshott to the Reading Road in Chineham, the target of approx 550 houses every year for 20 years is utterly frightening. I trust the Cllr's are aware of the responsibility they are entrusted with.[/p][/quote]So, you object to development and people coming to live here and so will move your family elsewhere. OK for you to move into a new area, but not others eh? Nice. To address other factors of your post, there is talk (but no plans that I have seen) for a road linking the M3 @ J7 with the A339.[/p][/quote]I sympathise with both comments, though I understand the target is now 748 homes (not houses) per year for 15 years. It’s a case of chickens coming home to roost, for years there has been a consistent shortfall in house building. It’s reckoned we now need to build about 240,000 homes a year nationally, roughly double what we are currently achieving. No wonder some politicians and indeed a few tabloids, like to blame the situation on immigration. It is a factor, but the bigger issue is demographics. The major change in recent years has been the extraordinary growth of single person households. There are nearly 8 million people living alone - about a third of all homes - double the number from a few years ago. Strangely, the fastest growth is coming from the 45-64 age group (now almost 2.5 million). Added to this are people moving from other parts of the country (esp. London) due to affordability and job prospects. We also have an aging population; ten years from now 25% of us will be retired and most will not want to ‘downsize’. This adds more pressure and, unless our expectations change, immigration will also have to continue - to help pay for all the growing social, health and pension costs. So, like or not, we need more building. For those of us with a home, it’s probably not what we want to hear, but for those who haven’t (including our children) it’s a different story. Popleyrebel2: The Council website appears to offer a lot of detail concerning Manydown, including reports and minutes. It also provides contact details to obtain audits. Failing that, why not contact your local councillor? Peter H.
  • Score: 1

5:02pm Mon 24 Mar 14

John Hampshire says...

Net migration was 212,000 last year. I would call that more than a mere factor of a requirement of 240,000 homes a year.
Net migration was 212,000 last year. I would call that more than a mere factor of a requirement of 240,000 homes a year. John Hampshire
  • Score: 7

6:28pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Peter H. says...

John Hampshire wrote:
Net migration was 212,000 last year. I would call that more than a mere factor of a requirement of 240,000 homes a year.
I never suggested it was a 'mere' factor, John, that's your deliberate misinterpretation of my words.

But you do rather prove my earlier point. It's much easier and more comforting to point fingers at immigrants than face up to the bigger reality of changing demographics and an ageing population.

We can run from it, and pretend its not happening, but we paying for it just the same.
[quote][p][bold]John Hampshire[/bold] wrote: Net migration was 212,000 last year. I would call that more than a mere factor of a requirement of 240,000 homes a year.[/p][/quote]I never suggested it was a 'mere' factor, John, that's your deliberate misinterpretation of my words. But you do rather prove my earlier point. It's much easier and more comforting to point fingers at immigrants than face up to the bigger reality of changing demographics and an ageing population. We can run from it, and pretend its not happening, but we paying for it just the same. Peter H.
  • Score: -2

6:42pm Mon 24 Mar 14

John Hampshire says...

Peter H. wrote:
John Hampshire wrote:
Net migration was 212,000 last year. I would call that more than a mere factor of a requirement of 240,000 homes a year.
I never suggested it was a 'mere' factor, John, that's your deliberate misinterpretation of my words.

But you do rather prove my earlier point. It's much easier and more comforting to point fingers at immigrants than face up to the bigger reality of changing demographics and an ageing population.

We can run from it, and pretend its not happening, but we paying for it just the same.
I was not pointing a finger, I was quoting statistics. Given the figures (without even considering the higher birth rate among immigrants), how are changing demographics and an ageing population a bigger reality than immigration?
[quote][p][bold]Peter H.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John Hampshire[/bold] wrote: Net migration was 212,000 last year. I would call that more than a mere factor of a requirement of 240,000 homes a year.[/p][/quote]I never suggested it was a 'mere' factor, John, that's your deliberate misinterpretation of my words. But you do rather prove my earlier point. It's much easier and more comforting to point fingers at immigrants than face up to the bigger reality of changing demographics and an ageing population. We can run from it, and pretend its not happening, but we paying for it just the same.[/p][/quote]I was not pointing a finger, I was quoting statistics. Given the figures (without even considering the higher birth rate among immigrants), how are changing demographics and an ageing population a bigger reality than immigration? John Hampshire
  • Score: 5

9:51pm Mon 24 Mar 14

Jo Walke says...

Peter H : Basingstoke has consistently built - and often above 'target' for years but there is much room for improving options for an aging population - including the retention of specialist places where residents feel at 'home'.
Peter H : Basingstoke has consistently built - and often above 'target' for years but there is much room for improving options for an aging population - including the retention of specialist places where residents feel at 'home'. Jo Walke
  • Score: 1

9:59am Tue 25 Mar 14

Buster Preciation says...

To respond to Peter H's lengthy post without using the quote button: You give many factors for the 'cause' of the apparent housing need. And yet land is a non-renewable resource and on an island it is particularly finite. Surely we should be addressing the causes and not simply saying there is a need so let's get building.
Employers should be encouraged to locate in parts of the country where they are actually tearing down houses. Immigration should be more sustainable than at present by educating and training the indigenous population - that kills two birds with one stone.
To respond to Peter H's lengthy post without using the quote button: You give many factors for the 'cause' of the apparent housing need. And yet land is a non-renewable resource and on an island it is particularly finite. Surely we should be addressing the causes and not simply saying there is a need so let's get building. Employers should be encouraged to locate in parts of the country where they are actually tearing down houses. Immigration should be more sustainable than at present by educating and training the indigenous population - that kills two birds with one stone. Buster Preciation
  • Score: 11

10:53am Tue 25 Mar 14

Jemmy1970 says...

Spot on Buster, I can't recall a 'Housing Crisis' until Labour increased the net population of this country by 2.9 million people in the last 8 years of their tenure. That 2.9 million are probably nearer 5 million now with birth rate. I will except Peter's other contributing factors, but importing more people onto a small island, added to that an imbalance in our economy, where the building industry has way too much importance as an economic indicator (again crazy for a small island rapidly filling up with concrete) just doesn't make sense. Nor does his suggestion that immigration can help with paying with our ageing population. Rather warped economics there, as its ignores that the immigrants themselves will become old and therefore need healthcare and other services in their later years. Not to mention that they probably would not have made a lifetime of tax contribution to this country to cover it.
Spot on Buster, I can't recall a 'Housing Crisis' until Labour increased the net population of this country by 2.9 million people in the last 8 years of their tenure. That 2.9 million are probably nearer 5 million now with birth rate. I will except Peter's other contributing factors, but importing more people onto a small island, added to that an imbalance in our economy, where the building industry has way too much importance as an economic indicator (again crazy for a small island rapidly filling up with concrete) just doesn't make sense. Nor does his suggestion that immigration can help with paying with our ageing population. Rather warped economics there, as its ignores that the immigrants themselves will become old and therefore need healthcare and other services in their later years. Not to mention that they probably would not have made a lifetime of tax contribution to this country to cover it. Jemmy1970
  • Score: 11

12:17pm Tue 25 Mar 14

jonone says...

Jemmy1970 wrote:
"So, you object to development and people coming to live here and so will move your family elsewhere. OK for you to move into a new area, but not others eh? Nice." Yes it is JonOne, because we are one family, who would be moving into an already built house, in said area, not 11,000 families or more moving in to the area, ripping up trees, ancient common land, 100 year old Deer Park Golf Courses (Basingstoke) and beautiful green fields. You get the drift now? You will when it all happens...
But what gives you a greater right to move to a new area than others to move here?

I moved here from another part of the country in 2011, did I have no right to, despite the fact I was actually born here?

As for the immigrant argument, there are plenty such families living near me. All of whom appear to work full time, pay mortgages or private market rents and have small families. My own wife is an immigrant technically, but has paid her way ever since coming here. Yet, so many white Brits would consider her a second class citizen due to being foreign.
[quote][p][bold]Jemmy1970[/bold] wrote: "So, you object to development and people coming to live here and so will move your family elsewhere. OK for you to move into a new area, but not others eh? Nice." Yes it is JonOne, because we are one family, who would be moving into an already built house, in said area, not 11,000 families or more moving in to the area, ripping up trees, ancient common land, 100 year old Deer Park Golf Courses (Basingstoke) and beautiful green fields. You get the drift now? You will when it all happens...[/p][/quote]But what gives you a greater right to move to a new area than others to move here? I moved here from another part of the country in 2011, did I have no right to, despite the fact I was actually born here? As for the immigrant argument, there are plenty such families living near me. All of whom appear to work full time, pay mortgages or private market rents and have small families. My own wife is an immigrant technically, but has paid her way ever since coming here. Yet, so many white Brits would consider her a second class citizen due to being foreign. jonone
  • Score: -6

2:51pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Jemmy1970 says...

jonone wrote:
Jemmy1970 wrote:
"So, you object to development and people coming to live here and so will move your family elsewhere. OK for you to move into a new area, but not others eh? Nice." Yes it is JonOne, because we are one family, who would be moving into an already built house, in said area, not 11,000 families or more moving in to the area, ripping up trees, ancient common land, 100 year old Deer Park Golf Courses (Basingstoke) and beautiful green fields. You get the drift now? You will when it all happens...
But what gives you a greater right to move to a new area than others to move here?

I moved here from another part of the country in 2011, did I have no right to, despite the fact I was actually born here?

As for the immigrant argument, there are plenty such families living near me. All of whom appear to work full time, pay mortgages or private market rents and have small families. My own wife is an immigrant technically, but has paid her way ever since coming here. Yet, so many white Brits would consider her a second class citizen due to being foreign.
"As for the immigrant argument, there are plenty such families living near me. All of whom appear to work full time, pay mortgages or private market rents and have small families".

Then its not an argument anymore is it. You just said it yourself, yet we wonder where our green and pleasant is disappearing to? Thanks for clarifying.
[quote][p][bold]jonone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jemmy1970[/bold] wrote: "So, you object to development and people coming to live here and so will move your family elsewhere. OK for you to move into a new area, but not others eh? Nice." Yes it is JonOne, because we are one family, who would be moving into an already built house, in said area, not 11,000 families or more moving in to the area, ripping up trees, ancient common land, 100 year old Deer Park Golf Courses (Basingstoke) and beautiful green fields. You get the drift now? You will when it all happens...[/p][/quote]But what gives you a greater right to move to a new area than others to move here? I moved here from another part of the country in 2011, did I have no right to, despite the fact I was actually born here? As for the immigrant argument, there are plenty such families living near me. All of whom appear to work full time, pay mortgages or private market rents and have small families. My own wife is an immigrant technically, but has paid her way ever since coming here. Yet, so many white Brits would consider her a second class citizen due to being foreign.[/p][/quote]"As for the immigrant argument, there are plenty such families living near me. All of whom appear to work full time, pay mortgages or private market rents and have small families". Then its not an argument anymore is it. You just said it yourself, yet we wonder where our green and pleasant is disappearing to? Thanks for clarifying. Jemmy1970
  • Score: 7

9:11am Wed 26 Mar 14

popleyrebel2 says...

You can’t debate any housing debate (lack of housing stock) without introducing Thatcher’s right to buy, the act was introduced in the Housing Act 1980 as one of the first major reforms introduced by the Thatcher government and as a consequence devastated the housing stock and of course peoples chances of having a roof over their heads.
Thatcher’s propaganda at that time was simple (just like Cameron’s today) helping people get their foot on the property ladder, however, it became clear that it was just a political move, Thatcher s thinking was that people with a mortgage would more likely vote Tory, she was right of course.
The Tories stayed in power until 1997 sadly however, the housing stocks never recovered.
Cameron’s Government has introduced the bedroom tax at the same time however, supporting young couples to buy 5 bedroom houses, are they more likely to vote Tory???
You can’t debate any housing debate (lack of housing stock) without introducing Thatcher’s right to buy, the act was introduced in the Housing Act 1980 as one of the first major reforms introduced by the Thatcher government and as a consequence devastated the housing stock and of course peoples chances of having a roof over their heads. Thatcher’s propaganda at that time was simple (just like Cameron’s today) helping people get their foot on the property ladder, however, it became clear that it was just a political move, Thatcher s thinking was that people with a mortgage would more likely vote Tory, she was right of course. The Tories stayed in power until 1997 sadly however, the housing stocks never recovered. Cameron’s Government has introduced the bedroom tax at the same time however, supporting young couples to buy 5 bedroom houses, are they more likely to vote Tory??? popleyrebel2
  • Score: -5

11:38am Wed 26 Mar 14

Jemmy1970 says...

popleyrebel, utter nonsense! How did the right to buy effect housing stock? No houses were knocked down, it simply gave many many families previously in council houses, the opportunity to get onto the property ladder and achieve upward mobility. Many families took up the option, as a result many families since have moved up that property ladder, and have moved to larger houses in non-council housing estates or villages. This will of course leave a greater lasting legacy for their families, giving them better opportunities than their parents and grandparents had. These are all good things for our economy and society at large. If some families didn't take that option and remain in council housing, that's fine also. That was their choice, but they should not become bitter about it. My family did not prosper under the Thatcher year's, but I am not bitter about it, the blame does not lie with Mrs Thatcher, in fact I am not one to apportion blame at all, that would achieve nothing and I'm all for achieving. We have a housing crisis (and with population projections, we ain't seen nothing yet) because a certain political party who were in power for 13 years, opened the floodgates to immigrants in a cynical attempt to alter the indigenous culture of this country and at the same time import an electorate to try to gain future and more consistent power. The real tragedy is - It will probably be successful.... http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/news/uknews/l
aw-and-order/6418456
/Labour-wanted-mass-
immigration-to-make-
UK-more-multicultura
l-says-former-advise
r.html
popleyrebel, utter nonsense! How did the right to buy effect housing stock? No houses were knocked down, it simply gave many many families previously in council houses, the opportunity to get onto the property ladder and achieve upward mobility. Many families took up the option, as a result many families since have moved up that property ladder, and have moved to larger houses in non-council housing estates or villages. This will of course leave a greater lasting legacy for their families, giving them better opportunities than their parents and grandparents had. These are all good things for our economy and society at large. If some families didn't take that option and remain in council housing, that's fine also. That was their choice, but they should not become bitter about it. My family did not prosper under the Thatcher year's, but I am not bitter about it, the blame does not lie with Mrs Thatcher, in fact I am not one to apportion blame at all, that would achieve nothing and I'm all for achieving. We have a housing crisis (and with population projections, we ain't seen nothing yet) because a certain political party who were in power for 13 years, opened the floodgates to immigrants in a cynical attempt to alter the indigenous culture of this country and at the same time import an electorate to try to gain future and more consistent power. The real tragedy is - It will probably be successful.... http://www.telegraph .co.uk/news/uknews/l aw-and-order/6418456 /Labour-wanted-mass- immigration-to-make- UK-more-multicultura l-says-former-advise r.html Jemmy1970
  • Score: 4

1:00pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Jonty11 says...

Just a thought......if cost of land is about 2 million per hectare (just checked this with the valuation office) and you get about 30 houses per hectare - then if they're building 3500 houses - your talking about over 100 hectares.

Which means a profit on the sale of over 200 million pounds. Somebody will probably tell me my maths is wrong but does this mean that BDBC can become self financing as the interest from that amount of cash (on top of what they have) might mean they don't need Government grant or council tax to fund themselves - as I said, just a thought!
Just a thought......if cost of land is about 2 million per hectare (just checked this with the valuation office) and you get about 30 houses per hectare - then if they're building 3500 houses - your talking about over 100 hectares. Which means a profit on the sale of over 200 million pounds. Somebody will probably tell me my maths is wrong but does this mean that BDBC can become self financing as the interest from that amount of cash (on top of what they have) might mean they don't need Government grant or council tax to fund themselves - as I said, just a thought! Jonty11
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree