Planning inspector raises more questions over council's Sandleford decision

Just two weeks after the council’s planning framework for housing in West Berkshire over the next 14 years was agreed by district councillors, independent inspector Simon Emerson has outlined several concerns over the council’s Core Strategy document, specifically relating to proposals to develop Sandleford.
The Core Strategy, which outlines plans for 10,500 homes to be built in the district by 2026, was voted through on party lines on February 14.
In a note to the council, dated March 1, Mr Emerson questioned what alternative sites had been considered by the council for development, why Sandleford was chosen as the ‘best site’, and why the council has earmarked Sandleford for up to 2,000 homes when the overall housing provision in the plan was reduced by 500 in 2009.
He also asked the council to explain what provisions it has made for accommodating an influx of schoolchildren into the area and was concerned that since Park House School now has academy status, it could affect the council’s previous plans for its expansion.
District councillor and Liberal Democrat Tony Vickers (Northcroft), who is leading his party’s objection to any development of Sandleford Park, said the inspector’s note “gives hope that he may recommend the houses go elsewhere in Newbury.”
He claimed that despite the council being asked in October to agree to a ‘reassessment’ of alternative sites going out to consultation, it was “just a re-packaging of the same old arguments – not a real reappraisal.”
“The Tory-led Council had made up its mind about Sandleford before it even consulted the public in 2009 - and had no intention of reviewing that decision last year,” he claimed.
In response, West Berkshire’s executive councillor for planning and housing, Alan Law (Con, Basildon), told Newburytoday.co.uk: “There was no suggestion of a preferred site when the council published its consultation options in 2009. This can be clearly seen from minutes of the planning task group which the Lib Dem’s also sat on.”
He confirmed that three alternative sites - Sandleford, Siege Cross and North Newbury - were considered in addition to the Newbury Racecourse site during its consultations in 2009, prior to which it had looked at 12 other sites.
He said: “The Sandleford site was considered to be well related to existing communities and facilities, including schools, Newbury College, the retail park, local shopping centre, surgery and pharmacy with potential to create a country park with public access in the south of the site.
“North of Newbury was considered less well related to the existing community, with the site split by the A339 constraining the potential for an integrated sustainable community. The impact on the setting of Donnington village was also a consideration.
“Thatcham has more limited facilities and services than Newbury, the capacity of schools was an issue and Thatcham had already experienced high levels of growth in recent years. A more modest level of growth focusing on regeneration was more appropriate for Thatcham, ruling out the Siege Cross site.”
He said that although the housing requirement was reduced by 500, the council had to give certainty about the long term direction of growth of the district.
In regards to schooling, he said the council “cannot ‘force’ an academy to expand” but hoped to come to a solution with Park House.
And he claimed: “Primary school provision would be provided via a complete new school.”