Author Topic: Purton/Iffley road link  (Read 4347 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jennyb

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1813
  • Gender: Female
  • Kareen
Purton/Iffley road link
« on: August 22, 2012, 07:41:41 PM »

Sent to the planning chair today...

RE: Planning Committee Questions August 14th 2012?

Dear Cllr Lovell and Cllr Heenan ,
 
As Cllr Heenan has recently been in the letters page in the Adver commenting on the Purton/Iffley Road link and it's inclusion in the Core Strategy I wonder why I have not yet had a reply to my question?
 
I wonder whether you might also direct me to the documentation on Swindon.Gov.UK which explains the costing of this road , when and by whom this was executed as well as the minute in which the approval was given to include the Purton/Iffley road link in the Core Strategy.
 
I look forward to a prompt response.
 
Thanks and Regards,Kareen Boyd
 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kareenboyd@hotmail.com
To: itucker@swindon.gov.uk
CC: carole@bentunlimited.co.uk; michael.james40@ntlworld.com; kareenboyd@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Planning Committee Questions August 14th 2012
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 06:08:08 +0000

 
Dear Iain,
 
To confirm my question of Tues  August 14th 2012
 
"Given the June 12th 2012 planning approval of Tadpole Farm without the Purton/Iffley Road Link and the Adver Article of August 9th 2012 regarding the gridlock because of Tadpole Farm and Ridgeway Farm , can the Chair or Cllr K Williams confirm whether the Purton/Iffley Road link will be in the Core Strategy".
 
For reference at the meeting, Cllr Williams was not present, Cllr Lovell ( Chair) Mr Awojobi ( Legal/Planning) and Mr Brown ( Regeneration Planning) were unaware of the status ( note this link involves a request for £100million from the Government) and stated that a written answer would be provided.
 
 
Regards, Kareen
 


It takes wisdom to know what you know and wisdom to know what you don't know and when to call in those who do. Often the people who do know will advise that evidence and research are very helpful when making decisions. Who knows it might even save a bit of money.

Offline Richard Symonds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4024
Re: Purton/Iffley road link
« Reply #1 on: August 22, 2012, 08:48:53 PM »
Did they say when the written answer would be provided?

Mind you I am still waiting for written answers to questions asked of Councillor Garry Perkins at Full council of some twelve and six month vintage so do you have any confidence one will be provided at all?
All my posts are my own opinion and do not represent any political organization or group

Offline jennyb

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1813
  • Gender: Female
  • Kareen
Re: Purton/Iffley road link
« Reply #2 on: August 22, 2012, 10:48:09 PM »
Did they say when the written answer would be provided?

Mind you I am still waiting for written answers to questions asked of Councillor Garry Perkins at Full council of some twelve and six month vintage so do you have any confidence one will be provided at all?

The normal 10 days should apply.

As Cllr Heenan obviously has this £100m proposal under control it should be no problemo to receive an answer pronto.. otherwise he wouldn't have gone into print ... in the press.. would he?
It takes wisdom to know what you know and wisdom to know what you don't know and when to call in those who do. Often the people who do know will advise that evidence and research are very helpful when making decisions. Who knows it might even save a bit of money.

Offline Richard Symonds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4024
Re: Purton/Iffley road link
« Reply #3 on: August 23, 2012, 12:37:38 AM »
As Cllr Heenan obviously has this £100m proposal under control it should be no problemo to receive an answer pronto.. otherwise he wouldn't have gone into print ... in the press.. would he?

Jenny in view of his inability to recall the details of a planning meeting he had chaired for the purpose of agreeing to its minutes I would not be too sure unless of course I have got that one wrong?

Meanwhile Carry on Digging Dale - yet another potential movie in the Swindon series!!

You know it makes sense   :crazy2:
All my posts are my own opinion and do not represent any political organization or group

Offline Des Moffatt

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 337
  • Hello !
Re: Purton/Iffley road link
« Reply #4 on: September 18, 2012, 11:41:41 AM »
The Purton Iffley link as it was called and continues to be by some people!
A bit of history first. When the Northern sector was spoken of Wiltshire County Council was the planning authority and the highways authority.
(Thamesdown had responsibility for development control and authority delegated from County for minor roads.)
County even determined things like the crossing on Kings Hill at one time.
When the Northern Sector structure plan was approved it included off site works that were and remain unacceptable to Swindon people. A flyover at the Moonrakers and multiple flyovers for the Great Western Way.
Dream time didn’t just arrive with Rod Bluh but to be fair this was not a politicians dream but from the then County engineer.
For the Iffley Road connection of the Northern Relief Road it would join the Great Western Way at the then single Bruce Street Bridge on an elevated junction above the railway line. The road would rise on stilts over the ponds between the Gloucester line and the factories of the Cheney Manor Trading estate joining the Bruce Street Bridge flyover of the Great Western Way.
We got the second bridge much later of the back of the Rail Works re-development.
This was around the time the M32 opened over residential streets into Bristol and Thamesdown Councillors were determined that the people of Bruce Street, Iffley Road, Wembley Street and Rodbourne Road including the older peoples bungalows there would not suffer the fate of roads in the sky. It was never going to happen, or at the Monnies for the same reasons.
Wiltshire County Council remained the highways authority until 1997 and their inertia continued for a time beyond that. Wilts CC were also responsible for libraries but why spoil a good political spin story about the Tories getting the new library and Labour having failed to deliver for decades with that fact.
When the then Western Ward Councillor Kevin Small achieved high office he immediately set Officers the task of designing the road that should now be called the Thamesdown Drive Barnfield link and that process was commenced by Ioan Rees.
It was proceeding slowly because of objections by the then Network Rail who were insisting on an S bend underpass of the Gloucester line.
As part of the overall exercise the former direct labour organisation depot (now SCS) depot at Barnfield was sold to B&Q with the intention of using the receipt to fund the new central library. In the planning agreement for that, land was retained, still is retained, to permit the northern relief road to join the Great Western Way at that point.
When Jemima Milton became the lead member for transport she cancelled all work on the Northern Relief Road on the grounds that Swindon could not afford to build it.

Offline Geoff Reid

  • Twitter: @Geoff_Reid
  • Active But Odd
  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10109
  • Gender: Male
  • Bald as a chimps arse
Re: Purton/Iffley road link
« Reply #5 on: September 18, 2012, 02:03:11 PM »
Thanks Des, I've always struggled with the 'Purton/Iffley' label but calling it the Thamesdown Drive to Barnfield link road brings it properly into geographical focus for me :)

Thanks also for the short lesson in civic history - it is always good to hear it from someone who was about at the time, remembers it accurately and passes on the information without spin.  It is a shame that the current administration and its camp-followers won't learn from that example but a good job that none of them are history teachers....

I reckon you've earned yourself a visit from Rods cHarm police for daring to correct their airbrushed heavily painted history mural :)


Re: Rods cHarm Police - On April fools day 2010 I published the following in the Has Bluh lost a couple of girders or just gone a bridge too far ? thread:


Earlier in the week Lamplighters started hearing whispers about the Leader of the council 'visiting' the leader of the labour group again.  My understanding is that Councillor Bluh has been leaning on Monty to 'toe the line', (Tory),  'play the game' (Bluh's Rules), and not 'rock the good ship Bluh'. 

Councillor Bluh doesn't like it when the leader of the opposition talks to the media.

Councillor Bluh doesn't like it when the leader of the opposition says something that he, councillor Bluh, has not personally approved.

Councillor Bluh, you see, thinks councillors, all the councillors, are under his personal and direct control and are not public servants at all.

I've been hearing for a little while now that Monty has grown tired of being visited by the cHarm police and recently began spurning Rodericks advances completely. 

Rodders, allegedly incensed that Monty keeps asking the questions that he, Cllr Bluh, does not want to answer, and talking to the media, (including Talkswindon and its members), allegedly threatened Monty with a standards board complaint unless he did as he was told.  Bluh even took an SBC director along with him for extra weight.

This sort of 'persuasion' is nothing new.  Bluhs cHarm police repeatedly invite Talkswindon members who ask 'awkward' questions at public Scrutiny and council meetings to 'come in' for a 'meaningful dialogue' in an un-minuted meeting with SBC officers.  There seems to be very little the Rodigarchy will not risk for the WiFiasco. Due process was the very first casualty.

I'm assuming that the pressure remained on Monty right up until the opening of Councillor Bluh's 'modified' Cabinet meeting yesterday because Monty has seen fit to come clean to the media about it.  As far as Councillor Montaut is aware, the Leader of the Council, Roderick Bluh has made a complaint to the Standards Committee because Derique has criticised the administration with regard to the public/private partnership WiFi'asco.
 

Monty says:

 
Quote from: Derique Montaut
"I am saddened that the Leader of the Council has felt the need to take me to Standards, when all I have wanted to do throughout this saga is make sure that the public is aware of all the actions of the administration. It may not be politically convenient for the Council Leader in me doing this, however I have been elected to do this.

 
Responding to the fact that in 30 years of being a Councillor he has never been taken to the Standards Board, Derique then said::
 
Quote from: Derique Montaut
"Throughout my 30 years of service to the people of Swindon, I have never been taken to the Standards Committee and my integrity has never been in question. I sincerely hope my integrity has not been challenged for political motives"

 
Responding to the question of whether the Leader of the Council has finally silenced Councillor Montaut, he stated:
 
Quote from: Derique Montaut
"I will not be silenced on this issue. The public rely on me to properly hold this Conservative administration to account and that is what I will continue to do"


Well said Monty.

I haven't approached Councillor Bluh for a quote.


It may have been April the 1st, but I wasn't joking......

Offline Des Moffatt

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 337
  • Hello !
Re: Purton/Iffley road link
« Reply #6 on: September 20, 2012, 10:17:26 AM »
TDBL
I went to Haydon Wick Parish Council meeting Tuesday night and was pleased to be accompanied by Steve Wakefield, responding to an invite by them to explain Rodbourne Cheney Councillors attitude to the Northern Relief Road.
I did my preps and obtained an A0 map of the most recent desire line for a connection between Thamesdown Drive and Great Western Way which I displayed and spoke to.

This is the script I prepared for myself; I don’t know how well I stuck to it.
This is about the Northern relief road. I should imagine you have these questions
   Where will it go?
   How much will it cost?
   What effect will the Diamond forest have on it?
   Is it agreed?

I have here a map from 2008 showing two potential routes, the red route favoured by the Council’s consultants, Halcro, takes a route north of the Gloucester line over the fishing lagoons which I know well, my children having been banned from playing there and brought back by me at times.
Supplement, I am reliably informed (thanks to Mr Pope, centurion of Haydon Wick parish, formerly of Harcourt Road) the lagoons are the last remaining elements of the original canal, widened at some time for flood alleviation I presume.
Our preferred route, green, is for the road to underpass the Gloucester line and connect to the Great Western Way at Barnfield next to the B&Q superstore.
We choose the green route for two reasons, there is little point in dumping people at Bruce Bridges to get stuck there even with the improvements and because we will get the support of the people of West Swindon for this road. Supplement. Because of how multi lane roundabouts work travelling east will give those joining at Barnfield priority over those joining at Bruce Street from the North. Our experience with the Churchward rat run taught us that.
The road we propose gets people to the west and in particular junction 16 of the M4 much better than Mead Way and Whitehill Way.

I give warning that the £100 million price tag is chaff designed to undermine the desire for the road by those who might have to raise the funds to pay for it.
Examples of road miles costs.
The 9 miles of Newbury A34 bypass cost just over 100 million.
Current estimates of a bypass for 3.3 miles at Bedale near where my son lives in Harrowgate are 42 Million, 6 million of it from the local authority.
There is a current project in Norwich for a duel carriageway road called funnily enough the Norwich Northern Distributer Road of 8.7 miles and the most recent estimate is £90.7 million.
Our Northern Distributer Road has an estimated length of 1.3 miles and no junctions. However getting under the Gloucester line will not be cheap, especially if we are to avoid an S bend.
Beware of amateurs like me making grand pronouncements about how much the road would cost and treat other politician’s estimates with the same caution, and indeed officials with an axe to grind. Nobody knows for sure until the surveys are done but we can be pretty sure it is not in the region of the stated £100 million.
It has never been the intention of Swindon or even the developers to pay for this road, it is a matter for government and if we, Swindon, are to take all these additional houses government has to stump up.

There will be no effect on the road line from the diamond forest; officials have assured us of that having discussed it amongst themselves. A positive effect of the forest will be reduced flooding in that forests do slow the water run off from the land.

Yes it is agreed, all bar paying for it. We had a recent full Council decision to that effect. There may be some back sliders worried about the cost but it is Council policy. When it will happen, now that is a whole different question.
I and others are however determined to get the Thamesdown Drive Barfield Link as Swindon No 1 priority for infrastructure investment.

Off script, I relayed that in March this year all local government had been invited to prepare infrastructure projects for 2015 and beyond. I and others would be pressing for the Thamesdown Drive Barnfield Link to be Swindon’s No I project.

There were murmurs of support from members and a pretty clear indication from the chair and Cllr Renard of support.

Cllr Wakefield made comment that we must take the chance when the intended works on the Gloucester line are done to do the enabling work for the Thamesdown Drive Barnfield Link.
TDBL

Offline Weebleman

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 444
Re: Purton/Iffley road link
« Reply #7 on: September 20, 2012, 11:08:13 AM »
Thanks for that Des, I look forward to seeing a map of your proposed route.

Cllr Wakefield made comment that we must take the chance when the intended works on the Gloucester line are done to do the enabling work for the Thamesdown Drive Barnfield Link.

Any new road would have to cross over the restored canal so could I add that consultation with the Canal Society at an early stage would also be a good idea. The last time I spoke with their volunteers on one of their working parties I got the impression that the route of the canal around the back of the power station had not been confirmed (I don't know if this is still the case). There will obviously be a lock installed somewhere in that strech to bring up the level from Ellborough bridge to the level at the power station and it would make very good sense that any road crossing was located on the lower side of the lock.

Mr Grumble

  • Guest
Re: Purton/Iffley road link
« Reply #8 on: September 20, 2012, 06:37:41 PM »
I hear that there was a meeting of community associations last night and they have thrown their support whole heartedly behind the Purton/Barnfield Road link.  Some of the associations have experienced a massive increase in traffic since the Northern Development Area was built.

I understand that Cllr Moffatt's script has been well used and well publicised in a number of different forums already and the message is out there loud and clear.  Cost this up properly, get it in the Local Plan, make it the number 1 priority for the Infrastructure Development Plan and give North Swindon what it was promised - the Purton/Barnfield Road link to take traffic away from the local roads in the North and West of Swindon.

Cllr Heenan could do with practising what he preaches for the EDV and give the North and West developments the same attention as he gives his own area.  He is the cabinet member of planning for the whole of Swindon not just his own patch.

Offline Geoff Reid

  • Twitter: @Geoff_Reid
  • Active But Odd
  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10109
  • Gender: Male
  • Bald as a chimps arse
Re: Purton/Iffley road link
« Reply #9 on: September 20, 2012, 07:07:13 PM »

TDBL
I went to Haydon Wick Parish Council meeting Tuesday night and was pleased to be accompanied by Steve Wakefield, responding to an invite by them to explain Rodbourne Cheney Councillors attitude to the Northern Relief Road.
I did my preps and obtained an A0 map of the most recent desire line for a connection between Thamesdown Drive and Great Western Way which I displayed and spoke to.

This is the script I prepared for myself; I don’t know how well I stuck to it.
This is about the Northern relief road. I should imagine you have these questions
   Where will it go?
   How much will it cost?
   What effect will the Diamond forest have on it?
   Is it agreed?

I have here a map from 2008 showing two potential routes, the red route favoured by the Council’s consultants, Halcro, takes a route north of the Gloucester line over the fishing lagoons which I know well, my children having been banned from playing there and brought back by me at times.
Supplement, I am reliably informed (thanks to Mr Pope, centurion of Haydon Wick parish, formerly of Harcourt Road) the lagoons are the last remaining elements of the original canal, widened at some time for flood alleviation I presume.
Our preferred route, green, is for the road to underpass the Gloucester line and connect to the Great Western Way at Barnfield next to the B&Q superstore.
We choose the green route for two reasons, there is little point in dumping people at Bruce Bridges to get stuck there even with the improvements and because we will get the support of the people of West Swindon for this road. Supplement. Because of how multi lane roundabouts work travelling east will give those joining at Barnfield priority over those joining at Bruce Street from the North. Our experience with the Churchward rat run taught us that.
The road we propose gets people to the west and in particular junction 16 of the M4 much better than Mead Way and Whitehill Way.

I give warning that the £100 million price tag is chaff designed to undermine the desire for the road by those who might have to raise the funds to pay for it.
Examples of road miles costs.
The 9 miles of Newbury A34 bypass cost just over 100 million.
Current estimates of a bypass for 3.3 miles at Bedale near where my son lives in Harrowgate are 42 Million, 6 million of it from the local authority.
There is a current project in Norwich for a duel carriageway road called funnily enough the Norwich Northern Distributer Road of 8.7 miles and the most recent estimate is £90.7 million.
Our Northern Distributer Road has an estimated length of 1.3 miles and no junctions. However getting under the Gloucester line will not be cheap, especially if we are to avoid an S bend.
Beware of amateurs like me making grand pronouncements about how much the road would cost and treat other politician’s estimates with the same caution, and indeed officials with an axe to grind. Nobody knows for sure until the surveys are done but we can be pretty sure it is not in the region of the stated £100 million.
It has never been the intention of Swindon or even the developers to pay for this road, it is a matter for government and if we, Swindon, are to take all these additional houses government has to stump up.

There will be no effect on the road line from the diamond forest; officials have assured us of that having discussed it amongst themselves. A positive effect of the forest will be reduced flooding in that forests do slow the water run off from the land.

Yes it is agreed, all bar paying for it. We had a recent full Council decision to that effect. There may be some back sliders worried about the cost but it is Council policy. When it will happen, now that is a whole different question.
I and others are however determined to get the Thamesdown Drive Barfield Link as Swindon No 1 priority for infrastructure investment.

Off script, I relayed that in March this year all local government had been invited to prepare infrastructure projects for 2015 and beyond. I and others would be pressing for the Thamesdown Drive Barnfield Link to be Swindon’s No I project.

There were murmurs of support from members and a pretty clear indication from the chair and Cllr Renard of support.

Cllr Wakefield made comment that we must take the chance when the intended works on the Gloucester line are done to do the enabling work for the Thamesdown Drive Barnfield Link.
TDBL


Thanks for that Des - it makes things much clearer for me.  I'm very glad to hear that the Diamond Copse proposal does not, and should not, prevent this road being built.

I well remember how the pre-bypass congestion in Newbury blighted the lives of residents and although West Swindon isn't that bad yet, it has been and continues to get worse, and can only get worse as Tadpole, Pry and Ridgeway Farm developments get underway.

Any chance of a map?

Offline Steve Wakefield

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2566
  • Gender: Male
Re: Purton/Iffley road link
« Reply #10 on: November 14, 2013, 08:45:17 AM »
I believe a treasury response in the Chancellors Autumn Statement  in early December is awaited.

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/NEWS/10806969.Preferred_route_for_ring_road_published/
All posts on this forum are my own opinion and do not represent the views of any council or any political party.  :banana:

Offline Weebleman

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 444
Re: Purton/Iffley road link
« Reply #11 on: November 14, 2013, 08:52:28 PM »
I see they're only proposing a single carriageway extension. Could we please find another visionary from somewhere?