Author Topic: Planning applications for infrastructure and first houses  (Read 12283 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kevin Fisher

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10
  • Hello !
Planning applications for infrastructure and first houses
« on: July 02, 2013, 08:50:45 AM »
Taylor Wimpey have put in two planning applications. The first is for the road infrastructure where they intend the main road through the estate to be just 6.5m wide. This is contrary to the width of 7.3m presented to the public Inquiry. The second application is for the first batch of houses where the number of parking spaces is 24% fewer than Wiltshire Councils own guidelines. The narrow road will cause major hold ups on Mead Way and further afield; couple that with not enough parking spaces and the result becomes obvious. Please visit the Shaw Residents' Association web site, where more details on the applications can be found including guidance on how to register an objection to them (if you agree there is a problem). It is important that as many people as possible register objections if we are to get their plans changed - deadline is July 11th for infrastructure and July 18th for parking spaces. SRA web - www.shawresidents.org.uk
Kevin Fisher - SRA Chair



Offline Mickraker

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 782
  • Strawberry Fields Forever!
Re: Planning applications for infrastructure and first houses
« Reply #1 on: July 02, 2013, 10:59:34 AM »
Is it  like what a council does when justifying wasting investing tax payers money?  In that it has it's own unique interpretation or it could be that the Wiltshire Metrick measurement for 7.3m is cut saved to 6.5m in Swindon :-\
My non aggresive posts are my own opinion and represent me, myself and I only!

Offline Muggins

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8535
Re: Planning applications for infrastructure and first houses
« Reply #2 on: July 02, 2013, 04:16:07 PM »
I think this is probably the 'shock' 'horror' plan.

The one, after which, any different plan will be acceptable.  i.e. they will capitulate quite quickly on the road width issue, but put something even more horrific in that no one -or very few, will notice.

Be afraid, very afraid and keep looking at all aspects not just the blessed roads.
Oi! Listen mush. Old eyes, remember? I’ve been around the block a few times. More than a few. They’ve knocked down the blocks I’ve been around and rebuilt them as bigger blocks. Super blocks. And I’ve been round them as well.  The Doctor (Night Terrors)

Offline Tea Boy

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Gender: Male
  • Tea's up!, Kettle's on
Re: Planning applications for infrastructure and first houses
« Reply #3 on: July 03, 2013, 12:02:22 AM »
I would expect that across the development 0.8m off the road equates to increased profit on each house..

That how developers work. Don't think vibrant homes for the new millennia, or village living in the town or other developer blurb

Its about profit per square metre and nothing else.

Listen to muggins, she know her stuff when it comes to slippery developers! 
Gardening tips: Always remember its brown side down, green side up.  If its knocking now it'll only go bang later

Offline Muggins

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8535
Re: Planning applications for infrastructure and first houses
« Reply #4 on: July 03, 2013, 08:45:02 AM »
Well thank you, Tea Boy!

0.8 of a metre aye. That's the kerb!   Or the gutter.

Come to think of it, with so many people parking across  the pathway these days, they are probably thinking it's not worth having so wide a road.
Oi! Listen mush. Old eyes, remember? I’ve been around the block a few times. More than a few. They’ve knocked down the blocks I’ve been around and rebuilt them as bigger blocks. Super blocks. And I’ve been round them as well.  The Doctor (Night Terrors)

Offline Richard Symonds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4022
Ridgway Farm - Please Comment on Wiltshire Council Website
« Reply #5 on: July 03, 2013, 11:59:35 AM »
Taylor Wimpey have put in two planning applications. The first is for the road infrastructure where they intend the main road through the estate to be just 6.5m wide. This is contrary to the width of 7.3m presented to the public Inquiry. The second application is for the first batch of houses where the number of parking spaces is 24% fewer than Wiltshire Councils own guidelines. The narrow road will cause major hold ups on Mead Way and further afield; couple that with not enough parking spaces and the result becomes obvious. Please visit the Shaw Residents' Association web site, where more details on the applications can be found including guidance on how to register an objection to them (if you agree there is a problem). It is important that as many people as possible register objections if we are to get their plans changed - deadline is July 11th for infrastructure and July 18th for parking spaces. SRA web - www.shawresidents.org.uk
Kevin Fisher - SRA Chair

Why would Swindon Borough Council be complicit in allowing a Wiltshire Developer on their door step to make these changes?

If they are, as it would appear, who actually agreed to this change?

And

What does our local Councillor and Transport Lead Councillor Keith Williams got to say about it?

I hope everyone will get on the Wiltshire County Council website and comment, for it will soon be too late to stop it and the resultant chaos that ensues.

One final point...

If the is potential traffic chaos at this development becomes reality, as we expect, how salable would any properties built there be? 

Surely it is in the developers interest to deal with these issues?
All my posts are my own opinion and do not represent any political organization or group

Offline Richard Symonds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4022
Re: Planning applications for infrastructure and first houses
« Reply #6 on: July 03, 2013, 12:03:10 PM »
I am in receipt of the following Shaw Residents Association Newsletter

Unfortunately I do not have a scanner so have had to cut and paste via the internet

Shaw Residents’ Association

Serving the Residents of Peatmoor, Sparcells, Nine Elms, Middleleaze, Shaw, Ramleaze, the Prinnels, Eastleaze
and Westlea (West)

Web: www.shawresidents.org.uk

Email: shaw-residents@virginmedia.com

Facebook: www.facebook.com/ShawResidentsAssociation

SRA VIEWS ON THE ‘INFRASTRUCTURE’ APPLICATION
13/01141/REM - DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS JULY 11TH

Documents submitted by Taylor Wimpey to the public Inquiry held in 2012 clearly noted the spine road through the site to be 7.3 meters wide. Unknown to the public, including those that attended the Inquiry, this design feature was changed in private meetings between Swindon and Wiltshire council and Taylor Wimpey whilst the Inquiry was underway. We believe this part of the public Inquiry process was deeply flawed and as such wish to register our objection to this infrastructure application and to the outcome of the Inquiry itself. We are of the firm opinion that the proposed road width, which is now an average of just 6.5 meters, together with parked vehicles along its length, many house frontages and pedestrian crossings will create serious traffic congestion problems both through the new development and on surrounding roads including Mead Way in Swindon and as such ask that the spine road be re-designed.
Suggested sentence for your objection: “I object to this application on the grounds that the spine road width is not sufficient for predicted volumes of traffic and will cause traffic chaos for existing residents”

SRA VIEWS ON THE ‘FIRST RESIDENTIAL PHASE’ APPLICATION
13/01615/REM - DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS JULY 18TH

The Wiltshire local transport plan on page 27 describes how many parking bays should be allocated per household based on the number of bedrooms. By using this requirement and comparing it to the planned development, it states there should be a total of 501 bays split between the 218 households – the application is only allowing for 410 – e.g. 24% fewer spaces are being allocated than Wiltshire’s own guidelines require. We believe on road parking is going to be a serious issue for this development and further exacerbate the road congestion predictions made by the SRA along with the dangers poor parking will pose to all road and pavement users. As such we object to this application on the grounds that it does not provide the required number of parking bays.
Suggested sentence for your objection: “I object to this application on the grounds that it does not provide enough parking bays”
All my posts are my own opinion and do not represent any political organization or group

Offline Richard Symonds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4022
Re: Planning applications for infrastructure and first houses
« Reply #7 on: July 03, 2013, 12:05:28 PM »
I unfortunately duplicated the last post so deleted the content.

with apologies
All my posts are my own opinion and do not represent any political organization or group

Offline Richard Symonds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4022
Re: Planning applications for infrastructure and first houses
« Reply #8 on: July 07, 2013, 04:19:33 PM »
Come on TSers I would have thought this topic would have genreated more interest than just 167 reads!!

Think of the consequences of Swindon's favorite expression 'Not interested' in traffic chaos.

Tomorrow will be too late!!

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

Now back to the tennis.
All my posts are my own opinion and do not represent any political organization or group

Offline Spunkymonkey

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 998
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello !
Re: Ridgway Farm - Please Comment on Wiltshire Council Website
« Reply #9 on: July 07, 2013, 07:35:39 PM »
If the is potential traffic chaos at this development becomes reality, as we expect, how salable would any properties built there be? 
Surely it is in the developers interest to deal with these issues?

I tend to agree, although many buyers may not foresee the problem and the traffic chaos may not become a reality until the majority are sold and occupied. We are currently in the process of moving house and looked at several potential locations. House prices in Haydon End seemed reasonable, so we had a drive around. We quickly decided that we wouldn't want to live there at any price due to narrow road width, inadequate parking and cars parked on footpaths. Will potential buyers realise this when buying off plan or before the estate is fully occupied?

The proposed road width does appear inadequate for the location. Have the planners considered access for emergency vehicles? A fire engine could pass a parked car if the road is straight, but parked cars take up more space when parked around bends. Large vehicles also require more road width to negotiate bends. I live near the County Ground and parking provision is rarely a problem except on match days. When cars are parked on the bends, it is a squeeze to get a car through and absolutely no chance for a fire engine, ambulance or furniture delivery on a Saturday afternoon.

I suppose that one counter-argument is that with a 7.3m road selfish motorists might park against both kerbs leaving a narrow strip down the middle. With a 6.5m carriageway, there will only be room for parking on one side, although people will want to park immediately outside their houses and will do so on alternate sides creating a serious of chicanes or they will just park on the footpaths.

In my experience, reducing the road width really means removing the footpaths which will become an informal parking space.

Offline the gorgon

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1411
  • Hello !
Re: Planning applications for infrastructure and first houses
« Reply #10 on: July 08, 2013, 09:49:49 AM »
Even in places where people have enough room for several cars on the driveway they can't stop themselves from parking on the road (all too often making it difficult to get out of your own driveway) as it makes "their lives easier".

Offline Spunkymonkey

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 998
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello !
Re: Planning applications for infrastructure and first houses
« Reply #11 on: July 08, 2013, 07:47:51 PM »
Even in places where people have enough room for several cars on the driveway they can't stop themselves from parking on the road (all too often making it difficult to get out of your own driveway) as it makes "their lives easier".

There is inadequate visitor parking where my girlfriend lives. Her neighbour uses the visitor spaces for her own car keeping her own space free so that only her visitors can use her space.

Offline Kevin Fisher

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10
  • Hello !
Re: Planning applications for infrastructure and first houses
« Reply #12 on: July 09, 2013, 08:32:32 AM »
Thank you for all your comments. Please may I remind everyone that unless you send an objection to Wiltshire County Council, your views will have no impact. Please go to the Shaw Residents Association web site and follow the instructions on the Ridgeway Farm page. Without objections from residents, Taylor Wimpey will get their way and we will suffer the traffic chaos consequences. If we all act together on this we can make change happen. Whilst on the SRA web site, take a look at the "gridlock" report to understand the implications for all of us should Taylor Wimpey get the design through in its current format.
I have also attached a leaflet for you to take a look at which gives more information. Feel free to print off a few copies and post through your neighbours letter boxes!
www.shawresidents.org.uk

Offline Richard Symonds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4022
When is a 'Garage' Not a Garage
« Reply #13 on: July 14, 2013, 10:02:56 PM »
I copy a letter from Claire Cornelius Service Manager, Transport Development Management Highways & Transport
Swindon Borough Council in respect of the recent Planning Application at Ridgeway Farm to Wiltshire County Council

I write on behalf of Swindon Borough Council in its capacity as Local Highway Authority.  I acknowledge that the vast majority of this site falls within Wiltshire’s administrative boundary however as you are aware Swindon Borough Council and Wiltshire Council dealt with the outline application for this application in a collaborative nature and presented a joint case for refusal to the Planning Inspectorate.  This Appeal was ultimately upheld and consent granted, we remain interested in how this site comes forward and the impact it will have on our communities.

It has been brought to our attention that the parking level of Phase 1 falls short of the Wiltshire Car Parking Strategy, March 2011 and is of great concern to our communities that abut this development.  As a result I have reviewed the reserved matters application 13/01615/REM as it relates to parking and would like the following comments considered in your determination of this application.

Wiltshire Local Transport Plan 2011-2026, Car Parking Strategy, March 2011 has moved away from maximum parking standards and adopted a minimum standard approach.  The policy provides for through PS6 a lower provision to be provided if it is justified and in exceptional circumstances.  It also provides for an accessibility discount and sets out the parameters when this can be applied and how much discount can be used.

The parking standards are:

1 bed unit – 1 parking space
2-3 bed unit – 2 parking spaces
4+ bed unit – 3 parking spaces

It does not allow garages to be included within this provision except in overriding design considerations.  This should be demonstrated and only in exceptional circumstances.

The Parking Matrix submitted by the Developers shows a number of units that do not conform to this parking standard.  The matrix shows 63 4-bed units of which only 8 have the required 3 parking spaces (excluding garages).  Of the 8 5-bed units none have the required 3 parking spaces (excluding garages).  Over the entire reserved matters application based on Wiltshire’s adopted parking standard a total of 501 spaces are required only 410 are shown, this represents a shortfall of 18%.

This shortfall is contrary to the submitted Design & Access Statement that clearly sets out the Wiltshire standard.  I cannot see based on what is available on the planning portal that any justification for this relaxation has been provided and as such any agreement by Wiltshire.  I would urge Wiltshire to consider this aspect of the proposal carefully and its inevitable impacts on highway safety, community cohesion, pedestrian safety and highway operation for example.  There are a total of 218 units proposed with a total of 410 parking spaces (excluding garages) which represents a ratio of less than 2 spaces per unit.  I fully support the parking standards set out in Wiltshire’s Parking Strategy and would hope that this will be enforced.



It is worthy of note that this only came after a meeting with the Shaw Residents Association and you have to ask the question as to why this intervention was not forthcoming on her own account?

All my posts are my own opinion and do not represent any political organization or group

Offline Geoff Reid

  • Twitter: @Geoff_Reid
  • Active But Odd
  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10105
  • Gender: Male
  • Bald as a chimps arse
Re: Planning applications for infrastructure and first houses
« Reply #14 on: July 16, 2013, 05:46:13 PM »
Well thank you, Tea Boy!

0.8 of a metre aye. That's the kerb!   Or the gutter.

Come to think of it, with so many people parking across  the pathway these days, they are probably thinking it's not worth having so wide a road.

0.8 metres is 80 cm or, in proper money, just under a yard but just over 31 inches.   For an easy 'in-house' comparison 31 inches is wider than the average internal doorway  :o

That's a fair bit wider than the kerb and gutter combined.  It's almost the width of a pavement so, unsurprisingly, drivers will park on the pavement instead of the now non-existent road. 

Offline Muggins

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8535
Re: Planning applications for infrastructure and first houses
« Reply #15 on: July 16, 2013, 07:00:22 PM »
Yes, read that wrong. Now if they had used ygards or even  how many cm,s, i could have seen how long it was.  Was a bit of dressmaker and knew yard  if isaw one!   

They would still park on tbe path.
Oi! Listen mush. Old eyes, remember? I’ve been around the block a few times. More than a few. They’ve knocked down the blocks I’ve been around and rebuilt them as bigger blocks. Super blocks. And I’ve been round them as well.  The Doctor (Night Terrors)

Offline Geoff Reid

  • Twitter: @Geoff_Reid
  • Active But Odd
  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10105
  • Gender: Male
  • Bald as a chimps arse
Re: Planning applications for infrastructure and first houses
« Reply #16 on: July 17, 2013, 04:03:08 PM »
Taylor Wimpey have put in two planning applications. The first is for the road infrastructure where they intend the main road through the estate to be just 6.5m wide. This is contrary to the width of 7.3m presented to the public Inquiry. The second application is for the first batch of houses where the number of parking spaces is 24% fewer than Wiltshire Councils own guidelines. The narrow road will cause major hold ups on Mead Way and further afield; couple that with not enough parking spaces and the result becomes obvious. Please visit the Shaw Residents' Association web site, where more details on the applications can be found including guidance on how to register an objection to them (if you agree there is a problem). It is important that as many people as possible register objections if we are to get their plans changed - deadline is July 11th for infrastructure and July 18th for parking spaces. SRA web - www.shawresidents.org.uk
Kevin Fisher - SRA Chair


That's all very well Kevin, and thanks for posting that information, but when it comes to the crunch I very much doubt that you personally, or the Shaw Residents Association en masse, will properly hold Swindon Borough Councillors to account for their willing assistance and happy identification of Ridgeway Farm, Tadpole Farm, Kingsdown Lane and Moredon Bridge as being eminently suitable for development.

Where were Shaw 'Residents' Association members when this conclusion was published...?

Quote
The Swindon Small Scale Urban Extension Study concluded that 2,000 dwellings should be allocated to the West of Swindon in the Swindon Borough administrative area at Tadpole Farm and Kingsdown Lane, and that 1,000 dwellings should be allocated to the West of Swindon in the North Wiltshire administrative area, at Moredon Bridge and Ridgeway Farm.


...enjoying Cllr Martin's (plural) Christmas hospitality and being very careful not to rock the boat with Borough Councillors?

Pardon me for saying so but the SRA has arrived so late to this particular party that I'm wondering whether the late arrival is deliberate.  I don't expect it will be very long before Shaw Residents Association members reveal themselves to be public apologists for the serving Councillors of Shaw.  I invite you to prove me wrong.

In the meantime, I remember writing this:  Rewriting Ridgeway Farm History: Cllr Heenan Spinning Like A Childs Toy



There is truth in the statement that it was the Labour Government's draft Regional Regional Spatial Strategy that set Swindon on the path of further massive growth and loss of countryside. However it is clear that, whilst the Conservative Government abolished the Regional Spatial Strategies and the regional tier of local government for planning matters, the conservatives have gone for broke and recent decisions made by the Secretary of State show that they are happy to allow development in the most unsustainable locations.

As to the Swindon Small Scale Urban Extension Study (published in 2008), this has been used as a bible to take forward the draft Swindon Core Strategy and draft Local Plan by the current administration. It was a desk-top study conducted in-house by Swindon Council officers. It was not subject to public consultation and it is heavily flawed. It led to Coate being targetted for housing development when Rod Bluh had promised that if the university did go ahead at Coate, there would be no houses.  :bash:


Shaw Residents Association doesn't speak for me.  I suspect it to be a politically veined sock-puppet.

Offline Richard Symonds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4022
Re: Planning applications for infrastructure and first houses
« Reply #17 on: July 17, 2013, 08:23:24 PM »
And now Thames Water have finally come to the party and it is in the Adver, but why has it taken them so long?  Were they even consulted about this development and why was it not raised as part of the public enquiry?

]http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/10554748.Water_firm___s_concern_over_700_homes_plan_at_Ridgeway_Farm/

Water firm’s concern over 700 homes plan at Ridgeway Farm
.
6:40pm Wednesday 17th July 2013 in News By Scott D'Arcy.

 Photograph of Residents and Councillors are unhappy over the homes plan, from left, Kevin Fisher, Martyn Parrott, Coun Nick Fisher, Coun Jacqui Lay, Coun Garry Perkins, Roger Ogle and Paula Russell

THAMES Water firm has said its infrastructure cannot sustain a controversial housing development of 700 homes planned next to West Swindon.
 
It has submitted a holding objection to the Ridgeway Farm development, which went through at a planning appeal last year, on the basis the current pipes and sewers cannot cope with extra demand that will be generated.
 
The plans have faced huge public opposition from hundreds of residents and both Swindon and Wiltshire Councillors, with many raising concerns about traffic problems, while the housebuilder has said they will listen to all comments from those consulted.

Thames Water has demanded Taylor Wimpey carry out impact studies and also suggested conditions be imposed on its detailed planning applications for the first phase of building.
 
Shaw Residents’ Association chairman Kevin Fisher said: “It would seem that this development will bring more than just traffic chaos to our roads.”
 
In a letter to Wiltshire Council as part of the consultation process, the firm said: “Following initial investigation, Thames Water has identified an inability of the existing waste water infrastructure to accommodate the needs of this application.

“The existing water supply infrastructure has insufficient capacity to meet the additional demands for the proposed development.
 
“Impact studies of the existing water supply infrastructure have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority in consultation with Thames Water. The studies should determine the magnitude of any new additional capacity required in the system and a suitable connection point.”
 
Thames Water said a drainage strategy must be drawn up and approved before any development should begin because there may be a risk of sewage flooding on the site if this is not done.
 
Coun Nick Martin (Con, Shaw) said: “West Swindon was designed and built to be 12,000 houses as it is and this development is looking to piggy back on the infrastructure put in place for West Swindon only.
 
“Thames Water, not unreasonably, are saying ‘hold on a second we did not design our systems to handle the extra buildings’. This is development on the cheap.”
 
Meanwhile, Network Rail have entered a holding objection on the basis the drainage strategy plan needs more detail on the planned basin as it is adjacent to the railway line.
 
A spokesman for Taylor Wimpey said: “Taylor Wimpey is currently in the process of preparing and submitting reserved matters applications. As part of this, we will be reviewing all of the consultation responses received and discussing these further with Wiltshire Council in order to address any concerns raised.”


Interesting stuff, but will it this late in the day actually have any effect on what is exclusively a Wiltshire decision?

Now Councillor Nick Martin said he would lay down in the road in front of the bulldozers to prevent any development on Shaw Forest some years ago, is he prepared to do the same as regards Ridgeway Farm in full Mayorial Regalia?

All my posts are my own opinion and do not represent any political organization or group

Offline Geoff Reid

  • Twitter: @Geoff_Reid
  • Active But Odd
  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10105
  • Gender: Male
  • Bald as a chimps arse
Re: Planning applications for infrastructure and first houses
« Reply #18 on: July 17, 2013, 11:18:22 PM »
No, he will do exactly the same as he did.when Ridgeway Farm was identified as development land in the Swindon Urban Extension Study - Nada, zip, nothing..... yet this study was carried out by SBC at a time when Cllr Martin was, I believe, a member of Rod Bluh's cabinet.

All of us in West Swindon are going to reap the rewards of Cllr's Martin & Perkins lack of long term effort and interest.

Perkins is only interested now because he's less than 12 months from fighting for his Shaw seat again, his majority has shrunk noticably and residents have.finally begun to notice his absence on the ward. 

*waits patiently for a Perkins apologist to stick up for him and blame officers for the study.....


**************************************************
Posted from Galaxy Note using Tapatalk 2 App.

Offline Jean

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 850
  • Gender: Female
    • Jefferies Land Conservation Trust
Re: Planning applications for infrastructure and first houses
« Reply #19 on: July 18, 2013, 06:58:37 AM »
Thames Water regularly submit concerns that infrastructure is inadequate to cope with sewage or that water supply is stretched in Swindon. They have been saying this now for years (at least 20 to my knowledge). However, it hasn't stopped expansion of Swindon. To paraphrase the words of a planning inspector at a Wiltshire and Swindon Structure Plan inquiry - Thames Water will manage!

When I was on the Environment Agency's Area Environment Board (about 15 years ago), 10% of the planning applications that the Environment Agency objected to for buildings on flood plains still got approval by local planning authorities.

Doesn't give you much hope does it? 
Live simply so that others might simply live