[Diggers350] Newbury development and food growing

Tony Gosling tony at cultureshop.org.uk
Tue Apr 17 02:17:08 BST 2012

Newbury bypass was wholly unnecessary
The conjestion it eased was caused by
1. a Sainsbury's being built on the outside of 
the dual carriageway junction to the West of the town and
2. traffic lights having to be installed on the 
roundabout of what was a dualled A-road - effectively a motorway.
Put traffic lights in and make lots of extra 
traffic cross a motorway and you will see gridlock.
Great excuse for a bypass
Instead of the roundabout & traffic lights the 
section 106 agreement for Sainsbury's COULD have 
stipulated they build a split level junction instead
- with a roundabout on top of the dual carriageway A34
The short section of single carriageway A34 to 
the North of Sainsbury's could also have been 
dualled - but it ran along the front drives of 
many of the most expensive homes in Newbury
Either of these two solutions would have reduced 
and even negated the need for a bypass
But.... the land between Newbury and the proposed 
Eastern bypass had already been bought by speculators
Land Securities and the like.
The existing rout was not going to be upgraded - too much money at stake
Rich people don't like motorways being built at the end of their drive.
Speculators don't like to lose money.

The LibDem MP was David Rendall
Whatever happened to him now?

At 10:31 15/04/2012, david bangs wrote:
>The Newbury development is a spin off / 
>consequence of the Newbury Bypass (which I am 
>sure you opposed)...and the Newbury Bypass was 
>part of a roads policy which served the 
>interests of capital, not of ordinary folk. That 
>is, it served/serves to concentrate capital in 
>regions and sub-regions most favourable for 
>profit...at the expense of other regions (both 
>within the UK, Europe, and globally) and at the expense of nature.
>The proposed Newbury development is at the 
>junction of the M4 ('silicone valley') corridor 
>and the A34 (Solent/Oxford/midlands) corridor. 
>That is the reason for its landscape's 
>vulnerability...and its ancient riverine and 
>woodland landscapes - of massive cultural importance - are ignored.
>Watership Down lies over 4 miles to the south 
>and is entirely irrelevant...a bit of journalistic hyperbole...
>The Newbury Sandleford developmemt is proposed 
>in a landscape which is a palimpsest of little 
>woods, streams and open land. It is the last 
>place one would rationally choose to put a major built development.
>Agricultural land in Britain relative to 
>population IS scarce. Much of that land is in 
>the middling and lower grades. Here in Sussex 
>the higher grades (two and one) are on the 
>coastal plain and on bands of ground which are 
>subject to full-on built development pressures 
>and (in the former case and in the long run) 
>from climate change sea level rise.
>We could and should increase the footprint of 
>productive food growing land but that needs be 
>done in a very considered and planned fashion to 
>prevent it taking place at the expense of nature 
>and historic cultural landscapes.
>I, too, hated the programme...and turned it 
>off...but for different reasons to you. There 
>was no mention (if I recall correctly) of 
>affordable housing or the kind of employment 
>opportunities, and the opponent of the housing 
>was very much a local plummy type...and no 
>attempt to discuss the issue in larger terms was 
>made. The fact of market-based uneven and 
>combined development was taken as a kind of 
>inevitable 'truth',...not something which must be challenged.,
>Your response worries me and reminds me of 
>something I've always hated in Cahill's "Who 
>Owns Britain" book...and which your argument 
>reflects. His notion is that a democratic 
>re-structuring of land ownership will release 
>all the 'wasted', under-utilised land in Britain 
>for increased exploitation...his notion is that 
>the amount of land is not (part of) the problem, 
>if only it were democratically owned....as 
>though we are living on the edge of the 'empty' 
>American prairies before the 19th century land 
>rush...not on islands jam-packed and 
>super-exploited by 250 years of capitalism at 
>the expense of most of the rest of the world..
>I start from the opposite standpoint to 
>Cahill...There is far too little land...and both 
>nature, built development and food growing are 
>driven into destructive competition by the 
>capitalist conditions of its exploitation.
>The case for land reform is a case for the 
>democratic resolution of these competitions on 
>all spatial scales, NOT a case for some 
>atavistic release of our developmental energies anywhere that goes...
>Dave Bangs
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:james36armstrong at hotmail.com>james armstrong
>To: <mailto:thelandisours at yahoogroups.com>TLIO 
>list ; <mailto:diggers350 at yahoogroups.com>diggers
>Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2012 9:23 AM
>Subject: [TheLandIsOurs] BBC bias
>The BBC are as thick as two short planks. Either that or  propagandists.
>-what Franz Fanon calls , ‘bewilderers’
>Helen Marks on ‘Open country’ BBC Radio 4 , 14th 
>April, said ,in the context of the plan to
>build 1000 new houses near Newbury
>“Agricultural  land is scarce. ”  without any qualifications, (or source)
>The truth is that of the UK’s total 60 million 
>acres, 46million are agricultural use.
>Some 77%.
>These figures are  derived from Annual 
>Abstract  after converting  square kilometres into
>Hectares – (but why should I give sources when BBC doesn’t?)
>Three members of Council  for Protection of 
>Rural England opposed the plan on air .
>Without declaring  their interest as landowners? 
>As multiple houseowners, as well-housed 
>people?  Only one acknowledged his membership of CPRE.
>(I suggest that CPRE engineered the whole BBC programme  as NFU regularly do)
>None identified or suggested a  specific alternative site for the new houses.
>No homeless people were interviewed .
>Fictional characters, rabbits,  from Watership Down  were  quoted at length.
>  A planning officer stated the case for 
> developing  this site- it adjoined houses and 
> it was near a new  shopping precinct.
>The ignorance of the BBC is breathtaking - 
>of  the unqualified statement that ‘agricultural 
>land is scarce.’ (no mention of that agriculture 
>uses 77 per cent of all UK land, or of the 
>1million acres of pony paddocks, or 1million acres of set aside  etc. )
>Also interests should be declared -  the 
>interest of the CPRE people was not, so   we 
>don’t know  if those interviewed are 
>well-hoiused or multiple housed and in no  need 
>of new houses . They  should  detail exactly 
>where the alternative sites are for each of the 
>1,000  houses if not on Watership Down’
>A Radio 4  ‘ Open Country ‘ programme devoted to 
>housing  gave  no background to the issue, not 
>the  2million backlog of unbuilt houses needed 
>as identified by Barker nor the record low 
>numbers  built since the Barker Review, nor of out of reach prices
>It was  wrong to cast the  planning officer as 
>an advocate for new houses –  the planning 
>decision represents the views of   CPRE members 
>as well as of other people including  those needing housing.
>The voice of the homeless , and of the 
>house-needy , of selfbuilders seeking 
>sites,  and of those  informed of the national 
>housing issues and of  those 
>advocating  repopulating the deserted English 
>countryside  is needed and was missing .
>Such  programmes as this  demonstrate 
>institutional bias , by the public services 
>broadcasting medium.  And  the influence 
>of  lobby  groups  to mould the public  policy.
>But what can you expect from a programme which 
>quotes Hazel and Fiver , two fictional 
>rabbits,  and the   people who need houses were not heard?
>TLIO AND DIGGERS  absolutely need to focus 
>on  Open Country, Country File , Farming Today 
>etc with a view to  creating  opportunities for 
>and being heard on  programmes  which better 
>inform people about  land matters and  which 
>expose lobbyiong  by powerful interests.
>I feel another leaflet coming on.   James

+44 (0)7786 952037
"Capitalism is institutionalised bribery."

"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic 
poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung

Fear not therefore: for there is nothing covered 
that shall not be revealed; and nothing hid that 
shall not be made known. What I tell you in 
darkness, that speak ye in the light and what ye 
hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. Matthew 10:26-27

Die Pride and Envie; Flesh, take the poor's advice.
Covetousnesse be gon: Come, Truth and Love arise.
Patience take the Crown; throw Anger out of dores:
Cast out Hypocrisie and Lust, which follows whores:
Then England sit in rest; Thy sorrows will have end;
Thy Sons will live in peace, and each will be a friend.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.gn.apc.org/mailman/private/diggers350/attachments/20120417/070d1e52/attachment.html>

More information about the Diggers350 mailing list