Topic: Coate and Eric Pickles MP

[Jean]

Tweet

As you will remember, Swindon Council's planning committee turned down a planning application for 900 houses, 15 ha employment land etc at Coate/Badbury Wick last year. Redrow Homes and Persimmon Homes appealed against the decision. The appeal was heard in November 2011. It was announced that the Secretary of State would make the final decision on or before 3 April 2012.

By now the Planning Inspector (Geoffrey Hill) should be completing/has completed his report and recommendation.

It will be a good time to write to Eric Pickles if you can find the time to do so.

A sample text for a possible letter has been put up at:

http://jefferiesland.blogspot.com/2012/01/please-write-to-eric-pickles-mp.html

Rt Hon Eric Pickles
Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government
Eland House
Bressenden Place
London SW1E 5DU

Dear Mr Pickles

Re: Planning Appeal No: APP/U3935/A/11/2155834       
Land at Dayhouse Lane, Coate, Swindon.

Your planning inspector, Geoffrey Hill, will be completing his report of the Planning Inquiry held in November 2011. I support Swindon Borough Council's reasons to refuse planning permission for building on the appeal site and hope that you will too. The countryside at Coate and Badbury Wick is greatly valued and significant for many reasons that include the following:
- the landscape setting of Coate Water Country Park and Site of Special Scientific Interest  - the views from Liddington Hill and the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty - the recreational value of Dayhouse Lane (a peaceful country lane) for walkers, cyclists, horse-riders and joggers who use it as a gateway to the downs - the inherent wildlife importance of Dayhouse Copse, ancient trees, hedges, bat roosts, badger setts and otter streams - the literary associations of internationally renowned Richard Jefferies - the archaeological quality of the area that dates back to pre-history - the agricultural quality of the land - 22% is grade 2/3a, best and most versatile farmland - the views from the Great Western Hospital that help aid recovery. 
Over 52,000 people signed  a petition asking Swindon Council to protect this prized  corner of Swindon. The environmental, historic and literary value of the appeal site far outweighs any benefits that more housing, offices and industrial units can offer. The planning application provides nothing special. It is not a sustainable development, it is premature and will set a precedent for infill development around Coate Water Country Park. 
Please dismiss the appeal lodged by Swindon Gateway Partnership.
Thank you.

Yours sincerely

I've attached a WORD version too.

Your help would be much appreciated.

Many thanks.

Jean

[Greengirl]

Tweet

It may also be worth mentioning that this is one of the rare things that has united Swindon and SBC.

 Also that in the times we are facing of recession and straightened circumstances- enjoyment of beautiful countryside is free.  It may be a cost saving in terms of not having to increase drug budgets to the NHS (not just in the hospital) while we still have places to go to which are close to enjoy the air and refresh the spirit.

Finally, that there are immense amounts of brownfield sites which, if the developers were less avaricious, could be developed for housing and would restore those spaces  within Swindon itself.

[Jean]

Tweet

It may also be worth mentioning that this is one of the rare things that has united Swindon and SBC.

Not quite! Swindon Council is still pushing Coate forward as a development area for 900 houses in its Swindon Core Strategy. And if it hadn't been for Mike Bawden pushing the site to the forefront for a university site (to be paid for by allowing the national house-builders in), the area would still be protected by a landscape protection policy in the town plan.

 

[Jean]

Tweet

And whilst putting the record straight, Rod Bluh was the only conservative candidate or conservative councillor at the time of the 2004 local elections to put his head above the parapet and put on record that he was totally against any development at Coate. 

[the gorgon]

Tweet

It may also be worth mentioning that this is one of the rare things that has united Swindon and SBC.

Not quite! Swindon Council is still pushing Coate forward as a development area for 900 houses in its Swindon Core Strategy. And if it hadn't been for Mike Bawden pushing the site to the forefront for a university site (to be paid for by allowing the national house-builders in), the area would still be protected by a landscape protection policy in the town plan.

Good point. Does make you wonder if Cllr Bawden has really thought through the idea of standing for the new Chiseldon and Lawn ward (as some rumours have suggested).  I doubt the people of the ward were very happy about the Coate proposals, one lot wouldn't want Swindon's urban sprawl creeping towards their village and the others won't want to lose the countryside near where they live.

If the LibDems (who will be the only competition for the Tories as neither Chiseldon nor Lawns are exactly Labour voting areas) get their act together Cllr Bawden could be an unhappy chappy as he has provided them with plenty of ammunition.

[jennyb]

Tweet

I met a really nice young chap the other night who is a Conservative candidate for ( I think) Mannington,

Most organisations do some sort of planning to bring new folks on..... was the young chap I met the only new blood in the Conservative offerring for 2012?

I believe that Cllrs Bawden  and Foley are leaving Old town behind ( as they are not standing for re-election here ) in 2012 and are heading for Lawn and Chiseldon.  Does anyone know if they were the only Conservative candidates in the selection for this ward?

And.. I've also met some new and interesting Labour candidates.

For the avoidance of doubt.. I have no political affiliation... 

[Martin Wicks]

Tweet

That's true Jean, but then he reneged on his promise, "No University, housing at Coate".

[Martin Wicks]

Tweet

That should have read, of course "No University, (then) No housing at Coate".

See this: http://martinwicks.wordpress.com/2011/01/05/reject-the-planning-application-%E2%80%93-keep-coate-a-country-park/#more-305

[Jean]

Tweet

That should have read, of course "No University, (then) No housing at Coate".

See this: http://martinwicks.wordpress.com/2011/01/05/reject-the-planning-application-%E2%80%93-keep-coate-a-country-park/#more-305

Rod told me that there was a terrific fight within the Conservatives about protecting the land at Coate and that the split was mainly 50:50. In particular Councillors who had no particular sway over this part of the town saw Coate as an opportunity to build there when their own "greenfields" were up for grabs. Swindon Council's planning officers also led him up the garden path. He was told by them that the Council could not reverese the status of the land to what it was before - i.e. protected countryside. I told him that this was rubbish - there is no reason on earth that a Council cannot change the status of a land-use planning policy. They do it all the time.

We heard at the Coate Planning Inquiry that the Council used the Coate "allocation" of houses & employment land as good reason to argue against releasing the Hook Street site for development to meet the 5 years housing supply. It was the same Planning Inspector who conducted the Hook Street Appeal and the Coate one. What must he think about that as a shabby tactic to pit one site against another? That being said, the Council argued (at the Coate appeal) that the proposed housing allocation at Tadpole Farm and East Swindon could meet the 5 years land-supply!   

The problem is that Councillors don't understand planning law and leave it to their officers to get on with it. They only put up a fight in a typical NIMBY knee-jerk reaction.

   

[jennyb]

Tweet

The problem is that Councillors don't understand planning law and leave it to their officers to get on with it. They only put up a fight in a typical NIMBY knee-jerk reaction.
 
[/quote]

This might seem like a naive question... but do those on the Planning Committee understand planning law?

[Jean]

Tweet

This might seem like a naive question... but do those on the Planning Committee understand planning law?

I believe that they go on a very basic training session, but I should be interested to hear from any Councillor or ex-Councillor just what, exactly, this entails.

Planning law is very complicated and designed to be so to exclude the public from participating in the process.

Remember that the post-war imperative was to rebuild Britain, and rightly so at that time. There was and still is a presumption in favour of development unless "material considerations" prove otherwise. Environmental issues are still pretty new on the planning agenda. The presumption is now supposed to be in favour of "sustainable development" where the economic, social and environmental aspects should be treated on an equal footing. This isn't what happens.

[I Could Do That]

Tweet

Grrrr! It makes my blood boil!

..........and breathe.

Anyone writing to the likes of Mr Pickles  is welcome to use any of the following photos.

Ask them what's the point of spoiling this, when Whichelstowe is not selling and has a road to nowhere

http://m.flickr.com/#/photos/73970391@N03/sets/72157628901119515/

[Jean]

Tweet

Jennyb made some excellent points on another thread about decisions being made behind closed doors, without consultation with the local community and with nothing minuted. The "decisions" are then presented to the public in the form of a consultation exercise, and any mass objection is then ignored. This goes on all the time. Welcome to the real world! 

The Coate allocation was no different.

Redrow Homes also new about the site for the proposed new hospital at Commonhead way before it was public knowledge. I found the hospital site marked in a planning document they issued years before the hospital was talked about (Redrow Homes wanted the land between the "hospital site" and Coate Water for housing). The hospital was the Trojan Horse that kicked off the degradation of this corner of Swindon. When the hospital was given planning permission, it was given with the understanding that it would not set a precedent for more. Martin Wicks and I were both pillaried in the local paper for attempting to get out the truth about the new hospital - it wasn't going to be big enough and housing developers were ready to step in to infill.

Before all this, I was invited to a meeting with the head of planning and the Leader of the Council (Keith Small at the time). It was just the three of us. I was told that the Council didn't want the hospital built at Commonhead. Planning was concerned about the traffic implications for an out-of-town site and that parking would develop into a major issue. Keith Small was concerned about the entire PFI system. They asked me if I could do all I could to stop it! Me and who's army? But we lost and everything that was feared at the time has come true - hospital too small, too much car-based traffic, precedent set for more development.

The public have no idea what goes on and by the time that they find out, it is too late to do anything... 

[Martin Wicks]

Tweet

That's Kevin Small Jean, Keith was his dad.

For those who weren't around at the time, we were told when they granted planning permission for the new Hospital, don't worry, it will not be used as a precedent for further 'development'!

[Jean]

Tweet

That's Kevin Small Jean, Keith was his dad.

For those who weren't around at the time, we were told when they granted planning permission for the new Hospital, don't worry, it will not be used as a precedent for further 'development'!

It was Keith (the dad) - shows how long ago this meeting took place - but he wasn't leader of the Council. I couldn't alter my original post to correct this. It was in Sue Bates time as leader, and Keith Small was one of the higher echelon members of the council. 

[jennyb]

Tweet

That's Kevin Small Jean, Keith was his dad.

For those who weren't around at the time, we were told when they granted planning permission for the new Hospital, don't worry, it will not be used as a precedent for further 'development'!

In the sad event that Coate is developed ( and I sincerely hope not)...this must mean that more people have come to live in Swindon.

More people means more need for hospitals ( I am just a simple soul and like to do my sums)..

therefore the Hospital may need to expand.... and bigger hospital means more parking

So... how will this happen... as the Hospital is in effect land locked?

As to a 5 year land supply... what happens when all the green space has gone... even the Polo Ground which our WCs, including Cllr Bawden say has a covenant ( as does Croft). Maybe this question should be posed by the Chiseldon and Lawn electorate?

[Jean]

Tweet

In the sad event that Coate is developed ( and I sincerely hope not)...this must mean that more people have come to live in Swindon.

More people means more need for hospitals ( I am just a simple soul and like to do my sums)..

therefore the Hospital may need to expand.... and bigger hospital means more parking

So... how will this happen... as the Hospital is in effect land locked?

As to a 5 year land supply... what happens when all the green space has gone... even the Polo Ground which our WCs, including Cllr Bawden say has a covenant ( as does Croft). Maybe this question should be posed by the Chiseldon and Lawn electorate?

If my memory serves me correctly, the new hospital was designed with 200 less beds than Princess Margaret Hospital (or was it more?) but with the same number of car-parking spaces. The parking problem at the Great Western just shows how staff and visitors are now more reliant on car-based journeys to hospital. This is exactly the reason why Government sustainable transport policy encourages development of community facilities to take place where there is access to excellent public transport services. No-one in their right mind even considers travelling by car to work or visit at a London hospital. The Council has been blamed for the parking problems at Great Western. This is not their fault! It is their fault that they granted planning permission when they knew full well that the Swindon & Marlborough NHS Transport would fail in their promise that a Green Transport Policy would work!

The argument about population growth and hospital expansion has been argued many times. As far as Government is concerned, Swindon is still identified as a major growth target, albeit that this is now out of the control of the Regional Assemblies. It has always been the case that the National House Building Federation has dictated housing numbers. They are still around, arguing the toss at planning inquiries, in order to build up their massive land-banks. They have no intention to build in the current economic climate, but they still want to increase their landbanks.

I'm sorry to say that there is still plenty of countryside around Swindon (not necessarily in the Borough) where "growth" can continue. However, Swindon does not have the infrastructure to support more growth and this is the nub of the problem. Neither is it right to build on the green spaces within the urban area. People need their green spaces to remain sane.   

[Geoff Reid]

Tweet

That's Kevin Small Jean, Keith was his dad.

For those who weren't around at the time, we were told when they granted planning permission for the new Hospital, don't worry, it will not be used as a precedent for further 'development'!

Isn't that the same lie used to smooth over potential objections to the 'temporary' school originally placed at Croft?

If it is the same lie, perhaps we should have a TS-style sniff for systematic use and abuse of the same.

[Muggins]

Tweet

I remember bed-gate,  we were told that less people would stay in hospital and when they did stay they would stay shorter times.

When Northern Development was at the planning stage, the arguments were about a bigger hospital, more beds  for the addition of a development the size of Salisbury.  The answer was - 30 more 'acute' beds, that was all we were to get.  A few years later before the development waas complelty built and lets face it it still isn't finished now -they cut the size of the hospital and reduced the number of beds by hundreds. 

Then they put the hospital to where they did we protested again and they said - green tranport policy and got S106 (or something like it, for more buses straight through from North Swindon, that lasted as long as the subsidy - as we predicted -and recently we've seen the cut of yet another bus route to it.  And by building it were they did most if not all are dependent to get transport to it - as we predicted.

So in a place were it could serve Wiltshire, not just Swindon, means that we ALL have to travel to it, instead of half.  And if the Wiltshire people do use buses, I bet they have to come into the centre, change and go back out to Coate.

[jennyb]

Tweet

That's Kevin Small Jean, Keith was his dad.

For those who weren't around at the time, we were told when they granted planning permission for the new Hospital, don't worry, it will not be used as a precedent for further 'development'!

Isn't that the same lie used to smooth over potential objections to the 'temporary' school originally placed at Croft?

If it is the same lie, perhaps we should have a TS-style sniff for systematic use and abuse of the same.

In Apr 2010 Residents were assured that the building of the temporary scholl was necessary as East Wichel was a building site and unsafe. Residents were told that reference to a footprint for a permanent school didn't mean anything as there were no plans .

A WC and and Officer told them that.

The WC had signed off the budget for the Croft some 5 months  before in Dec 2009.

The Officer had a plan for the school building in his name only 1 month later in May 2010.

The Plan for the school dated May 2010 is very very very similar to the plan presented in Nov 2011 to the planning committee. maybe the Pop-up-School popped up in 2010?

At the planning committee another officer referred to the Temp School as 'previously developed land'.


Residents trusted the officials and were sold down the river. An experience unlikely to be repeated.

Having sat unused since mid July 2011 the Temp school is to be moved. It has served it's purpose.