Author Topic: Tadpole Lane development to start??  (Read 18542 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

ph1lc

  • Guest
Re: Tadpole Lane development to start??
« Reply #20 on: November 29, 2013, 03:41:03 PM »
What's this...

A planning permission request has dropped through my little letterbox. How exciting. It's a bit early... Christmas is a few weeks away yet, but I have been good this year and I did send Santa my christmas list early.

It says the developer on Tadpole Farms wants to "remove" the planning permission condition to build the main contruction traffic route from A419 and Ermin Street and use Tadpole Lane instead. Supported by the council  :WTF: It looks like Crest got their Christmas list in earlier than me!!!!

Someone once told me if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck it is probably a duck...

Absolutely bloody scandalous.

Even more scandalous when you look at Dale Heenan's comments in the adver re South Marston. To paraphrase - even though the local plan not finalised the discussions and consultations mean the Council can  control the developer.

As this appears to show - WHO IS GOING TO CONTROL THE DAMNED COUNCIL!!!

Offline The Oakhurst Avenger

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 60
  • Cleaning up city hall is a busy job
Re: Tadpole Lane development to start??
« Reply #21 on: November 29, 2013, 03:50:33 PM »
While the council are adopting a laissez-faire attitude towards planning permissions and conditions I suggest anybody who wants to build a house in their back garden without permission get on with it...this is the time to do it! :froggy:
Defender of truth and justice

Offline Muggins

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8535
Re: Tadpole Lane development to start??
« Reply #22 on: November 29, 2013, 06:24:19 PM »
Quote: But maybe I am giving our councillors the benefit of the doubt too much. Maybe they gave up thinking strategically a long time ago, even if they were capable of it in the first place. Perhaps they just spent the money that was supposed to be for North Swindon education on other pet projects and we are all in North Swindon now paying the price for their folly. This is why for the next few years we will have to sit in traffic jams on Tadpole Lane, Oakhurst Way and Thamesdown Drive... Enjoy everybody

Just  reminder that it wasn't 'this' council that planned Northern Development, there is hardly a councillor left that was on the one that did.  They did take projected figures into account, not perfect, but they did, what happened was a change of council and a change in government policy expecting them to build more denser housing, and that's when it went pear shaped, because it appears no one went back and redid the projection figures. 

Get on it, you have active councillors, or so it seems.....Some of them on the Cabinet, bend their ears. the letter you got said they want to do it, not that they have permission.  I can see an active Christmas ahead.

Come on Oaker, you and I both know if we started something in our gardens the council would find the manpower to do something about it. 
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 Mickraker

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 782
  • Strawberry Fields Forever!
Re: Tadpole Lane development to start??
« Reply #23 on: November 29, 2013, 10:24:35 PM »
While the council are adopting a laissez-faire attitude towards planning permissions and conditions I suggest anybody who wants to build a house in their back garden without permission get on with it...this is the time to do it! :froggy:

Keeping to the French theme. It could be Oakhurst Residents have been given some sort of entent cordiale  :-\
My non aggresive posts are my own opinion and represent me, myself and I only!

Offline jennyb

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1813
  • Gender: Female
  • Kareen
Re: Tadpole Lane development to start??
« Reply #24 on: November 30, 2013, 09:21:22 AM »
Oakhurst resident, have you asked the councillor for the area what is going on, if you speak to mollie whats her name, Im sure she will tell you what to do about the problem..

 :spin:  The councillor will probably tell me that there is no choice because a school has to built on the land ready for next September...

At this point I will ask myself "why the indecent haste?" Why must we put lives at risk from construction traffic on inappropriate roads to build a school in such short timescale....Surely with North Swindon at over 10, 000 houses so far and counting and over many years in the making there are sufficient school places to cope in the next 12 months...God I mean you don't build that number of houses without factoring in need for adequate school places etc. I mean this is the United Kingdom... an advanced developed country. I am not a clever person like these councillors we pay for but I think I would have managed to think of that :uglystupid2:

But maybe I am giving our councillors the benefit of the doubt too much. Maybe they gave up thinking strategically a long time ago, even if they were capable of it in the first place. Perhaps they just spent the money that was supposed to be for North Swindon education on other pet projects and we are all in North Swindon now paying the price for their folly. This is why for the next few years we will have to sit in traffic jams on Tadpole Lane, Oakhurst Way and Thamesdown Drive... Enjoy everybody

Been a bit busy and only just catching up with this thread.

Road questions aside, the need for an additional primary school for North Swindon has been known since 2009 ( read the Croft thread to follow the saga of the DfE £6,374,000 funding thrown at Class Solutions).

Tadpole Farm was granted planning approval to build 1700 homes with £5,500,000 S106 money for a primary school when ~550 homes had been built( no school place planning officers bothered to attend the planning committee so they must have agreed with this).

Ergo, there is a need for at the least 2 x primary schools in North Swindon ( exc Ridgeway Farm or any other proposed developments)

So, what is being built on Tadpole Farm?

The school to satisfy the need created by 1700 new homes?

Or

The school which was already identified as needed for Sep 2014?


A bit difficult to be both methinks..


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 jennyb

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1813
  • Gender: Female
  • Kareen
Re: Tadpole Lane development to start??
« Reply #25 on: November 30, 2013, 09:22:15 AM »
Oakhurst resident, have you asked the councillor for the area what is going on, if you speak to mollie whats her name, Im sure she will tell you what to do about the problem..

 :spin:  The councillor will probably tell me that there is no choice because a school has to built on the land ready for next September...

At this point I will ask myself "why the indecent haste?" Why must we put lives at risk from construction traffic on inappropriate roads to build a school in such short timescale....Surely with North Swindon at over 10, 000 houses so far and counting and over many years in the making there are sufficient school places to cope in the next 12 months...God I mean you don't build that number of houses without factoring in need for adequate school places etc. I mean this is the United Kingdom... an advanced developed country. I am not a clever person like these councillors we pay for but I think I would have managed to think of that :uglystupid2:

But maybe I am giving our councillors the benefit of the doubt too much. Maybe they gave up thinking strategically a long time ago, even if they were capable of it in the first place. Perhaps they just spent the money that was supposed to be for North Swindon education on other pet projects and we are all in North Swindon now paying the price for their folly. This is why for the next few years we will have to sit in traffic jams on Tadpole Lane, Oakhurst Way and Thamesdown Drive... Enjoy everybody

Been a bit busy and only just catching up with this thread.

Road questions aside, the need for an additional primary school for North Swindon has been known since 2009 ( read the Croft thread to follow the saga of the DfE £6,374,000 funding thrown at Class Solutions).

Tadpole Farm was granted planning approval to build 1700 homes with £5,500,000 S106 money for a primary school when ~550 homes had been built( no school place planning officers bothered to attend the planning committee so they must have agreed with this).

Ergo, Officers state there is a need for at the least 2 x new primary schools in North Swindon ( exc Ridgeway Farm or any other proposed developments)

So, what is being built on Tadpole Farm?

The school to satisfy the need created by 1700 new homes?

Or

The school which was already identified as needed for Sep 2014?


A bit difficult to be both methinks..


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 Mickraker

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 782
  • Strawberry Fields Forever!
Keep lorries away from our streets politely asks residents of the council
« Reply #26 on: November 30, 2013, 10:00:25 AM »
Meanwhile the trucks trundle on  :-\ http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/10846364.Keep_lorries_away_from_our_streets__say_Oakhurst_residents/

My non aggresive posts are my own opinion and represent me, myself and I only!

Offline Terry Reynolds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2706
  • Gender: Male
  • `13 years of lies lies, sleaze porn 10p fiascos, m
Re: Tadpole Lane development to start??
« Reply #27 on: November 30, 2013, 11:05:20 AM »
I see in the paper today, that coun Elliot says that if the lorries douse the road, he will get the council to stop it.
a few weeks ago a man opened up a chemist shop in gorsehill after planning permission had been rejected, it is still open, the council have done nothing to close it, funny how nimbys work....

Offline Mickraker

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 782
  • Strawberry Fields Forever!
Re: Tadpole Lane development to start??
« Reply #28 on: November 30, 2013, 11:39:19 AM »
I see in the paper today, that coun Elliot says that if the lorries douse the road, he will get the council to stop it.
a few weeks ago a man opened up a chemist shop in gorsehill after planning permission had been rejected, it is still open, the council have done nothing to close it, funny how nimbys work....

Humph! Not sure if that is a vote of confidence in the council or a councillor  :-\
My non aggresive posts are my own opinion and represent me, myself and I only!

Offline Spunkymonkey

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 999
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello !
Re: Tadpole Lane development to start??
« Reply #29 on: November 30, 2013, 12:46:33 PM »
I am not sure how easy it is to enforce a haulage route. It may be a condition of the planning application, but that is an agreement between the council and the developer.

The individual lorry drivers are not bound by the rule and are entitled to use public highway.

Paul Exell, 47, chairman of the residents’ association, said: “The original planning application said that construction traffic should not use Tadpole Lane or Lady Lane for Health and Safety Reasons."

This is an unusual statement from the planning authority as it is an admission that SBC are not fulfilling its duties as a highway authority. Tadpole Lane and Lady Lane are public highway with no weight restrictions and can be legally used by all vehicles up to 44 tonnes complying with C&U Regulations. The highway authority has a statutory duty to ensure that it's roads are safe !!!

I agree that Tadpole Lane and Lady Lane are not really suitable, but shouldn't this apply to all large vehicles including those that access Swindon & Cricklade railway. S&CR rent out their yard to a construction plant hire company.

Paul Exell, 47 (is his age relevant?), also says “The council say traffic will not use Oakhurst Way but it appears they are just relying on the goodwill of the drivers. We want to either put a barrier to prevent lorries from passing or put a weight restriction along Oakhurst Way.”

I am not sure how quickly either these things could be implemented. Both would require traffic orders if made permanent. Assuming that the residents still want to receive furniture deliveries and have their fecking bins emptied, the weight restriction would have to be an environmental weight restriction of say 7.5t except for access. The 'except for access' bit makes it hard to enforce.

Having compromised on the site access in order to get the school built, I think the council probably are relying on the goodwill of drivers with regards to the haul route.

Offline Geoff Reid

  • Twitter: @Geoff_Reid
  • Active But Odd
  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10109
  • Gender: Male
  • Bald as a chimps arse
Re: Tadpole Lane development to start??
« Reply #30 on: November 30, 2013, 03:23:17 PM »
I am not sure how easy it is to enforce a haulage route. It may be a condition of the planning application, but that is an agreement between the council and the developer.

The individual lorry drivers are not bound by the rule and are entitled to use public highway.

Paul Exell, 47, chairman of the residents’ association, said: “The original planning application said that construction traffic should not use Tadpole Lane or Lady Lane for Health and Safety Reasons."

This is an unusual statement from the planning authority as it is an admission that SBC are not fulfilling its duties as a highway authority. Tadpole Lane and Lady Lane are public highway with no weight restrictions and can be legally used by all vehicles up to 44 tonnes complying with C&U Regulations. The highway authority has a statutory duty to ensure that it's roads are safe !!!

I agree that Tadpole Lane and Lady Lane are not really suitable, but shouldn't this apply to all large vehicles including those that access Swindon & Cricklade railway. S&CR rent out their yard to a construction plant hire company.

Paul Exell, 47 (is his age relevant?), also says “The council say traffic will not use Oakhurst Way but it appears they are just relying on the goodwill of the drivers. We want to either put a barrier to prevent lorries from passing or put a weight restriction along Oakhurst Way.”

I am not sure how quickly either these things could be implemented. Both would require traffic orders if made permanent. Assuming that the residents still want to receive furniture deliveries and have their fecking bins emptied, the weight restriction would have to be an environmental weight restriction of say 7.5t except for access. The 'except for access' bit makes it hard to enforce.

Having compromised on the site access in order to get the school built, I think the council probably are relying on the goodwill of drivers with regards to the haul route.

Spot on.

I spent several delightful years, (no irony intended, I really enjoyed this), delivering bricks, kerb stones and roofing tiles to developments all over the U.K and formed the opinion that the most effective way to deter construction traffic from specific roads is to post large yellow signs which state "NO CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE ACCESS TO TADPOLE FARM" at all the 'feeder' road points except the ones for preferred routes. 

*Most* commercial drivers, (excepting those with local knowledge), realising that their destination is somewhere beyond these signs will continue to circumnavigate the periphery of these signs until they find a sign which then directs then into the site.

Reputable & considerate developers already use this method, or variations thereof, to good effect.  Generally speaking I'd expect that the route used to convey the largest construction equipment into the site would also, (although not always), be the best 'everyday' route in for the majority of larger vehicles.

I think it's a truism that lorries, cranes and white ground workers vans will always pass someones house, school, surgery and church. He who shouts loudest might succeed in moving traffic from their locale into someones elses back yard, e.g, from Tadpole Lane to Tewkesbury Way.

Offline Muggins

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8535
Re: Tadpole Lane development to start??
« Reply #31 on: November 30, 2013, 03:47:25 PM »
The same restriction applied to Whitworth Road  Northern Development i.e. when they were supposed to go in at Groundwell with what is now Thamesdown Drive.  Residents of Whitworth Road kicked up an unholy row until they got it stopped.

That was down to enforcement, a big signs either end of Whitworth Road, and a fair bit of policing/ringing/ grumbling by the community. 

Lorry drivers, their contractors and bosses and their Sat Navs will try it on.

In fact a lot couldn't be done until Thamesdown Drive was built and that was the way it was planned.
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 Terry Reynolds

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2706
  • Gender: Male
  • `13 years of lies lies, sleaze porn 10p fiascos, m
Re: Tadpole Lane development to start??
« Reply #32 on: November 30, 2013, 04:09:23 PM »
there is a 7.5 ton weight limit now on whitworth road, but still see artics going down there nearly every day...

Offline Spunkymonkey

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 999
  • Gender: Male
  • Hello !
Re: Tadpole Lane development to start??
« Reply #33 on: November 30, 2013, 04:26:43 PM »
there is a 7.5 ton weight limit now on whitworth road, but still see artics going down there nearly every day...

The police rarely seem to enforce weight limits.

With the exception of WEAK BRIDGE weight limits, most are environmental limits and come with the caveat 'except for access'. In the latter case a 40t lorry delivering to the local pub or supermarket is doing so legally.

A complete ban on all vehicles over 7.5t would include buses (18t or 26t) and dust carts (26t).

Offline The Oakhurst Avenger

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 60
  • Cleaning up city hall is a busy job
Re: Tadpole Lane development to start??
« Reply #34 on: December 01, 2013, 07:42:06 PM »
Oakhurst resident, have you asked the councillor for the area what is going on, if you speak to mollie whats her name, Im sure she will tell you what to do about the problem..

 :spin:  The councillor will probably tell me that there is no choice because a school has to built on the land ready for next September...

At this point I will ask myself "why the indecent haste?" Why must we put lives at risk from construction traffic on inappropriate roads to build a school in such short timescale....Surely with North Swindon at over 10, 000 houses so far and counting and over many years in the making there are sufficient school places to cope in the next 12 months...God I mean you don't build that number of houses without factoring in need for adequate school places etc. I mean this is the United Kingdom... an advanced developed country. I am not a clever person like these councillors we pay for but I think I would have managed to think of that :uglystupid2:

But maybe I am giving our councillors the benefit of the doubt too much. Maybe they gave up thinking strategically a long time ago, even if they were capable of it in the first place. Perhaps they just spent the money that was supposed to be for North Swindon education on other pet projects and we are all in North Swindon now paying the price for their folly. This is why for the next few years we will have to sit in traffic jams on Tadpole Lane, Oakhurst Way and Thamesdown Drive... Enjoy everybody

Been a bit busy and only just catching up with this thread.

Road questions aside, the need for an additional primary school for North Swindon has been known since 2009 ( read the Croft thread to follow the saga of the DfE £6,374,000 funding thrown at Class Solutions).

Tadpole Farm was granted planning approval to build 1700 homes with £5,500,000 S106 money for a primary school when ~550 homes had been built( no school place planning officers bothered to attend the planning committee so they must have agreed with this).

Ergo, there is a need for at the least 2 x primary schools in North Swindon ( exc Ridgeway Farm or any other proposed developments)

So, what is being built on Tadpole Farm?

The school to satisfy the need created by 1700 new homes?

Or

The school which was already identified as needed for Sep 2014?


A bit difficult to be both methinks..


Kareen

Whichever school it is, Crest don't do freebies. They have almost certainly negotiated something with our so-called representatives. My guess is that the Northern Haul Route in Condition 33 will never be built if this Crest planning permission is granted. It's another stitch up of local residents by the local Tory councillor's and Crest in bed together again.  :wakeup:
Defender of truth and justice

Offline jennyb

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1813
  • Gender: Female
  • Kareen
Re: Tadpole Lane development to start??
« Reply #35 on: December 01, 2013, 10:47:18 PM »
Oakhurst resident, have you asked the councillor for the area what is going on, if you speak to mollie whats her name, Im sure she will tell you what to do about the problem..

 :spin:  The councillor will probably tell me that there is no choice because a school has to built on the land ready for next September...

At this point I will ask myself "why the indecent haste?" Why must we put lives at risk from construction traffic on inappropriate roads to build a school in such short timescale....Surely with North Swindon at over 10, 000 houses so far and counting and over many years in the making there are sufficient school places to cope in the next 12 months...God I mean you don't build that number of houses without factoring in need for adequate school places etc. I mean this is the United Kingdom... an advanced developed country. I am not a clever person like these councillors we pay for but I think I would have managed to think of that :uglystupid2:

But maybe I am giving our councillors the benefit of the doubt too much. Maybe they gave up thinking strategically a long time ago, even if they were capable of it in the first place. Perhaps they just spent the money that was supposed to be for North Swindon education on other pet projects and we are all in North Swindon now paying the price for their folly. This is why for the next few years we will have to sit in traffic jams on Tadpole Lane, Oakhurst Way and Thamesdown Drive... Enjoy everybody

Been a bit busy and only just catching up with this thread.

Road questions aside, the need for an additional primary school for North Swindon has been known since 2009 ( read the Croft thread to follow the saga of the DfE £6,374,000 funding thrown at Class Solutions).

Tadpole Farm was granted planning approval to build 1700 homes with £5,500,000 S106 money for a primary school when ~550 homes had been built( no school place planning officers bothered to attend the planning committee so they must have agreed with this).

Ergo, there is a need for at the least 2 x primary schools in North Swindon ( exc Ridgeway Farm or any other proposed developments)

So, what is being built on Tadpole Farm?

The school to satisfy the need created by 1700 new homes?

Or

The school which was already identified as needed for Sep 2014?


A bit difficult to be both methinks..


Kareen

Whichever school it is, Crest don't do freebies. They have almost certainly negotiated something with our so-called representatives. My guess is that the Northern Haul Route in Condition 33 will never be built if this Crest planning permission is granted. It's another stitch up of local residents by the local Tory councillor's and Crest in bed together again.  :wakeup:

It must be asked whether Swindon is a developer's field of dreams ....

Robust challenges in scarce supply by the planning committee...

Paper tiger planning conditions ...

Unless of course an individual dared to break the rules..

The planning authority has a duty to act consistently ... Surely ?

In this case, has SBC's desperation over the missing North Swindon primary school ( known about since 2009) allowed the developer an outstanding opportunity to negotiate downwards?

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 Geoff Reid

  • Twitter: @Geoff_Reid
  • Active But Odd
  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10109
  • Gender: Male
  • Bald as a chimps arse
Re: Tadpole Lane development to start??
« Reply #36 on: December 02, 2013, 01:10:39 AM »
It must be asked whether Swindon is a developer's field of dreams ....


Well, don't forget that Rod Bluh was wined and dined by Crest Nicolson (The Tadpole Lane developer) not that long before his planning committee Hench Twits did a surprising and unexpected U-Turn from their previous pre-election campaigning against the development to a post-election position of not just approving the application at a meeting of the planning committee but also becoming vocal supporters & promoters of the development itself.

For more details see: http://www.talkswindon.org/index.php/topic,9244.msg91148.html#msg91148

Offline Muggins

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8535
Re: Tadpole Lane development to start??
« Reply #37 on: December 02, 2013, 08:13:58 AM »
It must be asked whether Swindon is a developer's field of dreams ....


Well, don't forget that Rod Bluh was wined and dined by Crest Nicolson (The Tadpole Lane developer) not that long before his planning committee Hench Twits did a surprising and unexpected U-Turn from their previous pre-election campaigning against the development to a post-election position of not just approving the application at a meeting of the planning committee but also becoming vocal supporters & promoters of the development itself.

For more details see: http://www.talkswindon.org/index.php/topic,9244.msg91148.html#msg91148


Anyone who campaigns on an anti-development stand in Swindon, might have god intentions but is living in a dream world and so is anyone who votes for them.   I wouldn't put them in the 'evil' pile but certainly in the 'totally niave, therefore do we need this person to act on our behalf'  pile.

The planning of Swindon's development has been going on for donkeys years before and there was no doubt (little clues like putting the senior school a the extreme end of a development instead of the middle or start) that at some point they would jump Tadpole Lane and that development there will most certainly not be the last.

Can anyone remember any place here were there were objections and development did not go ahead, by this I do mean not the smaller in-builds but the larger developments?  The rest of Wiltshire (and Gloucershire and Oxfordshire because we are so close to the borders)  will always buck shove development on to Swindon until we have a really strong councillors and MP's who really don't want development either, with enough active support from the people to get it changed at government level.

In answer to Jenny's question, Yes, it is a planners field of dreams.

Except for one, who got fed up with it half way through, hated the site, and sold up to a larger developer.
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: 10109
  • Gender: Male
  • Bald as a chimps arse
Re: Tadpole Lane development to start??
« Reply #38 on: December 02, 2013, 09:03:26 AM »
Anyone who campaigns on an anti-development stand in Swindon, might have god intentions but is living in a dream world and so is anyone who votes for them.   I wouldn't put them in the 'evil' pile but certainly in the 'totally niave, therefore do we need this person to act on our behalf'  pile.

That isn't exactly what (now Cllr's) Elliot & Faramarzi did though.  What they did was to assist North Swindon Residents as the residents sought to exert some influence on the other local politicians and developers.  The residents were deliberately led to believe that these particular election candidates were genuinely sympathetic to and representative of their concerns.  The candidates went as far as to describe the (then proposed) Tadpole Lane development as the 'inappropriate development at Tadpole Farm', before one of them subsequently (after being elected) joined the planning committee and made his first act the proposal that the 'inappropriate development at Tadpole Farm' be approved. The other candidate, once elected, immediately became a vocal supporter of the development.

So, in which pidgeon hole do you place Cllrs Elliot and Farmarzi Muggins?

Did candidate/councillors Elliot & Faramarzi have 'good intentions', or where they being disingenuous with residents and voters?

More importantly, were the voters who put their trust in both candidate/councillors 'living in a dream world' or did they simply invest their trust in two candidates who quickly proved themselves to be undeserving? 

I don't believe Councillor Faramarzi or Councillor Elliot to be naivé or evil but they are both predictably and politically expedient herd animals. Mind you, (and I know this might not have been intentional on Muggins' part), they might well have 'God intentions'. Bluh certainly appeared to have some aspirations in this direction  :angel:

Offline jennyb

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1813
  • Gender: Female
  • Kareen
Re: Tadpole Lane development to start??
« Reply #39 on: December 02, 2013, 10:52:10 AM »
Anyone who campaigns on an anti-development stand in Swindon, might have god intentions but is living in a dream world and so is anyone who votes for them.   I wouldn't put them in the 'evil' pile but certainly in the 'totally niave, therefore do we need this person to act on our behalf'  pile.

That isn't exactly what (now Cllr's) Elliot & Faramarzi did though.  What they did was to assist North Swindon Residents as the residents sought to exert some influence on the other local politicians and developers.  The residents were deliberately led to believe that these particular election candidates were genuinely sympathetic to and representative of their concerns.  The candidates went as far as to describe the (then proposed) Tadpole Lane development as the 'inappropriate development at Tadpole Farm', before one of them subsequently (after being elected) joined the planning committee and made his first act the proposal that the 'inappropriate development at Tadpole Farm' be approved. The other candidate, once elected, immediately became a vocal supporter of the development.

So, in which pidgeon hole do you place Cllrs Elliot and Farmarzi Muggins?

Did candidate/councillors Elliot & Faramarzi have 'good intentions', or where they being disingenuous with residents and voters?

More importantly, were the voters who put their trust in both candidate/councillors 'living in a dream world' or did they simply invest their trust in two candidates who quickly proved themselves to be undeserving? 

I don't believe Councillor Faramarzi or Councillor Elliot to be naivé or evil but they are both predictably and politically expedient herd animals. Mind you, (and I know this might not have been intentional on Muggins' part), they might well have 'God intentions'. Bluh certainly appeared to have some aspirations in this direction  :angel:

Irrespective of age, experience or political hue I find it astonishing that a councillor can be elected and within a month be a member of the Planning Committee.

Membership of the Planning Committee allows councillors to make decisions which will affect this town for generations.

Wouldn't it be wiser to ensure that those on the committee have a minimum level of experience as councillors ( .. a bit like an apprenticeship?) before they can be members of this committee or any other?

Wouldn't it be wiser to ensure that a seat on this committee has a maximum tenure to avoid stagnation or complacency?

Wouldn't it be wiser for councillors to robustly scrutinise officers' proposals? 

Otherwise, is that why we see Developments approved without adequate infrastructure ?

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.