Topic: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2

[the gorgon]

If I have read the two Facebook posts correctly on May 3 or 4 cllr Faramazi is against Tadpole unless a ring road is built?

Is Emma related to this man, the new head of Swindon Chamber of Commerce (who's job is to represent the views of businesses) http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/local/9759447.New_man_at_Swindon_Chamber_of_Commerce/?

People need to wake-up about the Tories, even those who don't follow local politics need to look no further Cameron and Hunt and the whole BSkyB fiasco to see their true character. 

Oh and one more potential reason why TF might have won an appeal - it would lessen the need for houses at Ridgeway Farm (in case it rears its ugly head again).  Don't forget TF is in the swing seat of N. Swindon, RF is in the true-blue seat of North Wilts and Tories look after their own.

• Tweet
• 

[Muggins]

According to FB postings he is her father.

• Tweet
• 

[the gorgon]

According to FB postings he is her father.

No potential for businesses to indirectly influence a ward cllr there then  

• Tweet
• 

[Candide7]

Toby Elliott:

"I do believe it is the best decision that could have been taken. Please remember, these negotiations are NOT to discuss monetary contributions, but concerns with the development. Most importantly, if Crest Nicholson do not address concerns that have been put forward the planning permission is REMOVED."

Am I missing something here? The Planning Committee agree the application as outlined in Officer's report which includes a detailed breakdown of s106 contributions. Yet it is the fact that the current application does not satisfy residents about traffic and school places, and therein the s106 contributions agreed. How can these negotiations be successful without extra £££? Yet Cllr Eliott says negotiation NOT about monetary contributions!
All smoke and mirrors I'm afraid. Real solutions to the problems our councillors have caused will cost extra money

• Tweet
• 

[Geoff Reid]

According to FB postings he is her father.

No potential for businesses to indirectly influence a ward cllr there then  

Nepotism and favouritism are rife in the Swindon Conservative/Commerce Cocktail.

Which is why I criticised her for not standing down from her committee position at the FSB.  I think I'm right in saying that Chris Watts stood down from his committee position at the FSB soon after becoming more involved politically. 

Go figure....

• Tweet
• 

[Rochelle]

The Pickards Campaign Group was well aware that Haboakus needed to be stopped BEFORE a planning application was put in and indeed we focused our efforts on putting as many obstacles in their path to achieve this...
Shortly before the election it was suggested that we simply let it go to planning where it could be turned down and then if they won on appeal it would be out of our hands...that may be the Tory way, but it wasn't ours, perhaps the person who made the suggestion simply couldn't grasp the concept that we were trying to protect the open space, not our own positions...
we are mindful of the fact that the site has merely been reprieved not protected so we still have a lot of work to do.
A new group is being formed to take over where the Campaign Group left off. Its purpose will be to develop a community plan for the site and surrounding neighbourhood. We have a meeting scheduled for the 27th June, 7.00pm at Gorsehill community centre.

• Tweet
• 

[Mr Grumble]

Found this today on an Oakhurst blog:

These are apparently Cllr Elliott's actual words from the planning committee.  I like moaning but even I'm glad our councillors wouldn't whack our community over the head like this? 

"We have heard from the officers that there is no justifiable legal grounds for refusal and any decision that way will only lead to the decision being overturned by the planning inspectorate costing our town both legal fees and loss of developer contributions.  This decision is bigger than this one committee.  The decision has to be one that benefits all of Swindon.  We cannot afford to lose valuable construction jobs..,we cannot afford to lose revenue for the Council...we cannot afford to be in a place where developers can come in and build where they like.I therefore propose that the planning application is granted with extra conditions attached".

Is anyone clever enough to put the link up?

• Tweet
• 

[Outoftowner]

http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/local-councillors-quotes-from-planning.html#more

A pleasure Mr. Grumble.

• Tweet
• 

[Steve Wakefield]

A right rivetting read and an interesting  list of questions:

The questions that the ORA members may wish to ask are:

Is there any amount of money that can mitigate the impact of this development on Oakhurst Way or Garsington Drive?

Did the Priory Vale councillors take independent legal advice about whether there were grounds for appeal and, if so, can the community see it?

Did Cllr Elliott attend the Ridgeway Farm appeal where one of QCs made representations that Tadpole Farm should not go ahead?

How much money would Oakhurst Way have lost had the development been refused and won on appeal by the developers?

I won't comment on the Purton Iffley road link as I have an interest in its outcome and I spoke to the planning committee on this matter.

• Tweet
• 

[Candide7]

This has just dropped through my letterbox today from labour Leader Cllr Jim Grant.

Follow up leaflet on Tadpole Farm situation.

Main thrust is that Jim Grant wants to help local residents re-negotiate the s106 agreement, which is a condition of the planning permission granted.

Calls for 3 form of entry primary school in Phase 1, not the current 2 form of entry school or no school and just contributions in present s106 agreement. Also cals for improvement in traffic arrangements.

If he is as good as his word I may actually consider voting Labour at next local elections - something I have not done for 25 years!!!!

• Tweet
• 

[Candide7]

I wonder what Cllr Toby Elliot is going to say on his next election flyer regarding inappropriate development at Tadpole Farm?

Perhaps the following words he chose as a member of the Planning Committee on 12th June:

"We have heard from the officers that there is no justifiable legal grounds for refusal and any decision that way will only lead to the decision being overturned by the planning inspectorate costing our town both legal fees and loss of developer contributions. This decision is bigger than this one committee. The decision has to be one that benefits all of Swindon. We cannot afford to lose valuable construction jobs..,we cannot afford to lose revenue for the Council...we cannot afford to be in a place where developers can come in and build where they like.  I therefore propose that the planning application is granted with extra conditions attached".

• Tweet
• 

[The Oakhurst Avenger]

@C7

Perhaps something along the lines of:

I haven't got a clue how to stop inappropriate development but actually in this case the development was appropriate because it creates construction jobs for Crest's preferred contractors who come from Swindon (....they do come from Swindon don't they?). I only said I was against development at Tadpole Farm to get elected.

 

• Tweet
• 

[Geoff Reid]

Is this yet another case of Borough Councillors being caught Bluh Red Handedly engaging in Political Pinnochioism?

• Tweet
• 

[The Oakhurst Avenger]

@ Geoff Reid

I would not wish to associate Pinnochio, a childrens character, with said individuals. That would be to attach a level of innocence which is quite undeserved....

Interesting to note that the few letters (I think there were 7) that supported development at Tadpole Farm during the public consultation were from constructions firms....from other towns in southwest.

Can't be about construction jobs then. Must be... wait for it... revenue for the council... oh shit... as "deep throat" said to woodward and bernstein "follow the money".

That "New Homes Bonus" must really give the council a "hard on". For every new home the council get council tax plus the new homes bonus from central Government which is equal to council tax - doubling up revenue received. Ka-ching.

• Tweet
• 

[The Oakhurst Avenger]

With council tax frozen the only way councils can increase revenue is by building houses in their area, hence receiving extra council tax from new homeowners plus new homes bonus on top. So building and occupying 1700 homes is equivalent to building and occupying 3400 in council tax revenue terms under new Government rules.

• Tweet
• 

[Richard Beale]

I haven't got a clue how to stop inappropriate development but actually in this case the development was appropriate because it creates construction jobs for Crest's preferred contractors who come from Swindon (....they do come from Swindon don't they?). I only said I was against development at Tadpole Farm to get elected.

No they don't..... They come from all over. It depends on who puts in the lowest price, not wh is local.

Very rarely does a Swindon firm get to work on a Swindon development

• Tweet
• 

[Muggins]

I haven't got a clue how to stop inappropriate development but actually in this case the development was appropriate because it creates construction jobs for Crest's preferred contractors who come from Swindon (....they do come from Swindon don't they?). I only said I was against development at Tadpole Farm to get elected.

No they don't..... They come from all over. It depends on who puts in the lowest price, not wh is local.

Very rarely does a Swindon firm get to work on a Swindon development

We figured the 'we don't pay enough to have the best say' a long time ago.  Swindon's income is more via grants (to get what the funding stream will buy, rather than what we really (priority) need) and development and of course selling off the family jewels. 

And here we are very nearly running out of things to do with grants, running out patience with development and family jewels nearly all gone, if they haven't already.

As for jobs, they are so short lived, a couple of years?  and then where next?

And to those things purchased with those grant - they say if you don't earn the money you don't really appreciate what you buy with it - easy come, easy go - and that it ssoooo true in Swindon.

• Tweet
• 

[George Elliot]

Candide7 posted

If he is as good as his word I may actually consider voting Labour at next local elections - something I have not done for 25 years!!!!

Are you interested in a vote for the Libdems by any chance? Some say the  Libdems are the most truthful, honest politicians in politics and always speak up for the people as well as keeping to their pledges. As the Libdems have said on another planning matter this will never happen in Eastcott and Cllr Sewell put the Libdem case succinctly at planning on that matter. Cllr Pajack claims he is going to amend the Labour motion to boot.

Candide7 maybe what people have needed all along  in the North is Libdems to fight for them? When it comes to campaigning Libdems do not talk of defeat, they talk of bringing people together to focus action.

• Tweet
• 

[jennyb]

Candide7 posted

If he is as good as his word I may actually consider voting Labour at next local elections - something I have not done for 25 years!!!!

Are you interested in a vote for the Libdems by any chance? Some say the  Libdems are the most truthful, honest politicians in politics and always speak up for the people as well as keeping to their pledges. As the Libdems have said on another planning matter this will never happen in Eastcott and Cllr Sewell put the Libdem case succinctly at planning on that matter. Cllr Pajack claims he is going to amend the Labour motion to boot.

Candide7 maybe what people have needed all along  in the North is Libdems to fight for them? When it comes to campaigning Libdems do not talk of defeat, they talk of bringing people together to focus action.

Cllr Sewell did not question or challenge the officers' recommendation and voted for the application based on need  ( she was not the only one) which is not a material planning consideration

In order to keep to the Lib Dem pledge that this ( Croft) will NEVER happen in Eastcott, an independent review of the process is needed. Can't see any reason for the Lib Dems to wish to water this down or second guess the outcome. 

As with many proposals the quality of the outcome depends on the quality of the evidence put forward and recommended for approval by Officers.

An independent review of the Croft would be helpful for Swindon as a whole.

Can't see why politicians of any hue could disagree with this...because process improvement and learning from experience is not political... is it just common sense.

From what I can see the public are doing a pretty good job at getting together to focus on what we expect of all politicians. Interesting times ahead methinks..

• Tweet
• 

[George Elliot]

Reading the Oakhurst residents blog yesterday I had difficulty finding anything out about what Libdem activists/councillors had done in the campaign to defend Oakhurst from Urbanisation of productive farmland?

• Tweet
•