Talkswindon

Town Planning, Housing Developments, Transport & Education => Tadpole Farm Development => Topic started by: Candide7 on June 12, 2012, 01:36:57 AM

Title: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on June 12, 2012, 01:36:57 AM
http://www.swindonlink.com/news/tadpole-farm-needs-approval-to-block-ridgeway-farm (http://www.swindonlink.com/news/tadpole-farm-needs-approval-to-block-ridgeway-farm)

Cllr Nick Martin is on the planning committee that will decide whether the Crest planning application should go ahead at 6pm at Council Offices this evening. Is it right and proper that Cllr Martin votes on this issue when he has a clear conflict of interests and has pre-determined his views stating them in public at Ridgeway appeal as well as in Swindon Link?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Geoff Reid on June 12, 2012, 05:58:24 PM

Not a sniff of the much publicised Tory leaflet in my part of Priory Vale - have yet to hear from anyone who has seen one....was it 4000 leaflets or hen's teeth they were supposed to be delivering?


I haven't recently received any copies of Conservative leaflets concerning the proposed Tadpole Farm development via either the Swindon Lamplighters Network or normal forum emails.

I can report that I've received multiple copies, (both hard and digital), of a Labour 'North Swindon Matters' which describes these proposals as a 'Developers Free For All'.

Hat-Tip goes to Lamplighter 'Tory-Turner' (http://www.talkswindon.org/lamplighters/lamplighters.htm), (their choice of screen name, not mine), because they were first :)  Many thanks to the other contributors.

(http://www.talkswindon.org/politics/leaflet_archive_2012/2012_06_12_Labour_North_Swindon_Matters_Tadpole_Farm%5Bthumb%5D.jpg) (http://www.talkswindon.org/politics/leaflet_archive_2012/2012_06_12_Labour_North_Swindon_Matters_Tadpole_Farm.pdf)


Just about now, the planning committee will be winding up their usual pre-meeting-meeting with the Conservative committee members already having already decided been instructed by their glorious leader as to which politically important items they will be approving. 

What I always find interesting about planning committee members is seeing how unsuccessful some  of them are at masking the unease caused by their own pretending that some of their decisions are not predetermined.

One day someone will bug & record them at it.  Then I'll laugh.....

 
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Richard Beale on June 12, 2012, 10:25:25 PM
http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9756777.Council_gives_green_light_for_nearly_1_700_homes_at_Tadpole_Farm/ (http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9756777.Council_gives_green_light_for_nearly_1_700_homes_at_Tadpole_Farm/)

There goes the neighbourhood then.... Looks like Crest are to buy their way out of trouble  or no planning permission.

Quote
Tonight’s planning committee added an extra condition that Crest Nicholson must negotiate with officers and ward councillors on how it can address the concerns through contributions - and if no satisfactory agreement is reached within three months then the formal permission will not be granted.


Ward Councillor hush-money perhaps? Any bets on whether the 'contribution' gets spent in the area or not?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Steve Wakefield on June 12, 2012, 10:33:04 PM
It was a long meeting tonight and the decision was to approve outline planning application, with conditions.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Richard Beale on June 12, 2012, 10:41:04 PM
It was a long meeting tonight and the decision was to approve outline planning application, with conditions.

Conditions, Steve? is that other words for money or facilities?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Steve Wakefield on June 12, 2012, 10:46:15 PM
Richard

http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/oakhursts-worse-fears-confirmed-tadpole.html (http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/oakhursts-worse-fears-confirmed-tadpole.html)

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Richard Beale on June 12, 2012, 11:54:21 PM
Richard

[url]http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/oakhursts-worse-fears-confirmed-tadpole.html[/url] ([url]http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/oakhursts-worse-fears-confirmed-tadpole.html[/url])


Hell's teeth.. Crest got that cheap, only £60k, that won't even dent the profit they will make on ONE house... Bet the champagne corks are 'a poppin' tonight in crest towers...

Looks like the new breed of north Swindon Councillors just rolled over and let it happen then. Should I have expected more?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on June 12, 2012, 11:56:50 PM
Let's hope the residents of North Swindon remember this betrayal by their ward councillors the next time they are asked to put a cross on the ballot paper. They never really opposed throughout the whole process despite various PR attempts to convince otherwise. It's good the truth is out now with Toby Elliott, our new ward councillor who lives in Oakhurst actually the proposer that Crest application should be approved. Wow that's breathtaking.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Richard Beale on June 13, 2012, 12:07:20 AM
Quote
- from Oakhurst Resdients Blog -

Cllr Vera Tomlinson made the point that only the St Andrews councillors should have any say over the negotiations about the S.106 money because Tadpole Farm sits entirely within her ward.  However, a plethera of councillors challenged her on this issue and now all the north Swindon councillors will have an opportunity to find a way forward.


All of them now need a slice of that s106 money to placate the many people who have opposed this, from my friends there it seems that the 470 objections is just the tip of a very large iceberg. That £60k isn't going to make it go much further either.

Let's hope the residents of North Swindon remember this betrayal by their ward councillors the next time they are asked to put a cross on the ballot paper. They never really opposed throughout the whole process despite various PR attempts to convince otherwise. It's good the truth is out now with Toby Elliott, our new ward councillor who lives in Oakhurst actually the proposer that Crest application should be approved. Wow that's breathtaking.


Doesn't surprise me at all.

So all the OTHER north Swindon councillors objected publicly, and the only one on the actual planning committee voted for it, do they not talk and have a coherent ward policy.......

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9752186.Residents_are_urged_to_have_say_on_Tadpole_Farm_homes/ (http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9752186.Residents_are_urged_to_have_say_on_Tadpole_Farm_homes/)

what do you make of that, is Cllr Elliot a planning patsy?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on June 13, 2012, 12:18:41 AM
Vera Tomlinson will probably succeed in getting some more money for bollards to be put up outside her house in Redhouse to stop people parking outside her gaff. She succeeded in getting all the traffic to go down Oakhurst Way including 'Rapid Bus Transit' that won' be so 'Rapid' so it wouldn't go past her house.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Geoff Reid on June 13, 2012, 12:32:40 AM
what do you make of that, is Cllr Elliot a planning patsy?

Yep, and he did exactly as instructed.

If I remember correctly, DaMellon reported a series of un-minuted and unpublicised meetings which took place between Crest Nicholson and the Tomlinsons.

Also, if I remember correctly, Toby Elliot is close to the Tomlinsons, close to the point where Toby airbrushed his facebook page or twitter account after first boasting on it that he was on a night out with the boy Tomlinson in Swindon....

...so not surprising that he's their willing planning bitch.     


He'll be worth watching if he's being groomed by the Tomlinsons to provide them with plausible-deniability.  He's obviously made a cracking start on alienating himself from and dumping on those he's supposed to represent.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: MrGrumpy on June 13, 2012, 06:38:05 AM
By all accounts the North Swindon Tory Councillors (at least the ones that were there) gave very pretty speeches about how bad the application was, how the area could not cope with the impact of 1700 houses and how it would blight the existing communities...there were even tales of not sleeping over the worry of the decision....

But, apart from Peter H-J, they all ended their objection speeches with the word 'but' - along the lines of but I see no grounds for turning it down as we would not win an appeal....
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Tea Boy on June 13, 2012, 07:03:48 AM
So it was only peter Heaton Jones who came out with any integrity left.

The others should hang their heads in shame. It's not their job to add 'buts', in this context surly tier role is to put forward, forcefully and directly, the view of their constituents.

Sounds like a put up job, where the decision had already been made. Certain councillors then being sllowed to save some face but ultimately being told to tow the line.
With such vehement opposition from local communities and residents there should have been an 'over my dead body' theme to the speeches

The feeling I am gettiny is that they stamped their feet a little but were going to let this happen any way
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: MrGrumpy on June 13, 2012, 07:07:19 AM
Adver has just dropped through my door with some more details....electronic copy not online yet so cannot link to it, but looks like the evening can be summed up with a quote from Cllr Vera Tomlinson, who is reported as having said that
Quote
rejecting permission was not an option because the council would lose at appeal
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Tea Boy on June 13, 2012, 07:29:07 AM
Quote from: MrGrumpy link=topic=6915.msg81093#msg810 93 date=1339567639
Adver has just dropped through my door with some more details....electronic copy not online yet so cannot link to it, but looks like the evening can be summed up with a quote from Cllr Vera Tomlinson, who is reported as having said that
Quote
rejecting permission was not an option because the council would lose at appeal

That's a poor excuse.  That can be rolled out time and time again. Bet north Swindon residents wish they had the cllr backup that gorsehill residents got.


North Swindon conservatives Compliant or impotent?     Well certainly not got any will to fight for their voters
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on June 13, 2012, 07:29:47 AM
Well oh well.

What is the purpose of the planning committee?

Is it to scrutinise a proposal?

Or is it to deliver to the public a decision made elsewhere?

Having been to many of these 'quasi-judicial processes' over the last year or so , in my opinion it is the latter.

The objectors to proposals are generally those who live in the areas surrounding the latest wheeze presented and packaged by an arrogant, patronising and condescending group of officers who demonstrate their impatience with the public they are supposed to be in post to serve.

The Legal Eagle who guides the process has the bare faced cheek to state with a straight face that if objectors do not agree with Officers then they must provide their own expert advice. But wait… been there.. Officers dismiss independent expert assessments because Officers are always right.

The message from Officers is that if you challenge what we say you will lose this on appeal, because whatever they write in their report is the basis of any appeal.

It doesn’t matter that these same Officers inhabit some sort of fantasy land where people pop to the shops, cross the road to get to school, use their cars as ornaments and hop on a bus which will sprint into town or work or Utopia. Because the computer says, these are the numbers so it all must be right. 

Residents have no influence with Officers. This was again apparent from their demeanour last night where they looked so bored at having to go through the charade of listening and looking offended when challenged.

Officers appear to be highly politicised.  To see the planning officer going through a recent Labour Leaflet did not reflect well on him or the manager sitting beside him.

Swindon is a mess, in gridlock and rapidly becoming an sprawling dormitory town where people have to shop for food ( hence the every expanding supermarkets) but escape for discretionary spending.

On the basis of the quality of the officers and the supine nature of the planning committee it is clear why we are in this mess.

Listening to Ward Councillors Tomlinson and Friend in their… I feel your pain… but I am going to approve it anyway was not counterbalanced by the Cllr Heaton-Jomes'  impassioned speech for his residents and against this application.  Had this whole exercise been orchestrated?

It appears that Swindon is still open house for Developers and that the only matter for discussion is the price.

Welcome to Swindon where Officers know the price of everything but the value of nothing.

And who tells the Officers what to do ?

Kareen




Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on June 13, 2012, 08:11:47 AM
A few points-

The Borough Solicitor is useless - he loses more appeals than he wins. They appealed Coate even though development at Commonhead was in the adopted development plan yet he pronounces he can't win an appeal on Tadpole Farm even though it is not in adopted plan! It would be extremely useful to understand the reasons the solicitor gave for his conclusion that an appeal would be lost. Did he give the reasons? Or was his conclusion accepted without challenge or questioning?

This decision was pre-determined by the Tories from the start. It has been approved at every vote.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on June 13, 2012, 08:36:21 AM
Teaboy? "So it was only Peter Heaton Jones who came out with any integrity left."


No, no, no, no one can come out of it with any integrity. And that's an old trick standing up and looking good  :angel:  but knowing full well that your councillor colleagues will vote you down anyway.

Who evers 'fault' this is, the damage was done wayyyyy before last evening, it was done at the first approach by the developers.  If it's not trodden on then, and vociferously, it goes too far too soon.

Does this mean if anyone anywhere has a bit of land they want to flog off that they can do so and the buyer expect to be able to build 1,700 houses?  We could talk about whether or not that is usually a number to trigger off schools and shops etc. i think if you add up the rest of Northern Development and its ratio to facilties there might be a bit of anomoly there.


Jennyb "Swindon is a mess, in gridlock and rapidly becoming an sprawling dormitory town"

That's funny that's what we were saying before Northern Development, Whichelstowe and the extra development in Old Town, Gorsehill, most of the school playing fields, etc. etc.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: the gorgon on June 13, 2012, 09:02:44 AM
A few points-

The Borough Solicitor is useless - he loses more appeals than he wins. They appealed Coate even though development at Commonhead was in the adopted development plan yet he pronounces he can't win an appeal on Tadpole Farm even though it is not in adopted plan! It would be extremely useful to understand the reasons the solicitor gave for his conclusion that an appeal would be lost. Did he give the reasons? Or was his conclusion accepted without challenge or questioning?

This decision was pre-determined by the Tories from the start. It has been approved at every vote.


Or is this exactly the result the Tory government's new planning guidelines were meant to achieve?  If this is the case it is very worrying indeed, because unless an area is specifically excluded from development it can be built on!  Saying that an area isn't included in the adopted plan means nothing unless the adopted plan stated that this site must not be built on.

To quote the governments planning portal (my bolding): http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/planninginspectorate/presumption (http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/planninginspectorate/presumption)
Quote
When considering development proposals the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the National Planning Policy Framework. It will always work proactively with applicants jointly to find solutions which mean that proposals can be approved wherever possible, and to secure development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area.

Planning applications that accord with the policies in this Local Plan (and, where relevant, with polices in neighbourhood plans) will be approved without delay, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Where there are no policies relevant to the application or relevant policies are out of date at the time of making the decision then the Council will grant permission unless material considerations indicate otherwise – taking into account whether:

    Any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole; or

    Specific policies in that Framework indicate that development should be restricted.


Perhaps the Tory voters of the NSD would do well to remember that it was a Tory government that forced the NSD upon the town (the Labour council rejected the plans), and as saying goes "leopards don't change their spots".  So even if the plans were rejected by the Tories in Swindon those in London wouldn't hesitate to approve them.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Richard Symonds on June 13, 2012, 10:30:16 AM
You guys should have been at Planning last night, an unmitigated disaster is now in the making with little or no redress of any of the traffic issues that exist in West Swindon, Moredon or Gorsehill which will come to a standstill with the rat runs out of Tadpole Farm.

It was approved, as expected, and unaminously, but I must say I am appalled at the lack of consideration by our Officers who in my opinion have manifestly failed to look after our interests.  The car movement figures are a joke and all this talk of rapid transport does nothing to inspire me.  There were just too many reasons why it should be approved and too few as to why we should negotiate for the right type of deal for Swindon.  Roll over and tickle my tummy comes to mind in our desperation to convince businessmen that 'Swindon is the Place where business wants to do business.' (Quote from our leader Rod Bluh).  But should this be at any price?  This decision leaves me so disillusioned that I may have to look to spend my retirement elsewhere and move!!

Now to the Planning Committee and representative Councillors who spoke passionately about how badly this will affect us and that the deal needed to be reconsidered around a three or six monthly deferment.  Jim Grant failed to drive home his initiative on deferment by turning round to the Managing Director of Crest Nicholson and ask him to agree to it.  The initiative just melted away along with the emotional Vera who had not slept for 36 hours.  Was she concerned for her constituents or the effect this may have on her son the Conservative MP for North Swindon, I wonder? At the end of the day we have wasted millions of pounds on all sorts of wasteful expeditions recently so why not challenge this application and be prepared to defend it at a hearing?

Crest Nicholson must be over the moon, yes they have to discuss things with Officers and Councillors in the Northern Sector, but they have their outline Planning Permission along with its woefully inadequate Road System. I am only glad I do not live anywhere near Redhouse!!
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Richard Symonds on June 13, 2012, 10:41:25 AM
I originally wrote the previous post under the Pickhard's Fields thread, but the more I think about Planning last night the more I believe I saw the worst of Politicians in action.

They appear to be representing you but I believe that they had already made up their minds and have other ideas.  Very very clever but utterly devisive

As for the Conservative Party in North Swindon had they been challenged at the elections they might not be there today and we will not have to sustain the now out of control excesses of this Conservative lead Administration.  Sadly the Labour Party manifestly failed to challenge in the north of the town, why?

Also why oh why did Kevin Small intervene at Mayor making and stop Stan Pajak becoming leader?  That could have changed everything, not because Stan would have lasted long but because we would have seen the end of Rod Bluh and everything he now has free license to pursue over the next two years!!

I despair!!
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on June 13, 2012, 12:15:35 PM
Richard S "They appear to be representing you but I believe that they had already made up their minds and have other ideas.  Very very clever but utterly devisive"

Why is it so clever when it's so obvious?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on June 13, 2012, 03:36:24 PM

Although education provision was a big concern with the TF application, there were no Officers there to represent Education at the 'top table'.

It was left to the legal beagle who quite frankly talked a lot of nonsense and none of the planning committee bothered to challenge him.

From what I hear there were several Education bods at Broadgreen last night for a meeting to discuss the proposals for the choice of a school site for 2014. Funny....  I have never been to one of these types of meeting ..

It has to be asked why the Education bods did not appear at the planning committee for a 1700 house development ... too frightened .. praying for a miracle.. doing a Rhett Butler... or maybe they already knew the outcome?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on June 13, 2012, 04:20:22 PM
How much time were the public allowed to speak for or was it controlled to the 10 mins total stated on the agenda?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Steve Wakefield on June 13, 2012, 04:22:13 PM
Candide7

Members of public were give 3 minutes each.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on June 13, 2012, 04:33:12 PM
What is beyond me is how the Head of Planning can say £60k is adequate for Oakhurst Way when it is expected to take a minimum of 45% of traffic (I don't believe the number anyway - I think it will take more of the TF traffic than that as Oakhurst Way is the only route to Thamesdown Drive and Northern Orbital shopping centre). I had a conversation once with Dave Potter., the previous Head of Planning, and he stated that people don't all do their shopping in the evening and on weekends! Makes you wonder what assumptions they use on car trip distribution!!!! Whatever they are.... the assumptions are always wrong. Furthermore, Oakhurst Way is now Option 1 for Rapid Bus Transit as Vera Tomlinson managed to get the developer to switch the original Option 1 which was Addinsel Way in Redhouse (her patch - yes you couldn't make it up) to Oakhurst Way just a couple of months ago. She thought she would twist the knife a little deeper into Oakhurst....
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on June 13, 2012, 04:36:20 PM
Why oh why did labour let Rod Bluh become leader again. The man has read The Prince by Machiavelli so many times he knows it by heart....
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on June 13, 2012, 04:38:50 PM
I would still like to know the basis for the solicitors opinion on why TF could not win an appeal....TF would have had a much stronger case in winning an appeal than Coate.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on June 13, 2012, 04:40:08 PM
Does anyone have a clear understanding of the issues that were agreed need to be resolved in the 3 month period?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on June 13, 2012, 04:44:39 PM
What I also don't understand is why only ward councillors have the right to represent North Swindon in the negotiations with Crest. Under the NPPF parish councils and residents associations have the right to write neighbourhood plans that would be binding if approved by referendum. By what right under the new NPPF rules do ward councillors have the sole right to represent the community view. In this instance they have never represented the community view...quite the contrary.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: The Oakhurst Avenger on June 13, 2012, 04:50:49 PM
@Candide7

If you read my previous posts on this blog you will understand what is happening. I bet Dale Heenan was splitting his sides after the meeting in the pub, him being a member for the EAST!!!! From what I read he seconded the proposal from Toby "Judas" Elliott.   :wakeup:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Steve Wakefield on June 13, 2012, 04:56:00 PM
Oakhurst Avenger


Cllr Dale Heenan  contributed several times to the discussion, and yes I can confirm he did second Cllr Elliot's proposal.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Richard Symonds on June 13, 2012, 05:12:43 PM
Why oh why did labour let Rod Bluh become leader again. The man has read The Prince by Machiavelli so many times he knows it by heart....

You may well ask Candide!!

Stan Pajak got himself nominated, Kevin Small chiacked him and he withdrew and then the Liberals sat on their hands, done deal.

If anyone doubted the value or relevance of the Liberal Democrats they can be in no doubt now.

A very big opportunity missed to reign in the excesses of the present Administration and now there is no sign of any form of challenge. 

The words god help us come to mind!
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on June 13, 2012, 05:22:49 PM
@Richard Symonds

Those cosy chats over dinner in the Houses of Parliament between Crest and Rod Bluh really paid off - probably Justin Tomlinson there as well no doubt. Money well spent by Crest!   :censored:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Richard Symonds on June 13, 2012, 06:00:33 PM
@Richard Symonds

Those cosy chats over dinner in the Houses of Parliament between Crest and Rod Bluh really paid off - probably Justin Tomlinson there as well no doubt. Money well spent by Crest!   :censored:

What an interesting observation!!

Roderick was noted by his absence last night but his cohort Colin Lovell did the business.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: the gorgon on June 13, 2012, 06:05:18 PM
I would still like to know the basis for the solicitors opinion on why TF could not win an appeal....TF would have had a much stronger case in winning an appeal than Coate.

Two things I suspect:

1 - The new planning guidelines and the presumption in favour of sustainable development (this wasn't a consideration at the Coate appeal)
2 - TF was at one point put forward as a site for sustainable development (and Crest can argue that what made it sustainable hasn't changed)

Quote
@Richard Symonds

Those cosy chats over dinner in the Houses of Parliament between Crest and Rod Bluh really paid off - probably Justin Tomlinson there as well no doubt. Money well spent by Crest!

Older Swindonians might remember that Crest was the lead developer behind the NSD.  They managed to get the SoS to overturn the planning rejection on appeal - they're experts.  Blimey I wouldn't be surprised if they have the SoS phone number.

Let us not forget that the government are desperate to kick-start house building, that's the whole reason for the new planning guidelines.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on June 13, 2012, 07:05:33 PM
Have little wander around their web site, after much looking I found that Grosvenor Place is at Tadpole Coner, where-ever that may be, being 'off plan' whatever that means, and 'sold' as beign between the bustling town and the countryside, so i take it it's somwhere right over on the edge by Tadpole Lane, could it be that although its on the edge fo the countryside now, it proabably won;t be whent heya start sellign the rest?   Developers are naughty like that you know. 

http://www.crestnicholson.com/grosvenorplace/latestnews/Launch-of-Grosvenor-Place-builds-on-Crest-Nicholsons-Swindon-succes (http://www.crestnicholson.com/grosvenorplace/latestnews/Launch-of-Grosvenor-Place-builds-on-Crest-Nicholsons-Swindon-succes)

I note you can also search their site by housing proximity to any given school.

They might well have been part of the Consortium at Northern Development, but they didn't build that many houses until they got near Asda. or at least no more than others.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: MrGrumpy on June 13, 2012, 07:06:15 PM
Just seen this on the Adver website -

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9759429.Anger_as_council_folds_on_Tadpole_Farm_plans/ (http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9759429.Anger_as_council_folds_on_Tadpole_Farm_plans/)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Smiler on June 13, 2012, 08:10:45 PM
Have heard on the grapevine that there will be a blue leaflet in Priory Vale on the subject of victory at planning committee.  Do you agree that some politicians have such a strange sense of humour?  If it wasn't so tragic, it might be funny.   :bash:

What do you think the subject matter of the leaflet might be?  Boudicca leads her maiden councillor into political catastrophe?

I have just found the following on ORA's blog which was posted this evening.  Plenty of ideas for their leaflet or might they be better to keep their heads down?

http://www.oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/disbelief-tadpole-farm-approved-at.html (http://www.oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/disbelief-tadpole-farm-approved-at.html)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on June 14, 2012, 07:57:03 AM
If the leaflet is going to ALL of Priory Vale, it will probably point out how they managed to stop development on the doorstep of other parts of the area  i.e. not in their back yard, and how it will bring the multiple benefits of school, more shops etc.

What was the name used for people like that - Pollyanna?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: the gorgon on June 14, 2012, 09:41:07 AM
Have little wander around their web site, after much looking I found that Grosvenor Place is at Tadpole Coner, where-ever that may be, being 'off plan' whatever that means, and 'sold' as beign between the bustling town and the countryside, so i take it it's somwhere right over on the edge by Tadpole Lane, could it be that although its on the edge fo the countryside now, it proabably won;t be whent heya start sellign the rest?   Developers are naughty like that you know. 

[url]http://www.crestnicholson.com/grosvenorplace/latestnews/Launch-of-Grosvenor-Place-builds-on-Crest-Nicholsons-Swindon-succes[/url] ([url]http://www.crestnicholson.com/grosvenorplace/latestnews/Launch-of-Grosvenor-Place-builds-on-Crest-Nicholsons-Swindon-succes[/url])

I note you can also search their site by housing proximity to any given school.

They might well have been part of the Consortium at Northern Development, but they didn't build that many houses until they got near Asda. or at least no more than others.


I'm going to put my cynic hat on  ;D

I wouldn't be surprised at all if Crest didn't build anything near the number of homes they originally planned to, land is far more valuable when there is planning permission for houses.  Doesn't pay to build too early either, especially when the housing market is going nowhere.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 14, 2012, 09:53:47 AM
Quote
I wouldn't be surprised at all if Crest didn't build anything near the number of homes they originally planned to, land is far more valuable when there is planning permission for houses.  Doesn't pay to build too early either, especially when the housing market is going nowhere

Did Crest Nicholson sell some land holdings to other builders, who built a higher number of houses on them, than Crest had planned to build?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on June 14, 2012, 10:05:23 AM
Back when ND was being planned, the housing market was no where near as bad as now.  Most of this side - Abbey Meads was 3 & 4 bed detached, and they were selling like hotcakes although the urban myth was that they were not - that was nonsense - they were! This changed towards the end of that phase although it was close to here (Penhill-Seven Fields) not because of the financial thing, becasue it was still pretty goos then, but because the government wanted more houses more tightly crammed in to meet need and 'affordable housing' became the in thing. 

As that development was going on they were only at the planning stage of what became Priory Vale (i.e. they knew which bits would be housing/school/retail, but didn't actaully know the street layout) so by the time it came to action plans there, packed in 35 to the acre was the norm.  There was some sort of control on making sure one area was developed before starting on another, it wasn't perfect, but it did sort of work.  if that same control was in now, they would have to finish Wichelstowe before any other went under the digger.   Wish I hadn't said that now, I've come over all angry.

As far as I know only one developer bought land started to build and then gave up and sold out to another to complete his build, there wasn't financial constraits, but I was told by an employee, the guy hated the site, he'd had nothing but trouble with it and I think we might have had something to do with that, pity really he seemed a decentish developer - smallish family firm, the name of which defeats me, but I haven't seen him back in Swindon since (or before!).
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: the gorgon on June 14, 2012, 10:15:40 AM
Quote
I wouldn't be surprised at all if Crest didn't build anything near the number of homes they originally planned to, land is far more valuable when there is planning permission for houses.  Doesn't pay to build too early either, especially when the housing market is going nowhere


Did Crest Nicholson sell some land holdings to other builders, who built a higher number of houses on them, than Crest had planned to build?


Interestingly I've managed to find some figures, I wonder how they compare with what was actually built!

The NSD covered (at time of application) roughly 1,500 acres (of which Crest owned 580 acres).  10,000 homes were to be build on 740 of these acres, plus 123 acres employment land, 223 for parks and playing fields,42 for the district centre.

I wonder if people know that as early as 1978 companies were trying to allocate land to the north of Swindon for development?

Interesting article, shame I can't see beyond the first page as it's a pay to view site http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02697458708722681 (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02697458708722681)

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on June 14, 2012, 11:22:55 AM
There are various conditions attached to the Tadpole Farm development. Thames Water have stated that no more than 300 houses can be occupied before March 2015 because the waste water network needs to be upgraded. Phase 1 is 900 houses to be completed in 2020. It is after that stage that the link to the A419 that up to this point is for construction traffic only should become open to cars from the development as well. However this will require signficant investment from the Council. This was one of the real concerns as this road is not guaranteed to happen in the Crest Application. If it doesn't happen then all the traffic from the development will be using Tadpole Lane and Oakhurst Way exclusively with no relief to the North.

The primary school if it happens will be built in Phase 2 (after 2020) but if you read the Planning Officers report the school is not guaranteed either. The report says the developer will either provide a s106 contribution or build the school (to be decided). Again if the school does not get built every child from that development will have to commute to a primary school (the same for secondary age children since there is no new secondary school provision planned).

There is so much wriggle room in the Crest application that I will be bloody amazed if what we end up in the next decade looks anything like what the Crest application states. I would also go so far to say that the plan for the low density housing is a crock as well. The developer makes much more money with high density development.

If you look at the rollout of the development Crest will probably build a few hundred and then sell the rest on for a very tidy profit. The developers that follow on may have very diferent ideas of what gets built.

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 14, 2012, 01:08:12 PM
http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/are-you-having-laugh-mr-bluh.html (http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/are-you-having-laugh-mr-bluh.html)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Techie on June 14, 2012, 01:32:36 PM
My views are that the GWH is not big enough to cater for the population of Swindon. 

Therefore, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to build another hospital - maybe on the Tadpole Farm estate…!
 
The northern sector alone is large enough without having more unsightly houses/rabbit hutches going up!!
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on June 14, 2012, 02:34:28 PM
Re: Council "leader" Bluh

His is the sort of leadership style that can cause Libyan or Syrian-style civil unrest. :censored:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Geoff Reid on June 14, 2012, 04:01:41 PM
Re: Council "leader" Bluh

His is the sort of leadership style that can cause Libyan or Syrian-style civil unrest. :censored:


In my vile opinion the man is bullying, inept berk.  A wasteful leader suffering from vibrant, but delusional and increasingly disconnected and expensive visions for the town which the towns taxpaying residents can no longer afford to bankroll.


There are various conditions attached to the Tadpole Farm development. Thames Water have stated that no more than 300 houses can be occupied before March 2015 because the waste water network needs to be upgraded. Phase 1 is 900 houses to be completed in 2020. It is after that stage that the link to the A419 that up to this point is for construction traffic only should become open to cars from the development as well. However this will require signficant investment from the Council. This was one of the real concerns as this road is not guaranteed to happen in the Crest Application. If it doesn't happen then all the traffic from the development will be using Tadpole Lane and Oakhurst Way exclusively with no relief to the North.


So, the necessary infrastructure for the Tadpole Farm development doesn't exist but unnecessary infrastructure has already been installed in Wichelstowe, (where it will not be needed for a long time and is may yet be dug up and moved), at massive expense to the Swindon taxpayer?



The primary school if it happens will be built in Phase 2 (after 2020) but if you read the Planning Officers report the school is not guaranteed either. The report says the developer will either provide a s106 contribution or build the school (to be decided). Again if the school does not get built every child from that development will have to commute to a primary school (the same for secondary age children since there is no new secondary school provision planned).


Funny, didn't Swindon Borough Council already receive more than £6,000,000 from HMG to build schools  in the North and Centre of Swindon, where pupil demand demonstrably exists....

.....but hasn't that money been diverted into Old Town to build a School at Croft where the pupil demand does not seem to exist and the Chief Executive and Directors of Swindon Borough Council are submitting FOI requests to themselves to prevent the public learning exactly what the demand for school places at the Croft is?

Meanwhile, I'm hearing that only about a dozen applications have been received from parents wishing to place their children at the Croft, but folks from the White Horse Federation, and maybe the council, are desperately trying to recruit applicants. Going door to door?

There is so much wriggle room in the Crest application that I will be bloody amazed if what we end up in the next decade looks anything like what the Crest application states. I would also go so far to say that the plan for the low density housing is a crock as well. The developer makes much more money with high density development.


The final product of anything 'negotiated' by Rod and his Bluhligans, with developers who are equally skillful with contract law and trowel, will look nothing like the vision being presented to the public now.  Once the development gets going, and community centre sized gaps remain unfilled,  it will only be a matter of time before the Toby Elliots, Vera Tomlinsons and Peter Heaton-Wossnames begin wringing their hands and saying how 'utterly disgraceful' it all is but how there is 'nothing we can do' about it.

Hand-wringing will be deployed instead of making frank admissions that none of them knew what they were doing and shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near a planning committee.  Readers shouldn't forget that, in the case of Vera Tomlinson and her MP son Justin, (when he was still a Borough Councillor), in their capacity as Borough councillors had several un-minuted meetings with the developers to, during which they presumably discussed this development in some detail.  Vera, I suggest, should have been allowed nowhere near this decision and her previous dealing with the developers deserves to come under minute public and legal scrutiny.

For a previous recent example of Councillors hand-wringing when developers don't deliver on councillors promises, look no further than Ex-councillor Peter Greenhalgh's angry appearance on BBC Points West (http://www.talkswindon.org/index.php/topic,8085.msg71440.html#msg71440) to 'explain' why certain useful buildings had mysteriously failed to appear at Wichelstowe. 

That thread is also a good illustration of how Councillors and developers initially lead the public to believe they are getting one thing from one developer, but when the 'thing' is not delivered the public learn, after much hand-wring, wailing and gnashing of Councillors teeth, that it was actually someone else who was supposed to deliver it, but no legal or enforceable mechanism was every put in place to guarantee that the previously unknown-of provider of said 'thing', actually delivered it.

I suggest that not enough councillors have the necessary wit, intelligence or experience to serve effectively on planning committees and, judging by what I've read of their recent work, some of the supporting Council Officers ought to be sacked or demoted to 'junior clerk'.

It's shocking, it ain't getting any better, and won't get any better until the administration is changed to one which will work with, and properly represent, the public which empowers them.




Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: helen thompson on June 14, 2012, 04:39:19 PM
Candide 7
What have lybia  and syria done toyou !. (Mr Blue. sorry about spelling mistake) is a lot worse than them!
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Smiler on June 14, 2012, 05:12:58 PM
From pundit Bluh's column in Adver today -

Quote
I note the comments by other councillors and residents' association spokespersons about Tadpole Farm and I welcome their commitment to the Council's position".


http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/are-you-having-laugh-mr-bluh.html (http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/are-you-having-laugh-mr-bluh.html)

Quote
Political columnist (PC) Rod Bluh, in the Adver on 14th June 2012, appears somewhat confused about his role -whether as a PC or as a pundit/raconteur? As a PC he appears to have fallen into the age-old journalistic trap of never allowing the facts to get in the way of a good story.


I rather like the style of the Oakhurst blogger.  Is pundit Bluh having a laugh about the community agreeing with his position?  When has the community ever agreed with him?  Is he going to meet with the thousands of residents in North Swindon who clearly think the blue brigade are a waste of space?

I've heard that the comments flying around in North Swindon about Tomlinson, her friend, Elliott, Edwards, Faramarzi and Heaton-Jones might worry them if they cared in the first place.  The comments might please the Oakhurst Avenger.

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on June 14, 2012, 06:29:56 PM
My views are that the GWH is not big enough to cater for the population of Swindon. 

Therefore, wouldn’t it be more appropriate to build another hospital - maybe on the Tadpole Farm estate…!
 
The northern sector alone is large enough without having more unsightly houses/rabbit hutches going up!!


This was said many times at pre Northern development meetings, every one in fact.  We were told that 30 more acute beds would be enough. That of course was in the old PMH days, then they go and knock that down and put in a new much smaller hospital so add 30 then minus a 100!   We know that there is more care in the community etc.  (and even more cut backs) but the sums on that one don't add up.

Geoff:  "Funny, didn't Swindon Borough Council already receive more than £6,000,000 from HMG to build schools  in the North and Centre of Swindon, where pupil demand demonstrably exists...."

I can't think of any school planned in ND that has not been built, although the promise of no more mobile classrooms seems to have bitten the dust. They don't get over excited about schools, they say that when the community settles down and grows up then there are spare spaces, apparently this is why some school in say West Swindon have now closed or shrunk. 

Talking about housing numbers: At the planning stage it was going to be 3/4 bedroom detached 8/14 to the acre and then less than half way through changes to 35 to the acre. It's fairly obvious that the population in them is going to be vastly more.

Oakhurst and any other community that lies within a stones throw and down hill of the Tadpole Farm development should be looking and beware of the sewer system, look at what happened down this end at Haydon Wick, basically the sewer pipe sizes couldn't take it.  It won't just be more traffic that flows past your door.

Smiler: "Is he going to meet with the thousands of residents in North Swindon who clearly think the blue brigade are a waste of space?"

Well where  :argh: were they on polling day then?   
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on June 14, 2012, 06:43:33 PM
At the planning committee of June 12th I exercised my democratic right to make a statement to the Planning Committee in relation to Tadpole Farm as follows:

“You have before you an application to build a development of 1700 homes in Tadpole Farm for which no provision for primary education within the development is to be made before the end of phase 2 by which time 950 homes will have been built.

And yet, the Tadpole Farm traffic assessment assumes all primary children will travel to school inside the development.

Officers advise that this application be granted.

Using SBC’s calculations, Tadpole Farm’s 1700 homes will generate 391 Primary Children and 317 Secondary Children.

By the end of phase 1 in 2016, 80 primary and 65 secondary places will be required.
      
By the end of phase 2 in 2020 a further 138 primary and 112 secondary places will also be needed.
 
Taking Primary needs as an eg., Officers (state that new developments typically generate reception age children yet they) have provided no information as to where the 218 TF primary children can be accommodated  before the end of Phase 1 (2016 ) or the end of Phase 2(2020). Nor have they provided any information as to how this is to be funded .

Tadpole Farm is adjacent to Swindon’s Northern Sector.

Having studied and analysed SBC’s admissions data for every primary school in Swindon from 2006 through to 2011 (officers are withholding publication of 2012 data.) and PCT data from every area in Swindon from 2006 to 2015, it is clear that there is already a shortage of provision in the Northern Sector which was predicted by Officers and for which Government funding was sought and granted in 2009.

From this same data, it can be distilled that the areas closest to the Northern Sector namely .Green Meadow/HaydonWick, / Rodbourne Cheney /Moredon and Ferndale are also experiencing capacity issues which are likely continue to 2015 at minimum. 

The Dfe awarded £6,374m to SBC in 2009 on the basis of need in North Swindon (295) Central Swindon (173) and Old Town (13). The Government proviso was that this money could be reclaimed if this award was not in permanent accommodation by Feb 2012.  All £6,374m was allocated to Old Town/Croft in Dec 2009.

It is therefore unlikely that the Government would be willing to fund additional provision in North Swindon when SBC has already decided to use the £6,374m to provide overcapacity in Old Town.

Officers have made no provision for the traffic implications of schooling outside of the development. If children have to travel to school, traffic will increase.

Officers were willing to recommend that Old Town have 2 underutilised 420 pupil schools in 2 years which they predict will fill up over time. Why then are Officers treating Tadpole Farm differently?

There is also the matter of the S106 funding provision for the 2020 Primary School which is not consistent with the funding for East Wichel or indeed the Croft.  Are you satisfied that Officers have negotiated sufficient funds?

Secondary school provision is also at question.

You must ask yourself why Officers have not presented you with sound evidence and yet have recommend approval. 

To approve this application without a clear and viable plan for school place provision will impact schools, pupils, parents and traffic across Swindon. As a member of the planning committee are you willing to take responsibility for this on behalf of all elected members across Swindon?

In summary, a planning application for 1700 homes with no clear education provision or funding to do so and an invalid traffic assessment cannot be sustainable and should be deferred until the appropriate information can be provided and assessed.”

Not one of the planning committee raised a single question as to where the Tadpole Farm children would go to school. 

Yet another episode in the long running series of farces showing each month at the Civic Offices in “the  Planning Committee”….produced and directed by .....
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Geoff Reid on June 14, 2012, 07:20:41 PM
I said:

Quote from: Geoff Reid
"Funny, didn't Swindon Borough Council already receive more than £6,000,000 from HMG to build schools  in the North and Centre of Swindon, where pupil demand demonstrably exists....

.....but hasn't that money been diverted into Old Town to build a School at Croft where the pupil demand does not seem to exist and the Chief Executive and Directors of Swindon Borough Council are submitting FOI requests to themselves to prevent the public learning exactly what the demand for school places at the Croft is?"

To which Muggins replied:

I can't think of any school planned in ND that has not been built,

See Jenny B's post above [post #198 ]

I rest my case.....

...apart from to ask the obvious questions:  If no more schools are needed or planned for North Swindon, why did HMG grant SBC more than £6,000,000 for that purpose and how did that grant, in its entirety, get diverted and funneled into the Croft where SBC is unwilling or unable to prove that a school is needed?

It strikes me that Tadpole Farm and the Croft are now inextricably linked by rivers of money, political hypocrisy and the willful corruption of civic protocols and local democracy....

...and within the civic offices, the term 'Best Practice' has become a very smelly oxymoron indeed.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Steve Wakefield on June 14, 2012, 10:16:25 PM
It isn't all about whether a school has been built the question is how many form entry classes does it have. For example if two or three form entry schools are planned. Capacity soon  becomes the issue if only one form entry schools are constructed. You have a problem and a choice either add more forms  of entry or build another school.

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on June 15, 2012, 04:08:37 AM
Just seen this interesting commentary on Oakhurst Residents Association Facebook page:

Tim Coggins ? Oakhurst Residents Association
Can someone tell me who is anti Tadpole farm out of the Priory Vale nominees?
May 3 · Like
Emma Faramarzi
All three of us Tim. Cllr Mark Edwards, Toby Elliott and myself.
May 3 · Like
Tim Coggins
Congratulations to all three of you on your wins!
May 4 · Like
Tim Coggins
I was at the meeting on Tuesday but left after a couple of hours due to the very negative view Cllr. V. Tomlinson was painting. She was against Tadpole Farm but said the committee should vote for it as they have gone so far that Crest would just appeal the next day, win, and then cut all the 106 money and be able to develop what they wanted.

As a resident it was frankly embarrassing that Swindon council was in the position so I left during a recess.

Bizarrely I saw Cllr. Elliot in ASDA later that night who said that "I proposed that if we don't agree to the infrastructure it will be rejected in 3 months time".

Frankly from the evidence heard in the meeting unless a ring road is being built to link to Thamesdown Drive it needs to be rejected. Cllr. Faramarzi almost confirmed this on Twitter:

"far from it Tim. If conditions are not met within the 3 months the planning will be refused" (https://twitter.com/EmmaFaramarzi). She said she would also update her blog today with a full run down but hasn't as of yet.

I tweeted her asking who sets the conditions and who decides if they are met and she worrying replied that she'll blog it when she has the answers.

Meanwhile the Swindon Advertiser is reporting that the officers who will decide. The officers support the application in it's current form.
5 hours ago · Like
Tim Coggins
..I pressed enter by mistake so just to clarify: When I said "Cllr. Faramarzi almost confirmed this on Twitter" I meant that she almost confirmed what Cllr. Elliot said to me, not that a ring road was required. That is my opinion.
5 hours ago · Like
Write a comment...
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 15, 2012, 06:52:17 AM
Imported from a new thread again as an edit was posted at 07.20 ish
Quote

Sister has just seen this posted on the priory vale face book site...

 Toby Elliott > Priory Vale, Swindon Wednesday at 20:37

As it seems to have not been reported correctly in some quarters I shall set out what happened last night; a copy of which will be sent to BBC Wiltshire and the Swindon Advertiser.

At the Planning Committee we were presented with a report that unequivocally recommended that planning permission be approved for Tadpole Farm. Committee members were informed, in our pre-meeting briefing, that if the decision was rejected OR deferred then Crest Nicholson would DEFINITELY take the decision to the Planning Inspectorate with a 99% chance of winning. If this appeal was won, the amount of money available to the community would decrease and the planning control taken out of the council’s hands.

This does not mean we could not have refused or deferred, that is up to the Committee, but we have seen first-hand what happens in this instance. Many parts of Priory Vale are testament to what happens when decisions are taken by the Planning Inspectorate rather than the council. Tight roads, lack of parking, a comparatively small amount of green and open spaces plus a lack of amenities.

As outlined last night, I continue to have major reservations about this development. Therefore, I proposed that Crest Nicholson have 3 months to address the issues that have been put forward by residents and councillors, including traffic and school places, if they do not so within the 3 months then planning permission is REMOVED. This was voted through unanimously.

If planning permission is removed, Crest Nicholson is unlikely to challenge this to the Planning Inspectorate as permission had been granted and only removed due to their own failings. Even if they did take it to the inspectorate, Swindon Borough Council would stand a good chance of winning on this basis.

I would now urge all residents of Priory Vale who have concerns to contact their ward councillors, whether that is Priory Vale or St Andrews wards, or Cllr Colin Lovell as the Chair of Planning. It is these councillors (which includes me) who will be putting your concerns forward in the negotiations, in conjunction with the officers.

We are aware of the many concerns people have with this development, so what we need from  :fish:residents is their pragmatic thoughts and solutions for fixing these. For instance, we believe that the traffic load on Oakhurst Way will be significant and detrimental to residents; the current plans to alleviate this with two crossings are insufficient at best. However, what we need to hear from you is suggestions of how YOU would like to see this alleviated. ALL suggestions will be put forward with our own during the negotiations.

I realise that this is not the decision most people wanted, but due to the situation 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.


Sis doesn't trust Cllr Elliot so thought that it was best to preserve what's being said, or written for posterity..

As it seems the political fallout from the tadpole farm decision is causing Tories in north Swindon to  now think of what they've done, is it an idea to get all their musings in one place?

With regards to cllr Elliott's facebook post:

What other parts of priory vale have been developed on appeal? I thought all the consequences he mentions like narrow streets and no open spaces was down to planning, not lack of it.

I do hope hes not scaremongering with facts that don't match up to reality?
Looks like arse covering to me, don't think its going to stop residents being angry about this, not if the feelings in the sisters neighbourhood is replicated across the rest of north Swindon
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 15, 2012, 07:10:40 AM
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?

Cllr Elliot post is a bit of a political "Vicky Pollard" approach yes but, no but ...not against anything. But bless him he want to do the best he can for residents and seems to wan to make it "all motherhood and apple pie" for residents. This can be achieved residents are assured through negotiation (by councillors including the chair of planning) and in my opinion looks like a naive approach to take. If this is a kind of "peace with honour" negotiation between the ward councillors and Crest then appeasing developers after outline planning is approved is certainly in my opinion the wrong way to start negotiation. Never underestimate developers they know that the horse comes before the cart.

Only tiime will tell if as they would have us all believe that it takes an act of political courage and fortitude to sit down with the developer and negotiate the provision of infrastructure  that the council's officers negotiated and recommended be accepted and planning committee has ...erm already agreed to accept them.

Can the local councillors please provide the evidence that this negotiation will deliver more infrastructure £ for £ of developer S106 contribution  in North Swindon than the previous one lost on appeal that they are so frit of repeating. Did some of that S106 find its way into Dorcan, OldTown and West Swindon? Residents may be concerned or wise enough to ask the councillors will all of this S106 be used in and close to Tadpole Farm.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on June 15, 2012, 08:17:22 AM
Had to read this a couple of times to make sure...

Cllr  Elliot said

"We are aware of the many concerns people have with this development, so what we need from  :fish:residents is their pragmatic thoughts and solutions for fixing these. For instance, we believe that the traffic load on Oakhurst Way will be significant and detrimental to residents; the current plans to alleviate this with two crossings are insufficient at best. However, what we need to hear from you is suggestions of how YOU would like to see this alleviated. ALL suggestions will be put forward with our own during the negotiations."

What are the Officers for?

If they are so expert ( one so good she thinks that people buy cars to keep as ornaments on their drives.... and yes she is the same 'expert' who stated Marlborough Lane could cope with 1500 cars/hour!) they would have recognised the problems and dealt with it up front before they produced their report.

If this was the real world they would be told to get their act together and do the jobs for which they are handsomely paid.

Who knows... maybe they are so concerned about preventing an appeal in case the inspectorate says that Swindon deserves what it gets if elected members are willing to accept this quality of work from their own staff.

Hopeless and Hapless and then hand it over to Halcrow... who are usually involved in this stuff somewhere...
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on June 15, 2012, 08:44:53 AM
Again, I'm not saying more schools are not needed, just that the schools they planned at the time, (based on the housing per acre numbers and therefore people living in them), have been delivered, but half way through they changed the density of housing and therefore upped the population expection, you could say by about two thirds, but did not change the plan when it came to other provision like school places.

The moral here is that if you make a twenty or so year advance plan, stick to it or revisit all aspects of it (including off site infrastructure and town wide provison) to cope with said development, when one of the aspects changes.   

If you want a straight opinion based on the above, then they had already built far too many houses in Northern Development, much more than was originally planned for schools, roads, hoptial beds etc the allowances for which were woefully inadequate in the first place and now they are talking about 1,700 more - nuts.   

i.e. essentailly ther is no real planning here, it's just land grabbing with no common sense.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: the gorgon on June 15, 2012, 08:55:05 AM
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/ (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.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on June 15, 2012, 08:58:25 AM
According to FB postings he is her father.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: the gorgon on June 15, 2012, 09:32:04 AM
According to FB postings he is her father.

No potential for businesses to indirectly influence a ward cllr there then :censored:  ::)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on June 15, 2012, 10:48:36 AM
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 :wakeup:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Geoff Reid on June 15, 2012, 10:55:04 AM
According to FB postings he is her father.


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

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....
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Rochelle on June 15, 2012, 12:04:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on June 15, 2012, 12:09:23 PM
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?  :-\

Quote
"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?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Outoftowner on June 15, 2012, 12:19:00 PM
http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/local-councillors-quotes-from-planning.html#more (http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/local-councillors-quotes-from-planning.html#more)

A pleasure Mr. Grumble.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Steve Wakefield on June 15, 2012, 03:14:28 PM
A right rivetting read and an interesting  list of questions:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on June 16, 2012, 11:42:55 PM
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!!!!
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on June 17, 2012, 12:07:48 AM
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". :WTF:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: The Oakhurst Avenger on June 17, 2012, 12:22:36 AM
@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.

 :spin:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Geoff Reid on June 17, 2012, 12:28:02 AM

Is this yet another case of Borough Councillors being caught Bluh Red Handedly engaging in Political Pinnochioism?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: The Oakhurst Avenger on June 17, 2012, 12:56:21 AM
@ 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. :coffee:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: The Oakhurst Avenger on June 17, 2012, 01:08:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Richard Beale on June 17, 2012, 06:54:10 AM
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
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on June 17, 2012, 07:40:40 AM
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.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 17, 2012, 08:32:01 AM
Candide7 posted
Quote
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.





Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on June 17, 2012, 08:52:31 AM
Candide7 posted
Quote
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..
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 17, 2012, 09:09:53 AM
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?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: MrGrumpy on June 17, 2012, 09:45:52 AM
To the best of my knowledge, Cllr Sewell was not at the Planning Committee that discussed Tadpole Farm...
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Richard Symonds on June 17, 2012, 09:53:14 AM
To the best of my knowledge, Cllr Sewell was not at the Planning Committee that discussed Tadpole Farm...

No she wasn't and I am unaware of any reason.

Was non attendence an opportunity to distance the Liberals from this decision so they can write about it in one of their leaflets? 

Well I suppose they have to write about something, but doing is - well I would like to know what?  Or do they need plenty of time to think up yet another motion ammendment for Wednesday night?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on June 17, 2012, 09:53:55 AM
To the best of my knowledge, Cllr Sewell was not at the Planning Committee that discussed Tadpole Farm...

Indeed she was not.

She was however at the Croft Planning Committee where she succintly listed her concerns and then approved the application without asking a single question of officers.

Apologies for any confusion.

I did attend the Tadpole Farm Planning Committee ( and have attended oodles more over the last 18 months) and was again amazed at the lack of forensic questioning of officers' advice by committee members.

Is this perhaps done in pre- meetings out of public view?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 17, 2012, 10:38:19 AM
Jennyb

If as you say Cllr Nicky Sewell was not at the meeting then surely Cllr Pajack or one of the other 3 Libdems attended and made a representation to planning committee about said application.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on June 17, 2012, 11:12:35 AM
I've heard that nobody made representations on behalf of the LibDems.  Might it be true that no comments were ever made by the LibDems to the community in the North about this issue?  Is there a reason they are trapped in Eastcott?  Could it be true that they believe that Eastcott is Swindon and that there are no other life-forms out there?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on June 17, 2012, 11:15:30 AM
Jennyb

If as you say Cllr Nicky Sewell was not at the meeting then surely Cllr Pajack or one of the other 3 Libdems attended and made a representation to planning committee about said application.

I was there for the full Tadpole Farm Planning Application.

I do not know what the new Lib Dem Councillor for Wroughton looks like so I cannot confirm if she was there.

The others were not in attendance and therefore could not make representation.


Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 17, 2012, 11:28:07 AM
Jennyb

If as you say Cllr Nicky Sewell was not at the meeting then surely Cllr Pajack or one of the other 3 Libdems attended and made a representation to planning committee about said application.


I was there for the full Tadpole Farm Planning Application.

I do not know what the new Lib Dem Councillor for Wroughton looks like so I cannot confirm if she was there.

The others were not in attendance and therefore could not make representation.


That could be why Oakhurst Residents Association have not posted anything said by a Libdem councillor as of today. Here is the latest councillor link http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/councillors-quotes-at-planning.html (http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/councillors-quotes-at-planning.html)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Steve Wakefield on June 17, 2012, 12:44:07 PM
The Purton/Iffley Link road is a bit like the Okey Kokey first you put the link in and then you take it out in out in out you shake it all about. To build more houses in North Swindon without the link road is in my opinion flies in the face of controlled sustainable development/expansion and is quite frankly politically and environmentally bizarre.

If we look back to 1996 and then forward to 2016 when Tadpole will be well underway. It is almost certainly likely that during that period 20,000 more houses will have been built or are in the process of being built in Swindon, though I admit not all in North Swindon.

We need the Purton/Iffley Linkroad and I will continue campaigning for it to be constructed. To explain the follow remark made by me was in response to a fact that I was not aware of when an officer intimated that  car owners do not alway undertake car journeys because they have one they do leave it on the drive.

Quote
Cllr Wakefield has one answer to the last question for us:

"I represent an area called Mannington-Western, which people probably know as the bottom part of Mead Way, Great Western Way and Bruce Street Bridges" and there are  "issues relating to traffic and gridlock. So I’d like to say, it would be really nice if people buy cars and just leave them on their drives instead of coming down those streets and roads into Mannington-Western."


Cllr Peter Heaton-Jones made a similar point about museum pieces and the fact that people attending the planning committe had come by car from North Swindon!
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 17, 2012, 12:59:05 PM
Quote
Cllr Peter Heaton-Jones made a similar point about museum pieces and the fact that people attending the planning committe had come by car from North Swindon!


That is also something else that the Oakhurst Resident website has not reported.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: the gorgon on June 17, 2012, 01:37:21 PM
This is an interesting article (from 2008 ) discussing amongst other things TF, back in the 60's it was envisaged that Swindon would expand westwards  beyond Purton and northwards roughly to the limit of the TF development http://www.swindonlink.com/features/look-out-another-5000-homes-could-be-coming-to-west-and-north-swindon (http://www.swindonlink.com/features/look-out-another-5000-homes-could-be-coming-to-west-and-north-swindon)

Anyone know just how long these developers have owned this land?  Is it more than sheer coincidence that all these West-North development proposals fit into this 60's plan?  :knuppel2:

(http://www.swindonlink.com/uploads/Image/Stories/features/2008-01-02-look-out-another-5000-homes-could-be-coming-to-west-and-north-swindon/1968_Expansion_Red_Bird.jpg)

If you want to see 'Swindon - A study for further expansion' aka 'the silver book' as mentioned in the article it can be found here (pages 42 and 43 have the interesting maps)
http://www.southwest-ra.gov.uk/media/SWRA/Archive%20of%20Regional%20and%20sub%20Regional%20Studies/Swindon_a_study_for_further_expasion__Swindon_BC_Wiltshire_CC_and_GLC__1968.pdf (http://www.southwest-ra.gov.uk/media/SWRA/Archive%20of%20Regional%20and%20sub%20Regional%20Studies/Swindon_a_study_for_further_expasion__Swindon_BC_Wiltshire_CC_and_GLC__1968.pdf)

Oh and one final thing, even back in the 60's they wanted to exclude the front garden and coate from development.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on June 17, 2012, 01:40:57 PM
Quote
Cllr Peter Heaton-Jones made a similar point about museum pieces and the fact that people attending the planning committe had come by car from North Swindon!


That is also something else that the Oakhurst Resident website has not reported.

It may well be that the Oakhurst website has more information to be published and these comments are within that.

The remark about cars which led to the 'musuem pieces' comment was made by the same officer who stated that the Old Driving Test Centre road ( Marlborough Lane) could cope with 1500 cars/hour.

The audience then also guffawed in amazement at her statements.

The planning committee did not question her advice then or her advice on Tues for Tadpole Farm.

Why would they allow statements of this nature to go unchallenged?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Steve Wakefield on June 17, 2012, 01:47:12 PM
I have dredged this up from the Link Website not sure if Roger Ogle has the map to some sort of scale however as I study it shows that Tadpole Farm covers an area as least as large as Purton or Cricklade or Broad Blunsdon. It also appears larger than the pink bit that indicates Swindon Town Centre is dwarfed by the size of Tadpole Farm. The map is next to this quote
Quote
North Swindon cluster says ‘no’ to housing until promises are kept
 
At a North Swindon council wards ‘cluster’ meeting on 8 March a resolution was passed that there should be no further development in North Swindon until promised and future infrastructure is in place such as roads (Thamesdown Drive extension to Great Western Way), community facilities and schools.

http://www.swindonlink.com/news/reaction-to-crest-nicholson-ideas-for-1700-houses-at-tadpole-farm (http://www.swindonlink.com/news/reaction-to-crest-nicholson-ideas-for-1700-houses-at-tadpole-farm)

Its probably just me and the way I am looking at it and it is more likely that the map is not to scale and is possibly just a schematic for demonstration purposes?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 17, 2012, 01:58:17 PM
Quote
It may well be that the Oakhurst website has more information to be published and these comments are within that.


I may have to keep my eye on that and await the next cliffhanger of an episode  :coffee:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 17, 2012, 05:35:31 PM
Here is the next episode
Quote
We have looked into the matter and found that he never sought our consent to use our logo or written documents either in writing or verbally. Now that Councillor Toby Elliott has been elected to Swindon Borough Council we do not consent to our logo or any of our documents being used by him without our express written permission.


http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/it-has-been-brought-to-our-attention.html (http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/it-has-been-brought-to-our-attention.html)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on June 17, 2012, 08:23:38 PM
@ George Elliott
"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."

I could never personally vote for a party with their views and policies on Europe. Nick Clegg still hopes the UK will join the Euro one day! Some issues are bigger and more important than local politics :)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Terry Reynolds on June 17, 2012, 08:50:20 PM
some say, with thier outlook, they have the flatest hands in the biz...... :wink:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on June 17, 2012, 08:56:48 PM
@ George Elliott

Toby Elliott and Emma Faramarzi are the worst kind of political opportunists. They spent 90 mins one morning helping ORA gather objections with the sole motivation for using this in their pre-election flyers. This was the one and only occasion they were seen in two years in the campaign. The first chance they had to back up their pre-election words of 'fighting inappropriate development at Tadpole Farm in this application' with genuine deeds at the planning committee meeting last Tuesday and they 'approve the same application'.

It is my sincerest hope that these two and Cllr Edwards who campaigned on the same ticket are voted out at next opportunity. It is politicians like this that give politics a bad name and turn off people from voting. How can anybody vote for a candidate that says one thing but does the opposite? They have lost all credibility.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Geoff Reid on June 18, 2012, 12:36:06 AM
@ George Elliott

Toby Elliott and Emma Faramarzi are the worst kind of political opportunists. They spent 90 mins one morning helping ORA gather objections with the sole motivation for using this in their pre-election flyers. This was the one and only occasion they were seen in two years in the campaign. The first chance they had to back up their pre-election words of 'fighting inappropriate development at Tadpole Farm in this application' with genuine deeds at the planning committee meeting last Tuesday and they 'approve the same application'.


Yes, Cllr Elliot does seem to have deliberately deceived residents and voters by encouraging them to think he & Cllr Faramarzi were opposed to the Tadpole Farm development, in fact they jointly described Tadpole Farm as an 'Inappropriate Development' in their election leaflets.

As if that wasn't poor enough, Toby also boasted that they had:

Quote from: Tobyt Elliot
"Saturday campaigning: Tadpole Lane"
"On Saturday myself and Councillor Emma Faramarzi joined Paul Exell and Kevin Lay from the Oakhurst Residents’ Association to collect signatures for a standard objection letter relating to Tadpole Farm".

Is it fair to ask whether Cllr Elliot is rapidly, (if he hasn't already done so), defining himself as someone whose words and actions cannot be trusted. If so, he's going to fit right in with his new colleagues.....


It is my sincerest hope that these two and Cllr Edwards who campaigned on the same ticket are voted out at next opportunity. It is politicians like this that give politics a bad name and turn off people from voting. How can anybody vote for a candidate that says one thing but does the opposite? They have lost all credibility.

Some good things do come from people like Cllr Elliot & Colleagues acting like shits though.  The worse their behaviour is, the more it hardens the resolve of genuinely decent people to publicise their behaviour and do what they can to hold the offenders to account.  The the more that happens, the less confidence the more morally & ethically conscious members of the business community have in doing business with untrustworthy and morally corrupt politicians who are controlling a local authority.  See Pickards Field?

On the other hand, some less scrupulous businessmen, (mentioning no names of course),  love to do business with stupid, disingenuous and morally corrupt local politicians because doing so is often an easy way to trouser a lot of money, sometimes it's even public money being trousered, with little effort apart from pandering to the egos of Councillors sitting in cabinet or the right committees.

Thus has it possibly always been, but I think those days will rapidly come to an end if the public wills it.

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 18, 2012, 08:34:24 AM
At planning Cllr Emma Faramazi said http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/councillors-quotes-at-planning_17.html (http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/councillors-quotes-at-planning_17.html)

Cllr Faramarzi tweeted on 13th June 2012:
"we worked hard to get the best result for residents.  Unfortunately there were no grounds in that report to refuse." 

Quote
ORA members may want to ask the following questions:

Did Cllr Faramarzi deliver on her election promise? 
Why were the ward councillors so slow to negotiate the desperately needed infrastructure? 
Why is there so little S.106 money to provide Oakhurst with its critical infrastructure? 
Why, after listening to all the residents, did Cllr Faramarzi see fit to listen to the Borough officers' advice? 
Who does a councillor answer to? 
The residents or the officers? 
Does Cllr Faramarzi , or any ward councillor, have any political will or influence of her/their own? 
Why has S.106 money become so important to so many? 
Is it important to make a measured decision on the entire planning case or on the basis of how much money can be generated? 
Why didn't Cllr Faramarzi take independent legal advice about the strengths/weaknesses of an appeal?   
Which part of her statement did Cllr Faramarzi discuss with her residents deeply? 
The fact that Tadpole shouldn't happen or the fact that it shouldn't go to appeal?  



Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Richard Symonds on June 18, 2012, 10:26:27 AM
I was present at the Planning Committee for this momentous decision and at the time I thought that the Councillors who spoke said all the right things but at the end of the day had no intention of actually doing the right thing.

The speeches were well rehearsed and could be seen as being plausible, but are in fact a blatant mis representation of reality.  This is politics at its worst and the people will not allow the perpetrators to forget it!

The Officers and the Politicians of this town have no balls and therefore accede to any minor or perceived threat by outsiders but at the same time come down like a ton of bricks on any Swindon Council Tax Payer who dares to question them!  If only they were more proactive on the former.

As for the Planning Committee itself I wish they had asked more questions and I lack any confidence in either Officers or Councillors achieving anything from Crest Nicholson in the three month discussion period.  Crest Nicholson have got what they want so why would they want to make any concessions when they are under no obligation whatsover to do so?

The Labour Party are complicit in my view otherwise their members on planning would have at least made me and the remainder of the visiting public aware that they were in fact present.  Unless the Labour Party address such issues in the future they do not give any meaningful indication they would be any different to the Conservatives.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 18, 2012, 10:45:16 AM
Quote
The Labour Party are complicit in my view otherwise their members on planning would have at least made me and the remainder of the visiting public aware that they were in fact present.  Unless the Labour Party address such issues in the future they do not give any meaningful indication they would be any different to the Conservatives.

Richard

Pardon me for asking, but your opinion did the Conservative members of the planning committee ask lots more questions in comparison to Labour? I ask as I am aware Libdems were unanoumosly absent from this meeting so unfortunatly will get nil pointe. Was the Labour Leader there and did he ask any questions?

I ask as a comment on the Oakhurst Residents Blog was left  about Labour Leader leaving before the end.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Steve Wakefield on June 18, 2012, 01:10:40 PM
Jim Grant is a shift worker and works nights. He had to go to work fortunately he was able to speak to committee before he left. I overheard Jim explain to people from Oakhurst at the start of the meeting that he would have to leave before the end if it was a long meeting.

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on June 18, 2012, 01:28:35 PM
this planning committee is operating at the same level as the last one did.

A certain very senior member of SBC's Officer class told me last year ( and there were witnesses) that the planning committee were frightened by the Wind Turbine objectors.

You may recall that the wind turbine objectors turned out in such force that the Wyvern was required... and ..the committee had to sit on the stage and face the public.

The wind turbines were rejected.

In December 2011 an application for 11 houses in Cloche way was recommended for approval but rejected by the planning committee due to lack of S106 money and ...oh yes .. problems with access.

The planning committee is a quasi-judicial process which is exempt from scrutiny but which makes decisions which will affect this town and those who live here for generations to come.

To have a councillor elected one month and on the planning committee the next does not appear to reflect the seriousness of the role.

Time they all demonstrated in public and to the public that the evidence presented to them by Officers is rigourously evaluated. 

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on June 18, 2012, 02:39:33 PM
Absolutely agree with you jennyb.  I think there should be some kind of evaluation done on each planning committee member to demonstrate a proper understanding of local plans, government framework, supplementary Dpds, etc.  Nobody should be able to take a place on committee without this evaluation being passed - one imagines a scene with councillors being put through their paces by one of the Borough legal eagles!!  Could this be another nil pointe?

Then there should be a pre-meeting where members have to demonstrate their understanding of the facts of the applications they are making decisions on.  A bit like a test of some sort to show due diligence is being given to the subject matter.

Would many councillors pass?  Only those with some experience or interest in planning?

Oh, by the way, my other half used to do shift work and she found that day workers weren't very sympathetic that she only had 3 or 4 hours sleep during the day.  Could be a bit kind of discrimatory because life has been traditionally set up for daylight hours only!!

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Smiler on June 18, 2012, 02:56:28 PM

@George Elliot
Quote
Pardon me for asking, but your opinion did the Conservative members of the planning committee ask lots more questions in comparison to Labour? I ask as I am aware Libdems were unanoumosly absent from this meeting so unfortunatly will get nil pointe. Was the Labour Leader there and did he ask any questions?

I hear that very few councillors asked any questions.  Cllr Dart apparently asked a lot of questions and referred directly to the committee report and Cllr Faramarzi asked about what would happen to the S.106 monies if the application was refused.  The questions appeared to prompt the answer expected but that's only what was reported to me.

Mr Grumble makes me split my sides.  What all the councillors having a test for competence in their respective committee subjects?  Um, might that be called the fairy tale examination?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on June 18, 2012, 03:41:26 PM
Smiler "Cllr Faramarzi asked about what would happen to the S.106 monies if the application was refused"

if this is true, some evaluation is definitely needed - no development-  no section.106. 

Goodness, even I know that!  And don't be fooled by S106 money, it isn't always forthcoming, there are some exceptions.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Steve Wakefield on June 18, 2012, 04:55:07 PM
Here is Doncaster's S106 annual monitoring report. http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/Images/S106%20AMR-2009-10_tcm2-74906.pdf (http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/Images/S106%20AMR-2009-10_tcm2-74906.pdf)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Steve Wakefield on June 18, 2012, 04:59:12 PM
I believe this is the most recent I posted the link because Doncaster has a vision about S106
Quote
S106 VISION FOR DONCASTER
‘To be a UK leading Authority in the implementation and governance of Section 106, working in partnership with Developers to continually improve and provide attractive neighbourhoods for Doncaster’s residents’


http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/Images/Section%20106%20Annual%20Monitoring%20Report%202010-11_tcm2-81087.pdf (http://www.doncaster.gov.uk/Images/Section%20106%20Annual%20Monitoring%20Report%202010-11_tcm2-81087.pdf)

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Geoff Reid on June 18, 2012, 05:44:13 PM

Has Swindon Borough Council published a section 106 monitoring report?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: MrGrumpy on June 19, 2012, 12:22:09 AM
Just spotted this on the Oakhurst Residents' blog site -

http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/councillors-quotes-at-planning_18.html (http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/councillors-quotes-at-planning_18.html)

Looks like the next cliffhanger episode is here...
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 19, 2012, 06:21:04 AM

Has Swindon Borough Council published a section 106 monitoring report?

Geoff

Are you having a Giraffe?  Haydonwick Parish Council have been waiting months for answers about S106 contribution questions.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 19, 2012, 06:25:13 AM
Just spotted this on the Oakhurst Residents' blog site -

[url]http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/councillors-quotes-at-planning_18.html[/url] ([url]http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/councillors-quotes-at-planning_18.html[/url])

Looks like the next cliffhanger episode is here...


Mr Grumpy

Are you trying to put me out of a job? I have been cross posting ORA threads onto TS  :'(

I can see I have to get up  earlier in the morning   :wink:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 19, 2012, 07:25:03 PM
Here is the latest post on the Oakhurst Residents Association. This quote is from the Link Magazine
Quote
"The permission to proceed is subject to further negotiations and agreement between Crest, planning officers and local councillors on Section 106 contributions. However, with Crest holding the appeal gun to Swindon Council's head, the probability of any reversal of the decision is unlikely."



http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/swindon-link-article-reversal-of.html (http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/swindon-link-article-reversal-of.html)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mellon on June 19, 2012, 08:04:26 PM
FOo the total amount of 106 funds within the councils dedicated 106 account, I questioned as to how much had been recieved from crest nicholson in regards to tadpole farm and I was told they have received nothing from the developers.

They will spew it out , just need to give them a verbal kick in the nuts
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on June 19, 2012, 08:09:35 PM
They won't get it yet, Mel.  A bit of building has to go on first. 
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mellon on June 19, 2012, 08:24:08 PM
I understand they don't actually have to give anything over until they've actually occupied the land, but what does concern me slightly is that this is going to go the way of wichelstowe very quickly. But then again Greenhopper isn't in control of this development and isn't in council anymore. So it could be smooth sailing (but maybe I'm hoping for too much).

If Toby Elliot actually stuck to his guns rather than pulling a u-turn and going back on his own election promise, he could have kicked up a right stink...but it just goes to show that the current encumbents are political jellyfish, spineless, slimey and if you get to close they'll try to sting you.

Ha bloody ha
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: The Oakhurst Avenger on June 19, 2012, 08:48:41 PM
I have to say how much fun it is watching our politicians squirm when their words and actions are held up to the harsh light of transparency. The ORA blogspot is dynamite  :spin:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on June 20, 2012, 06:28:07 AM
I have to say how much fun it is watching our politicians squirm when their words and actions are held up to the harsh light of transparency. The ORA blogspot is dynamite  :spin:

To be held accountable for the actions you have taken... what a novel concept ...what with that and collective responsibility ... they must be all of a tizzy..

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: MrGrumpy on June 20, 2012, 07:25:34 AM
Latest instalment has just appeared on the Oakhurst blog -

http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/councillors-quotes-at-planning_20.html (http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/councillors-quotes-at-planning_20.html)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on June 20, 2012, 07:33:55 AM

@ Cllr Nick Martin (Shaw)
Quote
I would like to close the old Purton Road link somewhere just short of Thamesdown Drive and tell the folks up there to find their own way someplace else.  But then it can’t be done, it would be really nice, it would change the whole dynamic of driving around West Swindon.  It would also open up Mead Way wonderfully.

Maybe I ought to actually blow the road up, but there you go".

Does this guy actually think he's funny?  He appears to be the ultimate Nimby.  No development in West Swindon but just pile it up in the North?  Where are the NDA councillors to protect the North from their Nimby colleagues? 

Still, it's always reassuring to have local councillors who can't remember that they said something completely different in March.  Perhaps after 26 years it's time to put Nick Martin out to pasture?  Perhaps too many years in the blu arena has affected his thinking?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 20, 2012, 07:41:09 AM
Latest instalment has just appeared on the Oakhurst blog -

[url]http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/councillors-quotes-at-planning_20.html[/url] ([url]http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/councillors-quotes-at-planning_20.html[/url])


Beaten to it again!


@ Cllr Nick Martin (Shaw)
Quote
I would like to close the old Purton Road link somewhere just short of Thamesdown Drive and tell the folks up there to find their own way someplace else.  But then it can’t be done, it would be really nice, it would change the whole dynamic of driving around West Swindon.  It would also open up Mead Way wonderfully.

Maybe I ought to actually blow the road up, but there you go".


Does this guy actually think he's funny?  He appears to be the ultimate Nimby.  No development in West Swindon but just pile it up in the North?  Where are the NDA councillors to protect the North from their Nimby colleagues? 

Still, it's always reassuring to have local councillors who can't remember that they said something completely different in March.  Perhaps after 26 years it's time to put Nick Martin out to pasture?  Perhaps too many years in the blu arena has affected his thinking?


Is that in the Link magazine where he said something along the lines of all the infrastructure is in place or something like that?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: The Oakhurst Avenger on June 20, 2012, 08:03:31 AM
I think Cllr Martin' s statement confirms what most people know... He had a lobotomy a few years ago. Seriously, is this guy for real! Frightening that sucha person is still a councillor. If he actually tried to blow something up he would almost cetainly mess it up and blow himself up at the same time. Now there's a thought!

Development in North affects traffic in west swindon and vice versa. Anybody who lives there knows that.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 20, 2012, 09:17:41 AM
I think Cllr Martin' s statement confirms what most people know... He had a lobotomy a few years ago. Seriously, is this guy for real! Frightening that sucha person is still a councillor. If he actually tried to blow something up he would almost cetainly mess it up and blow himself up at the same time. Now there's a thought!

Development in North affects traffic in west swindon and vice versa. Anybody who lives there knows that.

It is the inconsistency that percolates throughout this application that is manifesting itself here. If development on Ridgeway Farm, Washpool and Pry Farm is bad for Swindon. Why is Tadpole farm not presenting similar problems?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Steve Wakefield on June 20, 2012, 10:41:34 AM
Cllr Nick Martin in his own way has stated the blindingly obvious, albeit he sometimes use unconventional words or malorprisms. I think the point he makes is Meadway is chocker and more and more  people are are getting  fed up with it.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: The Oakhurst Avenger on June 20, 2012, 11:01:16 AM
As an Oakhurst resident the two quickest ways to town centre are either via cheney manor (this is the taxi driver route) or down Mead Way past Fitness First. Both routes start from Oakhurst Way. Up until the Northern link road to A419 is open to normal traffic all the Tadpole Farm traffic will also take both these routes to town centre. Result more traffic on Mead Way and in Cheney Manor. But hey everything is OK because Cllr Martin says the infrastructure is in place for TF!!! No need to worry then.

The Tories are f**king North Swindon and West Swindon up. They are concreting it over, taking the s106 money and spending it everywhere else in Swindon. People need to wake up
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: The Oakhurst Avenger on June 20, 2012, 11:09:38 AM
@ George Elliott
"It is the inconsistency that percolates throughout this application that is manifesting itself here. If development on Ridgeway Farm, Washpool and Pry Farm is bad for Swindon. Why is Tadpole farm not presenting similar problems?"

All about s106 lovely bubbly money for the councillors. Build at TF SBC gets it, build at the other sites you mention Wiltshire gets it.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Terry Reynolds on June 20, 2012, 11:48:40 AM
I dont know if I have got it wrong, but I asked our north S. MP, about the near 7 million, that given to the northern sector, central and old town and it all went on the croft fiasco, and he has said it didnt happen and no such money was given in that amount !!!!!!! :wink:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on June 20, 2012, 12:30:52 PM
Mmm, how interesting - where did it all go then?  Let the NS MP produce written evidence of where it did go because it certainly didn't go towards a brand new Nissen hut in the Northern Sector?  Can't wait jennyb for that sort of eyesore to go up in the North with fluid drips standard issue for everyone attending the school and hard hats in case it falls down!!

All we ever hear is the money didn't go here but we never hear the money went there. 

I hear that the NS MP is getting personal with a North Swindon Residents' Association?  Is that all you can do when the troops let you down?  Blame someone else for your troops' incompetence? 
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Smiler on June 20, 2012, 02:52:53 PM
I can't wait to hear about Boudicca's oscar winning performance at planning committee!!  I have heard that she put in several oscar winning performances at the North Locality meetings too.  Which character do you think she usually plays in her performances?  Answers to the talkswindon readership by tomorrow.

Who is Boudicca?  Lost the final battle at Offa's dyke no less?  Does Boudicca have flame-orange hair?  Does she come from the land of St Andrews in the North, accompanied by her friend and the triple hatton jones, now only double hatton jones but who cares about the loss of a hat?

So back to the original question - which character does she play?  The grandma in Red Riding Hood with a personality anomaly?  Grandma, Grandma what big teeth you've got?  All the better for eating you with?

Well, we will have to wait and see -  will listen with mother or should that be listen with grandmother (grr...grr) will be premiering on this forum really soon.  Might betrayal be in the wind for the dwellers in the North?  Drum roll please!

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on June 20, 2012, 03:23:01 PM
Re: North Swindon MP
"I hear that the NS MP is getting personal with a North Swindon Residents' Association?  Is that all you can do when the troops let you down?  Blame someone else for your troops' incompetence? "

Dare I say it but I think the honeymoon maybe over for our MP. He is presiding over a planning disaster area in the North. He voted for the inclusion of Tadpole Farm in the emerging core strategy and he did not do enough to prevent it despite lots of words against it. Unfortunately in this world you get judged on results.

His latest tactic seems to be an attempt to smear ORA as an extension of the Labour Party. As someone who is on the ORA committee I can tell you nothing is further from the truth. I actually voted UKIP at the recent elections. Before that I voted for the MP when he was a councillor. I can't speak for the other members of ORA but we have a constitution that does not allow us to be a member of a political party.

I knocked on a lot of doors in Oakhurst gathering objections and I only encountered 2 households who didn't want to sign the ORA objection letter. I personally received thanks from people on the doorstep saying 'thanks for everything you are doing'.

So my message to MP is stop blaming others for a mess that was in your power to stop. ORA has been the single vehicle of resistance to development at TF. By trying to smear us you are really smearing all the residents of Oakhurst
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: the gorgon on June 20, 2012, 04:21:57 PM
Re: North Swindon MP
"I hear that the NS MP is getting personal with a North Swindon Residents' Association?  Is that all you can do when the troops let you down?  Blame someone else for your troops' incompetence? "

Dare I say it but I think the honeymoon maybe over for our MP. He is presiding over a planning disaster area in the North. He voted for the inclusion of Tadpole Farm in the emerging core strategy and he did not do enough to prevent it despite lots of words against it. Unfortunately in this world you get judged on results.

His latest tactic seems to be an attempt to smear ORA as an extension of the Labour Party. As someone who is on the ORA committee I can tell you nothing is further from the truth. I actually voted UKIP at the recent elections. Before that I voted for the MP when he was a councillor. I can't speak for the other members of ORA but we have a constitution that does not allow us to be a member of a political party.

I knocked on a lot of doors in Oakhurst gathering objections and I only encountered 2 households who didn't want to sign the ORA objection letter. I personally received thanks from people on the doorstep saying 'thanks for everything you are doing'.

So my message to MP is stop blaming others for a mess that was in your power to stop. ORA has been the single vehicle of resistance to development at TF. By trying to smear us you are really smearing all the residents of Oakhurst

Welcome to the world of local politics!  If you trace the story of opposition to development at Coate you'll see that various people (mainly on the Swindon Advertiser website) have had a go at smearing the campaign.  The number one smear being claims that the Save Coate campaign had been telling people that Coate Water was going to be developed.  Which couldn't be further from the truth as they'd always been very careful to only refer to Coate.

Oh yeah and talking of Coate, the council started calling it commonhead so don't be surprised if TF suddenly becomes Frog Farm!

I'll give one top tip to all opponents of ANY greenfield development - think long and hard before mounting a 'build elsewhere' campaign, people will see that as NIMBYism (because it is) and as a result you'll lose support.  This is especially true if several members of the planning committee represent wards adjoining/in the area you say should be developed instead!
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Steve Wakefield on June 20, 2012, 04:35:41 PM
Curious I checked out ORA constitution online
Quote
4 – MEMBERSHIP:
http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/p/constitution.html (http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/p/constitution.html)

 :coffee:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on June 20, 2012, 05:01:12 PM
"a) Membership shall not be discriminatory based on gender, race, nationality or political opinions.
b) Membership is only available to Individuals aged 18 or over.
c) Full Membership is only available to Individuals who live in the area of benefit (Oakhurst).
d) Members who live outside the area of benefit shall not have the right to vote at any Annual or General Meetings of the Association, nor may be elected to become members of the General Committee. These members shall be known as Associate Members."

Nothing there to stop a Political Party member joining and neither should there be - Party Political membership should however be left at the door and no one of any party should be denied access to the membership on those grounds.   In fact it shouldn't matter, this is a group representing the community and should be open to anyone in it.

However it sound like it was set up to be political (notice the diffference between the higher and lower cases.

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on June 20, 2012, 05:19:18 PM
Nothing there to stop a Political Party member joining and neither should there be - Party Political membership should however be left at the door and no one of any party should be denied access to the membership on those grounds.   In fact it shouldn't matter, this is a group representing the community and should be open to anyone in it.

However it sound like it was set up to be political (notice the diffference between the higher and lower cases.

For general members there are no restrictions, but for committe members there is a conflict of interest requirement that would make it impossible in practice to be on the committee.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Geoff Reid on June 20, 2012, 05:23:01 PM

Blogged:

(http://www.geoffreid.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/clowns-280x210.jpg) (http://www.geoffreid.com/2012/06/20/send-in-the-clowns-swindon-tories-break-election-pledges-to-fight-inappropriate-development-just-one-month-after-being-elected/)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on June 20, 2012, 05:38:02 PM
I dont know if I have got it wrong, but I asked our north S. MP, about the near 7 million, that given to the northern sector, central and old town and it all went on the croft fiasco, and he has said it didnt happen and no such money was given in that amount !!!!!!! :wink:

The sum was £6,374 million received from the Government in late 2009 and given lock,stock and barrel to the Croft.

Our South Swindon MP kindly got this information and the report which supports it on our behalf from Children's services who were somewhat reticent to make it public.

Perhaps the North Swindon MP needs to have a chat with his colleague.

For reference we have the actual report which shows the figures as well as the cover letter from the Government. 
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on June 20, 2012, 05:46:18 PM
@ the Gorgon

"I'll give one top tip to all opponents of ANY greenfield development - think long and hard before mounting a 'build elsewhere' campaign, people will see that as NIMBYism (because it is) and as a result you'll lose support.  This is especially true if several members of the planning committee represent wards adjoining/in the area you say should be developed instead"

I think you will find that the Tadpole Farm campaign has been focused on the infrastructure argument at TF. Personally, not speaking with my ORA hat on, I find it bemusing that the council is choosing to build houses in the less sustainable parts of Swindon rather than where all the infrastructure is. But hey I'm a NIMBY!  :wink:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 20, 2012, 06:01:43 PM
And there was me thinking that people were against theTF planning application because it had to be approved as the developer would win on appeal, where is the NIMBY in that I arsk myself :o
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on June 20, 2012, 06:05:19 PM
@ jennyb

That's strange what with Justin and Robert sharing an office in Westminster.

Actually I have a simiilar dialogue with Justin on my e-mail which says I am not allowed to publish because it is from Westminster. In it JT basically says he 'can't remember if he actually voted for TF in full council" when the attendance record says he was present and all his colleagues voted for it.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on June 20, 2012, 06:08:35 PM
What did Ronnie Reagan say again...

"Senator, I have no recollection of..."
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: the gorgon on June 20, 2012, 06:19:39 PM
@ the Gorgon

"I'll give one top tip to all opponents of ANY greenfield development - think long and hard before mounting a 'build elsewhere' campaign, people will see that as NIMBYism (because it is) and as a result you'll lose support.  This is especially true if several members of the planning committee represent wards adjoining/in the area you say should be developed instead"

I think you will find that the Tadpole Farm campaign has been focused on the infrastructure argument at TF. Personally, not speaking with my ORA hat on, I find it bemusing that the council is choosing to build houses in the less sustainable parts of Swindon rather than where all the infrastructure is. But hey I'm a NIMBY!  :wink:

Good to know that the campaign did that, what one feels personally is one thing but what a campaign does is another matter.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on June 20, 2012, 06:30:36 PM
Ah, ah, the old conflict of interest, but then surely they would not get elected to the committee by the membeers. Or if they did it would be a waste of their time. To be honest if they did not subscribe to the aims of the group, they shouldn't be on it at all. But just because they are a member of a political party does not means they would subcribe to every view that Party held. Not every party member is an active one. I wrote what I did because, in one of the recent posts it said that no member of a political party could be a member, I think they meant no councillor.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on June 20, 2012, 07:10:31 PM
“I hope Swindon’s planning committee consider the wider implications of Tadpole Farm so that the case for unnecessary development at Ridgeway Farm can be strongly argued at the planning appeal in May.”
Cllr Nick Martin, 16th March 2012 Swindon Link

"First statement of useful fact – Roderick Bluh, Leader of the Conservative Group, hasn’t discussed this application with me, hasn’t made any points to me about this application or hasn’t put any influence on me in any shape or form or publication on the subject of this planning application.  I therefore declare entirely and completely that I am unfettered in any views I take tonight and in the way I vote tonight.  I think that’s important for a member of the planning committee to state given some of the influences that have been brought to bear on some of the members which I have been interested to read and astonished me".
Cllr Nick Martin, 12th June, Planning Committee Member deciding on Tadpole Farm
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on June 20, 2012, 08:13:53 PM
I have been absolutely fascinated by a couple of lines in the speech Cllr Famarazi gave at the Planning Committee on 12th June. I have highlighted and underlined them below because they raise interesting questions:

At the Planning Committee Cllr Faramarzi followed the ward councillors of St Andrews (Cllr Vera Tomlinson, Cllr Peter Heaton-Jones and Cllr Mary Friend).  Two of these councillors had remarked that the residents were against the development but with a heavy heart they would have to support approval. Cllr Faramarzi began by saying that there are infrastructure deficits in roads and schools:

"I am addressing you this evening to represent and speak on behalf of my ward Priory Vale and the people who live in it.  What I would like to say to you has been well thought through and discussed with residents at great length...., residents have told me that they are worried about an increase of traffic on Thamesdown Drive, Oakhurst Way, Mead Way and into and out of Blunsdon.  They are concerned that the only money allocated in the Priory Vale ward, and this is vital so please listen to what I am saying, the only money allocated in Priory Vale ward is for two crossing on Oakhurst Way.  Is this really going to help with 1,700 more households feeding into that road? 
They also worry that there will be insufficient school places"....there "just doesn’t seem to be enough consideration in this application, despite what Officers have told us tonight, ....given to the wider infrastructure need for a development of this size.  It’s huge, it’s absolutely huge.  For these reasons I and the residents of Priory Vale are against this application – I have been since day one when I was merely a resident in the area and I am against this application as a ward councillor."

Cllr Faramarzi makes reference to the unequivocal view of ORA:

"Up until this weekend I have shared the views of Oakhurst Residents’ Association who’ve been quoted as saying that almost 100% residents in Oakhurst were against development in Tadpole Farm and that the application at this time needs to be scrapped."

Having highlighted the residents' opposition to the development and demonstrated a clear understanding of the infrastructure deficits of the application Cllr Faramarzi changes thought to losing on appeal and the loss of S.106 monies for a wider area:

"But I am, however, also aware of the consequences of this not going ahead tonight which Cllr Tomlinson and Cllr Friend from St Andrews ward have highlighted.  It is my understanding that should we lose such an appeal there would be no obligation upon the developers to take residents' views into account or to provide S.106 monies to mitigate the impact of the development on the wider area."
This leads to the conclusion that: 
"My number one priority as a councillor is to do the right thing for my residents and they have spoken to me, and they told me loud and clear they are against this application. They don’t believe that the development should go ahead.  However, I am minded to mention the consequences of a refusal. Will they be more damaging to the residents and give us no ability to influence the development and, if so, I urge the committee to take that into consideration."

Cllr Faramarzi tweeted on 13th June 2012:

"we worked hard to get the best result for residents.  Unfortunately there were no grounds in that report to refuse." 

My two questions are:
1. What happened at the weekend before the Tuesday of the planning committee to change Emmas' mind? Furthermore, is it conceivable that "whatever" changed Emmas' mind may have also changed Toby Elliott's mind and Doreen Dart's mind - the two North Swindon councillors on the planning committee? Has this slip of the tongue let the cat out of the bag? Is it conceivable that the Tory councillors who were waverers - excluding Nick Martin whose vote was a gimme - had a pre-meeting where they were told what the party line was?
2. In her speech Emma distinctly states that there is not enough consideration in the application for infrastructure despite what the Officers report says. However, the next day she tweets there were no grounds in the Officers report to refuse. Does that mean the Officers report should be followed without question even if you don't agree with it?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on June 21, 2012, 06:25:45 AM
On Nov 29th 2011 Cllr Sewell , planning committee member said...

I do have real concern however re the highway infrastructure and its ability to cope with development . I am not satisfied by the proposed mitigation package. I’d rather have further  investigation on primary access via Croft Road. I do think that much more work could have been done exploring alternative sites and further  engagement with residents to seek their views .  I’d rather see alternative sites re examined for the permanent placement of this school.  “

Another example of members who raise significant concerns on basic infrastructure but fail to challenge officers advice.

Officers used scare tactics to convince elected members that the school was needed. Their own data contradicted them. The same Officers are withholding school numbers for 2012 which will show the reality. 

Swindon is paying the price for an Officer Class who believe that they can do no wrong and that their advice is unassailable and will seldom if ever be publicly challenged by elected members.

If elected members are gullible enough to follow their advice blindly they need to realise the consequences.

Lemmings ....
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 21, 2012, 08:25:38 AM
Cllr Nicky Sewell comes out of the Croft Situation is no better a light than Cllr Vera Tomlinson, Cllr Emma Faramarzi, Cllr Toby Elliot do with Tadpole. It is a bad day for Swindon when counciillors from two parts of Swindon are perceived by local residents to be competing to play the politics role of the Three Stooges.

Obviously the other two are Cllr Dave Wood and Cllr Stan Pajack. Nothing surprises me at all in Swindon politics. Libdems after the tuition fiasco are perceived by all but their ilk to be lower than Lino and two faced. Why would it not surprise me if in the shabby way politics is now being done in Swindon that Libdems are put in charge of applying and monitoring the code of conduct for councillors behaviour.

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 21, 2012, 08:41:51 AM
Latest post ORA blog http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/letter-from-north-swindon-mp-at.html (http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/letter-from-north-swindon-mp-at.html)

If you see Mr Grumpy let him know it's posted up on TS

Does this mean Justin Tomlinson MP and Former 10 years service Cllr Justin Tomlinson ( AKA while I was on SBC I voted for every Tory council tax increase since Labour were kicked out Tomlinson) did not object to planning officers about development at Tadpole?

Quote
No Quote at Planning Committee - Mr Tomlinson, MP
It does not appear that Mr Tomlinson, MP is mentioned in the planning officer's committee report.  A text search of the electronic copy of the report (over a hundred and twenty pages long) does not seem to find a single reference to him.

Mr Tomlinson did not attend the planning committee but the planning officer reports a letter as follows:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on June 21, 2012, 09:58:05 AM
Cllr Nicky Sewell comes out of the Croft Situation is no better a light than Cllr Vera Tomlinson, Cllr Emma Faramarzi, Cllr Toby Elliot do with Tadpole. It is a bad day for Swindon when counciillors from two parts of Swindon are perceived by local residents to be competing to play the politics role of the Three Stooges.

Obviously the other two are Cllr Dave Wood and Cllr Stan Pajack. Nothing surprises me at all in Swindon politics. Libdems after the tuition fiasco are perceived by all but their ilk to be lower than Lino and two faced. Why would it not surprise me if in the shabby way politics is now being done in Swindon that Libdems are put in charge of applying and monitoring the code of conduct for councillors behaviour.

And guess who the new chair of Standards is.... Lib Dem Cllr Wood. 

I don't believe that I have heard his voice in any Council Meeting I have attended... and God help me... but there have been many of those...
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mellon on June 21, 2012, 01:27:57 PM
Latest post ORA blog [url]http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/letter-from-north-swindon-mp-at.html[/url] ([url]http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/letter-from-north-swindon-mp-at.html[/url])

If you see Mr Grumpy let him know it's posted up on TS

Does this mean Justin Tomlinson MP and Former 10 years service Cllr Justin Tomlinson ( AKA while I was on SBC I voted for every Tory council tax increase since Labour were kicked out Tomlinson) did not object to planning officers about development at Tadpole?

Quote
No Quote at Planning Committee - Mr Tomlinson, MP
It does not appear that Mr Tomlinson, MP is mentioned in the planning officer's committee report.  A text search of the electronic copy of the report (over a hundred and twenty pages long) does not seem to find a single reference to him.

Mr Tomlinson did not attend the planning committee but the planning officer reports a letter as follows:



why would he need to go to the planning committee? he has already attended an official unofficial meeting with the developers while he was a ppc on the 25th of January 2010 with Vera Tomlinson, Rod Bluh and Peter Greenhalgh and surprise surprise no minutes were taken for the meeting. there was also a second meeting took place on the 3rd of december 2010 but Justin wasnt there.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/north_swindon_developments#incoming-133223 (http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/north_swindon_developments#incoming-133223)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 21, 2012, 02:38:14 PM
Did the council have difficulty finding a quill pen?

Quote
No minutes were taken for either meeting.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on June 21, 2012, 06:26:18 PM
I know you shouldn't have to, but why the heck are you not taking minutes for yourself, and if they need to be agreed or validated, (which they would because whoever said whatever, would deny it if you didn't) then send them on to independent people who were there and ask them to agree them. it's much better than each of you having say individually.   Although it's very interesting!
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mellon on June 21, 2012, 07:59:04 PM
Because muggins, to the best of my knowledge those meetings weren't public.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on June 22, 2012, 07:58:51 AM
Ok, so if they were Borough only meetings, isn't there some rule/law/policy that states every meeting should be recorded and the content be made available to the public - ah, just realised that would be no good.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Smiler on June 22, 2012, 09:48:42 AM
So let's look at a possible, maybe scenario - Tom junior is the Conservative PPC and an Abbey Meads ward councillor, Tom senior is also an Abbey Meads ward councillor.  They sit down with Tadders developers in January 2010. 

There was an expectation that the blu party will form the Government in May 2010.  I have read on talkswindon about Rod's Christmas message.  But I can't find it?

Is there a discussion amongst the blu crowd about the possible demise of the RSS?  Weren't the Tories leading on this  - I think there was an article with the PPCs on it, but can't find that either?

How do you stop the loss of votes from the EDA residents? How much of the EDA would affect the vote in the North and the South come to think of it?  There were more councillors at risk in the EDA than the North where there were only three councillors to protect (this strategy has begun to fail because Julian Price was elected this year).

Um...problem with the EDA, maybe a vote loser but light on the horizon as RSS could be waning?  Do you turn to an updated core strategy to fill the void of the loss of the RSS stuff?  When do the blu crowd start talking about this in their full court?  February or March 2010? After the meeting with the developers clarifies their minds? Silly question but why doesn't Cllr Stoddy go to the meeting if it's the Abbey Meads ward councillors?

When is the content of the revised core strategy firmed up concerning Tadders and EDA?

Very implausible, ambition wouldn't come before the voters in North Swindon or the EDA?  Is there any evidence that Tom junior has ever been interested in the detail of planning matters or just the inappropriate thing?

Whilst the concrete jungle was erected in the 10 years he was a ward councillor what was he doing?

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 22, 2012, 11:08:31 AM
Quote
Whilst the concrete jungle was erected in the 10 years he was a ward councillor what was he doing?

Is this question about the role he had in Conservative Futures (Young Tories). Did he bet on himself that he would be Prime Minister before he was 40 which I cannot find mentioned in his bio on the Tory website, but the Tory Futures bit is mentioned. On another point I never knew the new library extension to the old reference library had so many who claimed it as theirs. Now there was I believing that  Rod Bluh had built the new Central Library- silly me.
Quote
Abbey Meads Ward - Justin was elected as a Councillor to represent the Abbey Meads ward in 2000, re-elected 2002 & 2006, each time with an increased majority. Justin's final term as a Councillor ended on the day he was elected to become the MP. During the 10 years Justin was a Councillor he had a 100% attendance record and never claimed a penny in expenses.

Swindon Borough Council - Justin served as the Cabinet Member for Culture, Leisure & Recreation for 4 years. During this time he chaired projects including:
 •The new £10m central library, on time and on budget
•Set up successful Sports Forum, involving 60+ sports groups
•Invested in a variety of new leisure facilities across the leisure centres
 
Conservative Future - In 2003, Justin was the National Chair of Conservative Future.


Outside Of Politics

Justin is a huge fan of football! As a fan, he regularly watches Swindon Town and Swindon Supermarine FC who he has also helped raise much needed sponsorship money. Justin still regularly plays football including for the Parliamentary football team. Justin is also a veteran of Football Manager having owned all the versions since the original Championship Manager!
 
Prior to being elected as an MP Justin owned local company TB Marketing for 10 years, having formerly been a nightclub manager after graduating with a Business Degree from Oxford Brookes University.

Justin is engaged to Jo Wheeler who owns 'We Love Pets' a pet care company that covers Wiltshire & Berkshire, and they are planning to marry in Parliament in June 2012.



Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Outoftowner on June 22, 2012, 11:39:15 AM
About Justin Tomlinson's proposed wedding

Quote
they are planning to marry in Parliament in June 2012.

How Naff is that??!!!!
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 22, 2012, 11:45:52 AM
As Mr Grumpy has not posted the ORA blog into this thread. I have taken the liberty and posted the latest exciting instalment of the Tadpole  Farm Saga planning meeting.
Quote
At the start of the Planning Committee, the Chairman of the committee, Cllr Colin Lovell (St Margaret and South Marston), passes over to Mr Awojobi, the Borough Solicitor.  The first question ORA members may want to ask:  What is the normal custom and practice of the Planning Committee for who speaks first after the Chairman introduces the application? Is it the Planning officer or the Borough Solicitor? [url]http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/quotes-from-officers-at-planning.html[/url] ([url]http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/quotes-from-officers-at-planning.html[/url])
:coffee:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: the gorgon on June 22, 2012, 01:31:49 PM
About Justin Tomlinson's proposed wedding

Quote
they are planning to marry in Parliament in June 2012.

How Naff is that??!!!!

The man was a nightclub manager and ran a company called Tuberculosis Marketing what do you expect  :wink:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Outoftowner on June 22, 2012, 01:44:46 PM
If I'd supported a kid of mine through university and he then went on to become a nightclub manager, a "marketing" man  and then worm his way into politics, I'd slap his legs.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: sonicated on June 22, 2012, 01:52:09 PM
The Sanctuary of St Mary Undercroft looks okay to me!

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/paullew/3468615879/ (http://www.flickriver.com/photos/paullew/3468615879/)

Now having a stag do in Prague - that's not classy at all.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on June 22, 2012, 03:41:14 PM
It was a very pretty wedding - after all there is another person involved. The photo's were taken on the grass across the road, with Big Ben in the backgorund and they had a cake shaped like the houses of parliament and Big Ben. Sorry, sucker for a good wedding.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: I Could Do That on June 22, 2012, 03:44:31 PM
What nightclub was Justin the manager of?
The Brunel Rooms, Vadims, Gold Diggers, Stringfellow's .....?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 22, 2012, 04:54:07 PM
The one that closed down I think it was called Pharoes or something like that.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Geoff Reid on June 22, 2012, 05:50:38 PM

Did a 5 year old write his biography?

I'm no scholar but, if he were my MP I'd expect him to have a better grasp of written English than that.

Also, did he & wossername marry in 'Parliament' or the Palace of Westminster.  Subtle but important difference I think.

Accuracy of language, whether written or spoken, is especially important when dealing with Parliamentarians I feel.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 22, 2012, 06:13:39 PM
Quote
During the 10 years Justin was a Councillor he had a 100% attendance record.


Does  that statement allow a presumption that he voted for every Tory council tax increase during his time in office?  Does this quote
Quote
Justin's final term as a Councillor ended on the day he was elected to become the MP
allow a presumption that Swindon council tax has only stopped being increased by Tories on the day Cllr Justin was elected to parliament and ceased to be a SBC councillor?
 :2funny:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 22, 2012, 06:36:57 PM
Apologies back on topic after that burst of mirth no offence intended, but you do have to see the  :2funny: side about what is said by politicians.

The question I now pose is more serious. Is the land being identified as area of flood risk on this map also the same land being handed over to the wildlife people with apptox  100k?

http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/tadpole-farm-development.html (http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/tadpole-farm-development.html)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Richard Beale on June 22, 2012, 09:09:53 PM
Apologies back on topic after that burst of mirth no offence intended, but you do have to see the  :2funny: side about what is said by politicians.

The question I now pose is more serious. Is the land being identified as area of flood risk on this map also the same land being handed over to the wildlife people with apptox  100k?

[url]http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/tadpole-farm-development.html[/url] ([url]http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/tadpole-farm-development.html[/url])


come on... of course it is. They woudln't hand over prime building land, that's profit god dammit!
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Steve Wakefield on June 22, 2012, 09:18:20 PM
come on... of course it is.

Richard

There's no flies on you! :wink:

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Richard Beale on June 22, 2012, 09:23:51 PM
Like most I'm appalled by the Tadpole Farm decision and believe its quite right to question viewpoints of ALL local politicians on it, hold them to account what they've said and done. Question thier motives etc and response when caught well and truely out.

The thread has been most illimuniating about the standards of current crop of new councillors in north Swindon and their double standards.

But what is dismaying me at the moment after catching up with this thread after a hard day at work, is the recent personal attacks on Justin Tomlinson MP, what jobs he's done in the past, where he's getting married and to whom etc.

I think it's unnessecary and don't think this does TalkSwindon, as a forum for all (including those of a blue hue) any favours, can't we keep to the subject,

Question JT's position and effectiveness certainly, but leave his new family and his new wife's 'happiest day' out of it. It's leaving a sour taste that's unbecoming of the discourse so far.

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Geoff Reid on June 22, 2012, 10:22:20 PM

I don't think it's either unfair or unbecoming to question or dicuss self promoting material an MP places in the public domain for his, or her, constituents to read.

Moreover, what Tomlinson publishes about himself is relevent, especially where he refers to and uses his past life as a Borough Councillor to promote his new one as a Parliamentarian because both political incarnations are inextricably linked with the history of the Tadpole Farm development, even if he is now trying to put some distance between himself and his past involvement.

We'll just have to disagree Richard  :)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on June 22, 2012, 10:39:43 PM
@Richard Beale

Quote
Question JT's position and effectiveness certainly, but leave his new family and his new wife's 'happiest day' out of it. It's leaving a sour taste that's unbecoming of the discourse so far.

You got there first Geoff and I totally agree with you.

Richard, the comments in this thread are opinions made in the public domain, not hidden from scrutiny.

But what is JT's example?  Has anyone on this thread got examples of his smear tactics at work?  Does he email residents mentioning individuals who don't have the right to reply or see the comments he's made about them?  That is smearing someone's good name.

Let JT publish some of the comments he's made about people.  Has he got the guts to put them into the public domain where all of us can shine a light on them?

JT is a member of this forum and he has the right to pop on here and reply.  Some people get verbally stabbed in the back by JT and without good friends watching their backs wouldn't even know he'd done it!

What's fairer?  Scrutinising facts spoken or published by a person or making personal remarks behind their backs for political advantage?

He put the stuff about his personal life up on-line.  If he doesn't want people to comment then he should leave his personal life out of the public domain.  Live by sword, die by the sword metaphorically speaking.

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Richard Beale on June 22, 2012, 11:46:35 PM
Don't really want to subvert the thread with this, just thought that it would be better to concentrate on the matter at hand,
than to engage running down where he got married or what nightclub he once ran.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: sonicated on June 23, 2012, 01:15:12 AM
Don't really want to subvert the thread with this, just thought that it would be better to concentrate on the matter at hand,
than to engage running down where he got married or what nightclub he once ran.

:clap: Hear, hear.

If you want to start bashing someone over their personal life then start up a thread bashing them over their personal life; don't hijack another.

I'm guilty of taking this thread off topic as well, I should not have made the post about the Sanctuary of St Mary Undercroft. Sorry.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: MrGrumpy on June 23, 2012, 09:01:35 AM
Sonicated - this is great to have a Dominican priest from Kuala Lumpur interested in Tadpole Farm.  Thank you for making the world aware of what Justin Tomlinson, MP has been doing in a little Council ward in Swindon.

I never knew that Tadpole Farm was on the international agenda.

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/paullew/3468615879/ (http://www.flickriver.com/photos/paullew/3468615879/)

Do you think that this is a matter affecting the whole community against their wishes?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Steve Wakefield on June 23, 2012, 09:05:06 AM
I'm guilty of taking this thread off topic as well, I should not have made the post about the Sanctuary of St Mary Undercroft. Sorry.


Hi Sonicated

Welcome to talkswindon  and do not apologise for taking a thread off subject we all do it from time to time and it is all part of what makes TS tick along. I like the photos and the blog http://godzdogz.op.org/ (http://godzdogz.op.org/)  O0
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: sonicated on June 23, 2012, 11:19:25 AM
I'm flattered that you've tried to research me but you've gone down the wrong path! I just found that link online - the photo is nothing to do with me. I'm just a concerned Oakhurst resident in disbelief about Swindon Town's planning.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 23, 2012, 11:44:22 AM
More from the Oakhurst Residents Association on who said what at the planning committee

http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/quotes-from-officers-at-planning_22.html (http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/quotes-from-officers-at-planning_22.html)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: The Oakhurst Avenger on June 23, 2012, 12:14:39 PM
Re: Officers Comments on ORA Blogspot

I don't trust any Planning Officer that works for the borough and I certainly would not take the word of the Borough solicitor as gospel since he loses more appeals than he wins - not a ringing endorsement of their legal judgement.

You only have to see what the Secretary of State actually said about the decision to overturn the Coate planning decision to know that the officers of Swindon are either incompetent or not playing with a straight bat. Naively, I thought civil servants were supposed to be above politics. The Secretary of State clearly and unambiguously states that the draft core strategy for Swindon carries only limited weight since it is not adopted and is far from adoption. That's good enough for me.

 
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planning-callins/pdf/2109689.pdf (http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planning-callins/pdf/2109689.pdf)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 23, 2012, 12:21:39 PM
Re: Officers Comments on ORA Blogspot

I don't trust any Planning Officer that works for the borough and I certainly would not take the word of the Borough solicitor as gospel since he loses more appeals than he wins - not a ringing endorsement of their legal judgement.

You only have to see what the Secretary of State actually said about the decision to overturn the Coate planning decision to know that the officers of Swindon are either incompetent or not playing with a straight bat. Naively, I thought civil servants were supposed to be above politics. The Secretary of State clearly and unambiguously states that the draft core strategy for Swindon carries only limited weight since it is not adopted and is far from adoption. That's good enough for me.

 
[url]http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planning-callins/pdf/2109689.pdf[/url] ([url]http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planning-callins/pdf/2109689.pdf[/url])


Oakhurst Avenger

You are far from naive and the comment loses more than he wins takes the coconut  ;D
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on June 23, 2012, 12:35:27 PM
@ The Oakhurst Avenger

I also found the original source document from the CLG website. As someone who also read the Planning Officer's report I was staggered to read the mis-representation and frankly lack of understanding of what the SOS actually said. Coate was overturned because development at Commonhead was in Local plan 2011, an adopted development plan, not because it was in emerging core strategy albeit that was a material consideration (It is in both). Simple as that. TF is completely different as it is not in Local Plan but is in draft core strategy. Quite different.

@ Sonicated

Welcome to the Forum. I saw your Twitter conversation with Emma Famarazi and note how you were hoodwinked by the Tories - Elliott, Edwards and Famarazi before the election. These people are ambitious people who put their career before the residents they are supposed to represent. Nobody will convince me any different that they were all told by their leader Rod Bluh to vote TF through. The Tories in North Swindon have been playing a double game for the last 2 years. In the press and in election flyers they have been saying they opposed the development but in Tory meetings and in secret meetings with the developers they have been planning something quite different. Just a recent example remember the Adver article showing a photo of Cllrs Tomlinson, Friend and Heaton-Jones on the weekend before the planning committee meeting. The article said there was a Tory leaflet going out to 2000 homes urging people to turn up to meeting on Tuesday. Guess what the leaflet never showed up through my door in Oakhurst. Want to know why - there was no leaflet. Article was just a PR stunt.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 23, 2012, 01:09:37 PM
The article said there was a Tory leaflet going out to 2000 homes urging people to turn up to meeting on Tuesday. Guess what the leaflet never showed up through my door in Oakhurst. Want to know why - there was no leaflet. Article was just a PR stunt.


Candide7
You are being most kind to the councillors. 
Quote
Ward councillors for St Andrews and Priory Vale will deliver 4,000 letters
If they did do what they threatened to do, then they can produce or publish an exact copy of their letter as evidence. http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/local/9752186.Residents_are_urged_to_have_say_on_Tadpole_Farm_homes/ (http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/local/9752186.Residents_are_urged_to_have_say_on_Tadpole_Farm_homes/)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: sonicated on June 23, 2012, 02:56:44 PM
Candide7 I fear you may be correct in saying I was hoodwinked. Crest haven't got enough money to put adequate infrastructure in place for this development so it should not go ahead - especially when their past record shows they are incompetent.

At the planning meeting it was explained that the council has painted itself into a corner and wasn't prepared to fight itself out. This shows how weak it is.

There is a possibility that the committee is being very clever and will remove the application due to lack of infrastructure and Cllr. Elliot will be a hero. I sadly doubt this will happen.

The secretary of state for communities and local government, Eric Pickles has said:

"We've promised to use legislation to scrap top-down building targets that are eating up the Green Belt, but I'm not going to make communities wait any longer to start making decisions for themselves".

"It will no longer be possible to concrete over large swathes of the country without any regard to what local people want."

Local people do not want this development so therefore the Government does not support it. If it does go ahead it shows the committee is ignoring what Swindon residents want and the councillors who did not oppose it should not be forgiven.

Cllr. Elliot who made the proposal to approve it has told me that he has a veto over the development. If it does go ahead he is going to be an extremely disliked man by all.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on June 23, 2012, 03:26:59 PM
Candide7 I fear you may be correct in saying I was hoodwinked. Crest haven't got enough money to put adequate infrastructure in place for this development so it should not go ahead - especially when their past record shows they are incompetent.

At the planning meeting it was explained that the council has painted itself into a corner and wasn't prepared to fight itself out. This shows how weak it is.

There is a possibility that the committee is being very clever and will remove the application due to lack of infrastructure and Cllr. Elliot will be a hero. I sadly doubt this will happen.

The secretary of state for communities and local government, Eric Pickles has said:

"We've promised to use legislation to scrap top-down building targets that are eating up the Green Belt, but I'm not going to make communities wait any longer to start making decisions for themselves".

"It will no longer be possible to concrete over large swathes of the country without any regard to what local people want."

Local people do not want this development so therefore the Government does not support it. If it does go ahead it shows the committee is ignoring what Swindon residents want and the councillors who did not oppose it should not be forgiven.

Cllr. Elliot who made the proposal to approve it has told me that he has a veto over the development. If it does go ahead he is going to be an extremely disliked man by all.

And what magic powers does Cllr Elliot have to veto this?

Fairy Dust?

Is this exclusive to him or can any Cllr have some ?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: sonicated on June 23, 2012, 03:41:52 PM
Cllr. Elliot has said on the Priory Vale Conservatives Facebook page:

"I believe it should be up to a unanimous decision by the officers, ward councillors, Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee in consultation with residents"

However on my request Cllr. Faramarzi commented further:

"Officers, the Chair and the Deputy Chair of the planning committee along with Ward Councillors from Priory Vale and St Andrews Ward will be consulted with and will make the decision together".

The more I read into this the more I see the residents of Swindon being screwed over.

Our councillors need to stand up to the officers. At the moment it appears they are just finding ways to do what they are told.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 23, 2012, 03:51:09 PM
If we step back to Nov 2010 the link put this out people can see the lifestyle choice they made has deteriorated as more properties are squeezed in the area.
Quote
"A planner told me that a number of options were being considered: widening of Oakhurst Way, opening up Adinsall Road and also Lady Lane.
http://www.swindonlink.com/news/tadpole-lane-development-is-not-a-fait-accompli-says-oakhurst-resident (http://www.swindonlink.com/news/tadpole-lane-development-is-not-a-fait-accompli-says-oakhurst-resident)

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on June 23, 2012, 05:06:46 PM
@sonicated

Quote
Cllr. Elliot who made the proposal to approve it has told me that he has a veto over the development. If it does go ahead he is going to be an extremely disliked man by all

sonicated, what evidence do you have of Cllr Elliott saying this?  What kind of veto would he have over the development when he is just under two months into being a councillor?  As you're fairlly new to this thread you may not realise that evidence is really important to prove what we all say.

So show us the money please?




Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Tea Boy on June 23, 2012, 05:37:01 PM
Sounds to me like North Swindon Tories are now in full retreat, attempting a desperate rear gusrd action to save their tattered reputations.

They are being extra helpful to their ward constituents, picking up sd many little day to day errands from the priory vale facebook site. Calling in missed bins, promising extra grass cutters etc. Not thatt residents can do that of course.

I suspect cllr. Elliot and his other Tory colleagues I
Are willing to say whatever it takes to make this look like he in in charge, knew what he was doing and is listening to people's concern.


Problem is most people just don't believe them
Once a hypocrite always a hypocrite.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: sonicated on June 23, 2012, 06:22:04 PM
sonicated, what evidence do you have of Cllr Elliott saying this?  What kind of veto would he have over the development when he is just under two months into being a councillor?  As you're fairlly new to this thread you may not realise that evidence is really important to prove what we all say.

So show us the money please?


Straight after the meeting I bumped into him in ASDA (I walked out at recess) and asked him the outcome. He said if all ward councillors did not agree that the infrastructure was in place it would be rejected. Is that not an implied veto?

He's changed it slightly on the Facebook page (quoted above) to say he "believes it should be a unanimous decision" which implies a veto if his belief is right.

On their Facebook he also adds "I will check on the legalities of this though".

I would find it comical that he doesn't appear to know exactly what he proposed but the impact is too great to laugh about.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on June 23, 2012, 06:56:30 PM
@ Sonicated

The reality is that all the Tory Councillors come out of this extremely badly. All Six councillors for Priory Vale and St Andrews misled their electorate in their election campaigns (re: your Twitter conversation with Cllr Famarazi). While I find it incredible that Cllr Elliott would take it upon himself to be the proposer of the dagger blow - being the only Oakhurst resident -when there were plenty of East Swindon councilors who could have done the honours, all the Tory Councillors to a man and woman said it should be approved or there was no choice in approving it. I make no distinction between Edwards, Famarazi, Elliott, Tomlinson, Friend and Heaton-Jones or Doreen Dart, who allegedly represents the residents of Blunsdon.

It is garbage and won't wash. The same Council was happy wasting £200k on an appeal at Coate where there was zero chance of winning because development at Commonhead was in the adopted development plan for Swindon. TF on the other hand is not in any adopted plan for Swindon, only in the draft core strategy which the SOS said only carries limited weight in decision making. The only appeal the Council has won recently is at Hook where the same argument as for TF applies i.e. development not in adopted plan.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on June 23, 2012, 07:17:33 PM
@Candide7

Quote
all the Tory Councillors to a man and woman said it should be approved or there was no choice in approving it. I make no distinction between Edwards, Famarazi, Elliott, Tomlinson, Friend and Heaton-Jones or Doreen Dart, who allegedly represents the residents of Blunsdon.

Totally agree with you Candide7.

Look, planning law does not contain a veto.  If you recommend something for approval then it's approved.  Planning conditions are not enforceable only planning obligations.  Not one councillor applied a planning obligation on this application and the conditions are already met.  The 106 package fulfils the planning requirements so how can a Council win an appeal on conditions that have been satisfied before you've even begun.

Either Cllr Elliott and his also-rans are barking or they've committed a Macbeth-ian act on the residents of North Swindon - take your pick?  That's the trouble when some in the community know more about planning than the elected representatives who the 15% of Priory Vale residents decided to put an X against. 

If Cllrs Elliott, Faramarzi, Tomlinson, Heaton-Jones, Edwards and Friend think they can pull the wool over the residents eyes then they have another think coming.

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: MrGrumpy on June 23, 2012, 07:21:09 PM
15%?  So 85% of the Priory Vale electorate did not bother to vote or voted for someone else....just shows how representative our elected representatives are with such a clear mandate of support from the community!
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on June 23, 2012, 07:25:29 PM
@ George Elliott

Thanks for posting that Swindon Link article up. It is very enlightening. It shows that Justin Tomlinson did indeed support the inclusion of Tadpole Farm, albeit reluctantly, into the draft core strategy at the 1700 house level. He has personally denied voting for it to me in e-mail but his quotes in the Link article suggest he did not oppose development at TF at the critical time early in the development of the draft core strategy.

The article also illuminates the sham of the Crest application and particularly their Transport Assessment. ORA had the TA independently assessed and the chief conclusion was that the Crest application is dangerously over-reliant on the delivery of the Rapid Bus Transit (RBT). You remember now - this is the thing Crest propose to deliver instead of paying for the upgrade of the Purton-Iffley road (Thamesdown Drive- Great Western Way link). We learn now there is no funding for the delivery of the RBT and consequently it is unlikely to go ahead. It can't go down Oakhurst Way as there are no bus lanes and there is only £60k in the Crest application for 2 zebra crossings (just to slow the RBT down!!!). You could not make this lot up, but it is true. The whole application and response to it by the council and its officers is literally a farce...
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Smiler on June 23, 2012, 07:30:02 PM
@George Elliot - thanks for the link to the Swindon Link article.  It looks like someone got the outcome of TF right at the time.

http://www.swindonlink.com/news/tadpole-lane-development-is-not-a-fait-accompli-says-oakhurst-resident (http://www.swindonlink.com/news/tadpole-lane-development-is-not-a-fait-accompli-says-oakhurst-resident)

Quote
Justin Tomlinson, MP said to the Swindon Link, "if I could find a way to stop the Crest development at Tadpole Lane, I would. But they own the land and are working on proposals for it. It seems to me that this is the final phase of the northern development and the new planning legislation introduced by the coalition government gives local authorities and residents a much greater say in what kind of development might take place."
 
But Stephanie Exell is clear in her view that, under the new planning rules, resident's do not have to accept the Crest proposal. "Tadpole Farm was not part of the North Swindon master plan and just because a developer has bought the land doesn't mean that they have the right to build houses on it.
 
"Justin could argue very powerfully that we don't need these homes in the new Swindon core strategy. I'm very surprised that the MP for North Swindon seems to be capitulating to Crest so quickly. A lot of worried residents would be assured if he just said 'no development."


Does it sound like JT already knew what the outcome of TF would be?  Forward wind one year and 7 months to June 2012.  Was he ever against this development at all?

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on June 23, 2012, 07:42:17 PM
@ Mr Grumble

If the RBT is so critical to the delivery of the TF development as per the Crest proposal to make it sustainable why were planning obligations not enforced by Councillors and Officers of Swindon?

Planning conditions are worthless.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on June 23, 2012, 08:07:07 PM
@ Candide7

What an interesting question.  Where did it say that the delivery of the RBT was critical?  Where's the evidence for this?  I'm a grumbling old man who needs the digestive crumbs of fact!

I'm a rather fat feathery owl called Sage,
I'm not at all happy in fact in a rage,
It's bad enough having one's home all upset,
But to make matters worse all my feathers are wet


Oh a planning obligation could enter the political dictionary as something critical that the Council takes no notice of.

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 23, 2012, 08:34:32 PM
I am not supporting this but believe it to be a fair question why can't Lady Lane be used for a BRT rather than Oakhurst Way?
Quote
Lady Lane is set to remain closed

 LADY Lane looks set to stay closed for good.

Despite opposition from two parish councils, the Cabinet voted last night to keep the road closed indefinitely.
 
Lady Lane links Blunsdon St Andrew and Haydon Wick parishes and was closed in August to allow services to be put in for a new primary school.
 
Council officers then decided to keep the road closed, saying this had always been part of the authority's long-term plan.
 
Speaking last night, councillor Dr Owen Lister (Con, Abbey Meads) said: "Closing Lady Lane will have the effect of cutting the people of west Blunsdon from the new district centre."
 
However, council highways officer Ioan Rees said: "This road is a country lane which is now in an urban area. It carries 750 vehicles at its peak hour but is only about four metres wide at its most narrow and has no pavement."
 
Mr Rees said most nearby residents would suffer only minor inconvenience from the road's continued closure.


Nearby residents I do not think there are any on Lady Lane as far as I am aware.   http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/archive/2002/11/07/Wiltshire+Archive/7335020.Lady_Lane_is_set_to_remain_closed/ (http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/archive/2002/11/07/Wiltshire+Archive/7335020.Lady_Lane_is_set_to_remain_closed/)

Another article 
Quote
Vital traffic link is to remain closed

 LADY Lane in Blunsdon is to be turned into a cycle route despite continuing calls for it to re-open to traffic.
 
The road was initially closed in May last year to allow services to be put in for a new primary school.
 
It was due to re-open in August but councillors voted instead to keep the road closed for good.
 
They said that this had always been part of the long-term plan for the area, but that move was opposed by both Blunsdon St Andrew and Haydon Wick parish councils who said that Lady Lane provided a vital link between the two areas.
 
Now the North Swindon Development Company has submitted a planning application to downgrade the road permanently to a cycle route.
 
The application concerns a 750-metre stretch which would connect with Swindon Council's existing cycle network at Ash Brake, St Andrews Ridge and in Haydon Wick.
 
The project would include resurfacing and landscaping.

Ward councillor for the area Owen Lister (Con) said he still believes Lady Lane should be re-opened to cars.
 
He said: "I have thought all along that the closure of Lady Lane was quite ridiculous and this is just another part of a very strange saga.
 
"The fact of the matter is that this is an old road and it's been there for a very long time connecting Tadpole Lane down into Haydon Wick.
 
"The only alternative road is now Saltzgitter Drive which is a twisty-turny road through a housing estate.
 
"It now being used increasingly by people who want to come from the Abbey Meads and Haydon area through to Tadpole Lane and avoid the A419.
 
"They have built nearly 70km of cycleways in this town and how many cyclists use them?
 
"I would still re-open it given half a chance it has to be the most sensible option."
 
But residents who live nearby Lady Lane have welcomed the closure.

John Booth, from the Lady Lane Campaign Group, said: "It's always been in the plan many people who live on Lady Lane bought their houses on the understanding that the lane would be closed.
 
"We used to have big trucks going down there but now it is a lot quieter and there is less pollution," Mr Booth added.


http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/archive/2003/04/24/Wiltshire+Archive/7319368.Vital_traffic_link_is_to_remain_closed/ (http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/archive/2003/04/24/Wiltshire+Archive/7319368.Vital_traffic_link_is_to_remain_closed/)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on June 23, 2012, 09:01:40 PM
A bit of the old Lady Lane did get closed and remains closed to traffic and is in the strategic cycle network.  It's right opposite Asda, to the left and across the (new) road from the Blunsdon Arms, I think the old original hedgerow hides it from view but it is still there.   

The old Lady Lane came down to meet the Blunsdon Road, remnants of which are also still there and a cycle route - by The Manor pub and onto Thames Ave.  You can follow the old hedgerow there along the side of ASDA.   I can't remember if there was any intention to close the other half of Lady lane from where it starts at it's junction with the old Blunsdon Hill to where joins Tadpole Lane. I can look at the maps but fairly sure that was never going to be closed all the way.

The reason for the closure of the bit they did, if I remember rightly, was to stop rat running  because back in the day, the cars would reach the Lady Lane junction with Blunsdon Hill before they got to the first roundabout on Thamesdown Drive and nip down there instead. 
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 23, 2012, 09:07:22 PM
If it was a BRT there would not be rat running by cars.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on June 23, 2012, 09:29:07 PM
@ Mr Grumble

Re: RBT

http://www.swindonlink.com/news/community-groups-insulted-by-councils-tadpole-farm-dealings- (http://www.swindonlink.com/news/community-groups-insulted-by-councils-tadpole-farm-dealings-)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: MrGrumpy on June 23, 2012, 10:28:48 PM
Speaking of BRT, just noticed on the ORA blog a briefing on the whole BRT issue...

http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/bus-rapid-transit-critical.html (http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/bus-rapid-transit-critical.html)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Steve Wakefield on June 24, 2012, 09:11:57 AM
The primary need is for the Purton Iffley road link to move traffic to the town centre and M4 distributing traffic by bus is welcome. A bus link could never compensate for the need of a Great Western Link road.

I recall at the meeting people pointing out to officers that they may introduce a bus route, but the last thing it would be is rapid.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on June 24, 2012, 09:21:27 AM
Could you lot give over with the initials? 

I have found an ariel veiw pre-development which shows celarly the route of the old Lady Lane, well it would, if it wasn't a laminated photocopy.  If you'd like to see it, I'll find the original, but I'm not going to bother if you don't want to.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: MrGrumpy on June 24, 2012, 09:35:28 AM
In the words of Jimmy Cricket, there's more!  This appeared later last night as well...

http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/quotes-from-officers-at-planning_23.html (http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/quotes-from-officers-at-planning_23.html)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on June 24, 2012, 09:38:38 AM
Sorry about the initials - Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or Rapid Bus Transit (RBT).  It is a technical name for a fully bus laned route from point A to point B plus a whole raft of other things that have to be added to the infrastructure to achieve rapid transit.  Bristol got funding from the Department for Transport (DfT) but Swindon didn't.  Perhaps we need to look at why Swindon misses out on so much funding whilst others are more successful?  Is it the officers or the councillors? 

You're right Mr Wakefield about the Purton/Iffley Road link.  Was that another lot of funding that escaped SBC? ???
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on June 24, 2012, 09:39:58 AM
Muggins, can we see the aerial photograph please?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 24, 2012, 10:01:33 AM
In the words of Jimmy Cricket, there's more!  This appeared later last night as well...

[url]http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/quotes-from-officers-at-planning_23.html[/url] ([url]http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/quotes-from-officers-at-planning_23.html[/url])


Mr Grumpy

I enjoy following the ORA website and I like to put up the links. Are you attempting to deny me this joy?  :wink:

Quote
Bus Rapid Transit system isn’t just a bus, there is a whole raft of priority measures that would need to come forward with it to improve the infrastructure to allow that time to be achieved.  So just to be clear it is a whole package of works that needs to be undertaken and the developers have provided a substantial contribution to towards our own scheme


Does that mean Swindon Council Tax payers will have to pick up the tab for the buses? Will that then be cut by Cllr Keith Williams and his group because we're all in this together? This happened to Penhill and other areas when the Orbital was built the money ran out Tories did not want to fund it and it stopped. The Purton Iffley Road Link is a must and why Swindon has dropped the ball on this repeatedly is beyond comprehension.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on June 24, 2012, 11:14:13 AM
In the words of Jimmy Cricket, there's more!  This appeared later last night as well...

[url]http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/quotes-from-officers-at-planning_23.html[/url] ([url]http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/quotes-from-officers-at-planning_23.html[/url])



It would be churlish to suggest that the reason that Officers recommended that this be approved to prevent an expensive and successful appeal is merely self preservation.

The officers quoted on this blog are the same officers who presented the 'highways' solutions that the developer/applicant ( Children's services ) wanted on the Croft. Problems areas are ignored... sound familiar?

They set low standards of expectations and consistently fail to meet them. But ..hey ho... they are safe... because they know that the planning committee do as they are told. Either in the meeting or before... 

Exposure to any external review would highlight the fantasy world inhabited by these walter mitty characters.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on June 24, 2012, 11:21:26 AM
The SBC officer must be having a laugh?  £450,000 is a substantial contribution towards the RBT?  Why are the Council contemplating applying a S.278 agreement to the developers to make them put some of the RBT in place?  Sorry, jargon.  S.278 agreements are highways orders that kind of 'force' the developers to replace roads/pavements that they've damaged during construction or put in place new highways infrastructure.


@Tadpole Farm planning report pg. 59 pt. 149:

Quote
The Council would take a contribution towards the implementation of the BRT in north Swindon and thereby Crest will have no influence over whether it is option 1 or 2 [Oakhurst Way or via Redhouse Village Centre] that is implemented thereby allowing the Council to give due consideration to the most appropriate and effective route by determining the design specification and consulting with the public, and to take full responsibility for implementing this under Highway powers.

There are benefits and potential disadvantages to operating either of the routes, which have been highlighted by residents who could be affected by either route and will need further consideration outside the scope of this application.

It is considered that the implementation of the bus corridor and the other highway works outside the application boundary will be provided directly by Crest under a Section 278 Agreement and can be sought by Grampian condition (in relation to offsite works on land under the full control of the Council or Developer).  This is arguably more cost effective for the developer and thus enables a greater level of constribtuions for the who Section 106 package which will be discussed below.
[/b]
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Smiler on June 24, 2012, 11:33:48 AM
@Cllr Tomlinson (ORA blog)

Quote
"But this is relevant, and it is relevant to these people who live in that area that it will affect the most.  There has been no consultation with ward councillors who represent these people, and that’s my point.  This Council very often falls down on consultation because Officers take decisions and we are back on that old old story – who runs this Council? Members or Officers?"
"

So what is Cllr Tomlinson saying?  The bus route chosen will affect the residents in Redhouse?  But I thought that Cllr Tomlinson had already got Lady Lane closed and Addinsell Road closed to through traffic?  So being a mature and sensible councillor she wants to make sure that not even the bus route goes through Redhouse?  Surely she should have been concentrating on the non-delivery of the BRT? Ah, but if you've got all your roads closed then the infrastructure deficits are not that important, are they?

Has she heard of the word 'sharing'?  Or is sharing going to enter the political dictionary as shafting?

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 24, 2012, 11:45:14 AM

It would be churlish to suggest that the reason that Officers recommended that this be approved to prevent an expensive and successful appeal is merely self preservation.

The officers quoted on this blog are the same officers who presented the 'highways' solutions that the developer/applicant ( Children's services ) wanted on the Croft. Problems areas are ignored... sound familiar?

They set low standards of expectations and consistently fail to meet them. But ..hey ho... they are safe... because they know that the planning committee do as they are told. Either in the meeting or before... 

Exposure to any external review would highlight the fantasy world inhabited by these walter mitty characters.

And the questions are:

Quote
Questions that ORA members might wish to ask:

Why does Cllr Tomlinson only focus on the consultation about the BRT? 
Why doesn't she question why the BRT is not being delivered as set out in the core strategy? 
Is this grounds for refusing the application? 
Why does the Transport Officer not mention the requirements of the core strategy regarding the BRT? 
Why does the Transport Officer not mention that the £5m bid for DfT funding has been unsuccessful? 
Why do none of the planning committee councillors mention the non-delivery of the BRT as part of this application? 
Will Oakhurst Way eventually be bus-laned to deliver the BRT? 
Why is the application approved without the BRT when the core strategy (used as one of the main reasons this application should go ahead) says its delivery is critical?

It appear to me that if Oakhurst residents are trusting councillors to do this important job. It is a risky one at best and  cavalier in the least.

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Jodie Maggio on June 24, 2012, 12:04:40 PM
In the words of Jimmy Cricket, there's more!  This appeared later last night as well...

[url]http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/quotes-from-officers-at-planning_23.html[/url] ([url]http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/quotes-from-officers-at-planning_23.html[/url])


Mr Lloyd and Ms Cornelius are the self same officers who made a complete hash of the highways solution (I use that word with a huge degree of poetic licence) at the Nov 2011 Planning Committee.

Now 7 months later they unveil the much heralded Croft School mitigations (I use that word with a huge degree of poetic licence) in a public demonstration proving that they still do not have a clue.

Any faith in their advice (I use that word with a huge degree of poetic licence) would be ill-judged in my opinion
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 24, 2012, 12:57:11 PM
Jodie

From what you say and I admit taking much poetic licence. It makes one wonder if those who hold positions of authority can be trusted to be let off the reins and out of sight of a responsible adult.  :-\

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Smiler on June 24, 2012, 01:06:50 PM
@ George Elliot

Quote
It appears to me that if Oakhurst residents are trusting councillors to do this important job. It is a risky one at best and  cavalier in the least.

Can the words trust and NDA ward councillors exist in the same sentence for any group of residents in the North? 

@old towner

Quote
Trust

The most prized asset any council can possess but continually squandered by the current SBC administration at every opportunity. With every day of passing this asset is being stripped away
.


Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 24, 2012, 01:56:09 PM
Can the words trust and NDA ward councillors exist in the same sentence for any group of residents in the North? 

Surely that would depend on the definition of trust being used and as we know in Swindon how it is interpreted.  :2funny:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mart on June 24, 2012, 04:37:56 PM
trust: to tightly bind something until it goes all purple and throbby.

Something to bear in mind the next time a councillor or officer clerk says 'Trust me'.

It's your civic duty to oblige.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 24, 2012, 05:15:09 PM
Have you ever found yourself thinking that everywhere is beging to look the same and the so called new look is becoming quite common. Why is that? It could be nothing to do with developers using the same master planner surely? http://www.newmasterplanning.com/news.php (http://www.newmasterplanning.com/news.php)

Here is a thumbnail of projects http://www.newmasterplanning.com/projects.php (http://www.newmasterplanning.com/projects.php)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on June 24, 2012, 06:14:55 PM
Mmm, off thread but yes, watching the Olympic Flame at BBC on Salford Quays at 6.30 this morning.

Compared with our town centre, same paving, same wavy design, same blue lights sunk in ground, wonder if they have the same seats.  Often thought that architecture is a bit of a con - only ever one plan altered ust to fit in wherever/whoever buys it.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on June 24, 2012, 09:20:37 PM
Been going back through all of my notes  and on 7th Feb 2012 Mr Jones, CEO gave the following answer to a question from me...

Question: Planning Process
Q25 - Under what circumstances are Officers permitted to hold pre-meetings or briefings relating to a planning application with Planning Committee Members in advance of a Planning meeting which will assess that same application being put forward by those same Officers?

ANSWER: Officers may brief the Chair and any member of the planning committee on a proposal prior to the application coming to the planning committee. Such briefing enables officers to explain the proposal and provide answers to queries that a Member may have. Members are precluded from making a decision at that stage.

I wonder whether a question should be posed at the outset of each planning committee regarding any such meetings , or whether the chair should state that any such meetings took place?

I wonder if any such meetings are minuted and if these minutes are somewhere deep within the morass that is Swindon.gov.uk?

I wonder how the public, whom planning decisions affect, are to know exactly what was discussed at any such meeting and also whether Ward Cllrs who are not members of the planning committee can or have participated?

Because it would not be open and transparent if all of this was being done behind closed doors and out of public sight.... would it?

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 25, 2012, 08:38:02 AM
http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/tadpole-farm-north-locality-meeting-7th.html (http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/tadpole-farm-north-locality-meeting-7th.html)

Quote
VT – Here she goes....this is the biggest development in the northern sector that we have known.  Last year I was on the planning committee and because I was on the planning committee I had to keep my mouth well and truly zipped and I couldn’t say which way I would vote or would I be in favour of it or against it.  For some reason I have now been taken off the planning committee this year, surprise surprise, but I will be there as a ward councillor for that ward that the application has come in for and I will speak.  And I understand that ward councillors can speak forever and a day and nobody can stop them.  Now, members of the public coming will only be given perhaps two minutes or three minutes in which to speak but let any of them try shutting me up on this one and I will fall out with them.   And as I had to keep my thoughts to myself for the last 12 to 18 months because I was on the Planning Committee, I am going to say tonight  I am very much against that application to build houses on land which is inappropriate for the area. 


There are several reasons why it is inappropriate and I will bring those up at the meeting, but I don’t know if my two colleagues and the ones from Priory Vale, I am not pointing at you Toby because I know the position you’re in, I’m not sure whether they’re going to speak tonight but I do know that we are all as one. And so we would say to you please come on that night – we, your councillors, need your support to back us up on the night.


Taken off planning committee surprise, surprise?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on June 25, 2012, 09:41:03 AM
Interesting link George, A couple of things popped up there. Firstly the name Eddie Bedwell, he was Chair of the Northern Development Action Group, prior to the whole thing  starting development, he called the meetings just like those that you are having about Tadpole Farm. Although the NDAC capitulated quite early on - in the face of a 10,000 development! It remained for a while to help get the best out of the developers that it could. He would have known that Justin had no vote.

Rex mis-remembers about Northern Dev, it was always going to be 10,000 homes and leapt from that to much more at Priory Vale end and the increase well entrenched by the time it got to Redhouse. It wasn't a borough decision to increase, it was a government decision, how much power the Borough had to knuckle under that I can't remember, but housing allocations went up. (Like I've said before, I can take you to the pllace where it first started and you can see the difference immediately*) Then as now, there was little appetite to build on greenfield sites, that were not aready up for development. 

I don't find it surprising that where a large development is expected, that the councillors of that areas are not selected or want to go on the planning committee.  They may not have much say at public meetings, but, by golly, they could say a lot in the members room etc. they may not be able to discuss with you which way they will vote, but they can discuss it with each other. 

It's rather unfair to blame officers too, the officers are there to guide them in making the right and legal decisions, there are legal reasons why they can or can't make planning decisions.

*in fact take yourself.......Cagney Drive - Old ratio - Henman Close, old ratio Hudson Close, new ratio.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: sonicated on June 25, 2012, 10:23:04 AM
It's rather unfair to blame officers too, the officers are there to guide them in making the right and legal decisions, there are legal reasons why they can or can't make planning decisions.

Is insufficient infrastructure one?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on June 25, 2012, 10:37:06 AM
Hey Muggins - there's a bit of a pattern going on here with your postings on this thread.  We are discussing the facts about what the Tories have actually done in North Swindon and you change the focus every time.  If you are on this thread to be sympathetic or understanding or circumvent the process of what the Tories are doing and have done to the people of Oakhurst then carry on.

Remember Muggins when they come after your butterfly orchard to build on it you may look to people in North Swindon to support you and we won't be here because we will have been driven away by the Tories.  The aim is not to cow the people or the community but to hold the Tories accountable for their actions - what they actually say and what they actually do!

Thing is Muggins if you're here with us to fight for Oakhurst against the Tadpole development and unsustainable development without infrastructure across Swindon then you are welcome with open arms.  But at the moment I am not so sure.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: sonicated on June 25, 2012, 10:55:15 AM
Remember Muggins when they come after your butterfly orchard to build on it you may look to people in North Swindon to support you and we won't be here because we will have been driven away by the Tories.

Sadly it's not just the Tories, all councillors on the planning committee voted for Tadpole Farm. Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 25, 2012, 10:59:59 AM
This cracked me up
Quote
RB - who do those officers answer to ? they answer to the Borough Councillors....

VT ? sometimes.

RB ? if not, they should be taken to task.

VT ? It is alright taking them to task after these events, after you have lost control, sorry Rex I don?t agree with you.

RB ? I appreciate that, I don?t agree with a lot of what you say.

If RB does not know and VT replies sometimes who should take them to task on behalf of the Tories? Perhap they can call for  Cllr Dave Wood Chairman of the Committeeeee! ;D
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: oldtowner on June 25, 2012, 11:19:21 AM
http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/tadpole-farm-north-locality-meeting-7th.html (http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/tadpole-farm-north-locality-meeting-7th.html)

These two comments have just made sure that future negociations with Crest are going to be interesting

Quote
EF – I might be talking out of turn, but I’ll do it anyway, Crest doesn’t really have a good history, do they, of delivering what they say they will deliver.


Quote
VT – .......... it is such a bad application and Emma, you alluded to the fact that these developers have a very bad name, an extremely bad name in the development and planning world. They have let us so many times in what was the Abbey Meads ward, the northern sector, that quite honestly I wouldn’t trust them with anything.

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 25, 2012, 11:24:03 AM
Interesting? No if anthing they will be all the more exciting as one forthright view is exchanged with another, but the public will never know as minutes are not kept of meetings for exchanging information between developers and councillors - apparently.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on June 25, 2012, 11:37:52 AM
Interesting? No if anthing they will be all the more exciting as one forthright view is exchanged with another, but the public will never know as minutes are not kept of meetings for exchanging information between developers and councillors - apparently.

Well spotted George.

Quote
VT – Yes, what Crest have said, and believe me I have been to lots of presentations and been in meetings, and God knows what – and Crest have said that if they lose on the night, and they don’t think they will, but if they do and the committee turns it down then yes, they will appeal because they believe they will get permission that way.  But that is sort of the second hurdle – we’ve got to get through this first hurdle, and you know our mission is to try and bring up enough points to persuade the committee to vote against it.  And it is only outline planning permission that they are seeking on the night.  So you don’t get all the conditions and bits and pieces – it is purely do we have permission to build and then the officer will decide what the conditions are. Now, if I was on Planning Committee I wouldn’t vote for that because I think the committee needs to know exactly what they are voting for. 

Would a simple FoI prove you are right or wrong George?  How many meetings has Vera Tomlinson had with Crest and how many have been minuted?

Posterity will prove one thing that a written record either exists or doesn't exist and will demonstrate what VT is saying is fact or fantasy.

I'm sure that residents in Oakhurst would be interested to know whether there are more minutes than meetings or vice-versa.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 25, 2012, 11:42:17 AM
Quote
Yes, what Crest have said, and believe me I have been to lots of presentations and been in meetings, and God knows what[/s] is God knows what a councillorism for unminuted exchange of information?  :-\
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: sonicated on June 25, 2012, 12:07:21 PM
Sadly it's not just the Tories, all councillors on the planning committee voted for Tadpole Farm. Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat.

I need to correct myself there, it appears the Lib Dem (Cllr. Sewell) wasn't at the meeting so didn't vote. I walked out in disgust at the recess so didn't witness the voting.

Does anyone know why she didn't attend?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 25, 2012, 12:35:57 PM
No or why the other councillors who did not attend were not there. Cllr Mary Friend contributed with
Quote
MF – I am Cllr Mary Friend and I would just like to say I would like to reiterate everything that my fellow ward councillors have said, and I shall be speaking on Tuesday night because while we were campaigning so many people brought it up on the doorstep.  It shocked me how many people were against it and reading the application there are so many things that are wrong with it for the people that already live in the area.

That word doorstep creeped in there again.

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: the gorgon on June 25, 2012, 12:55:13 PM
Hey Muggins - there's a bit of a pattern going on here with your postings on this thread.  We are discussing the facts about what the Tories have actually done in North Swindon and you change the focus every time.  If you are on this thread to be sympathetic or understanding or circumvent the process of what the Tories are doing and have done to the people of Oakhurst then carry on.

Remember Muggins when they come after your butterfly orchard to build on it you may look to people in North Swindon to support you and we won't be here because we will have been driven away by the Tories.  The aim is not to cow the people or the community but to hold the Tories accountable for their actions - what they actually say and what they actually do!

Thing is Muggins if you're here with us to fight for Oakhurst against the Tadpole development and unsustainable development without infrastructure across Swindon then you are welcome with open arms.  But at the moment I am not so sure.

Let me ask you this - did ALL of the people opposing TF give a monkey's when various other unpopular developments in Swindon were being proposed (Coate, Croft, EDA...)? Were they perhaps sitting up in Oakhurst not worried because it wasn't in their backyard?  >:(

Perhaps Muggins is just giving people a large dose of reality? She knows from experience what goes on within the council and how they operate! As much as you might not like what is being said about the council officers it doesn't mean it isn't true.  It could well be that they looked at the plans, looked at the legislation, consulted with external planning law experts and came to the conclusion that if the plans are rejected they will approved on appeal.  Cllrs I guess can look at the bigger picture and decide to reject a proposal.

If I recall correctly the planning officers recommended Coate for approval, planning committee rejected it, government approved it - unfortunately the planning officers were correct weren't they? 

That doesn't mean you shouldn't oppose a development, what it means is you'd better find really really good arguments against the development, gather a lot of public support and fight really hard.  Public support is one thing the save coate campaign had, enough to make the council reject the plans.  This is one area where Oakhurst has a problem I fear, I was speaking to someone over the weekend* about TF and this is roughly what they told me "they didn't seem to care about green fields or road congestion when they were buying their nice new house".

* I'm one of those that propagates opposition by telling friends and family (and anyone who'll listen) about bad developments in the hope that word and opposition spreads.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Tea Boy on June 25, 2012, 01:11:23 PM
Hey Muggins - there's a bit of a pattern going on here with your postings on this thread.  We are discussing the facts about what the Tories have actually done in North Swindon and you change the focus every time.  If you are on this thread to be sympathetic or understanding or circumvent the process of what the Tories are doing and have done to the people of Oakhurst then carry on.

Remember Muggins when they come after your butterfly orchard to build on it you may look to people in North Swindon to support you and we won't be here because we will have been driven away by the Tories.  The aim is not to cow the people or the community but to hold the Tories accountable for their actions - what they actually say and what they actually do!

Thing is Muggins if you're here with us to fight for Oakhurst against the Tadpole development and unsustainable development without infrastructure across Swindon then you are welcome with open arms.  But at the moment I am not so sure.


If only you knew.... Five minutes talkin to muffins about developers and planners is worth hours of anyone else's time.

Large swathes of north Swindon are green and most of it is down to a few people..... Muggins is one of them.

If you think she's pro developrer then I would say you haven't understood her properly.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: sonicated on June 25, 2012, 01:13:07 PM
I've done some background reading on Cllr. Sewell and she's the co-founder of Paranormal Site Investigators (http://www.p-s-i.org.uk/). So maybe she was doing more important work; like looking for ghosts?!

:2funny:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on June 25, 2012, 02:32:16 PM
Tea Boy I have in no way suggested that Muffins has any truck with developers.  My old post if you read it was about people that seem to accept what the Tories say and would rather hold ordinary residents to account than the councillors making such statements.

I wouldn't know Muffins or yourself if you sat down to tea with me.  This is entirely about keeping this thread focused in on politicians and what they say and what they do.

I note sonicated has yet again tried to take this off topic and I couldn't care less what Cllr Sewell does in her private life.  Her private life has nothing to do with what's happening at Tadpole Farm.  Why is it that since it has been mentioned by another poster that the Tories are trying to discredit people in Okahurst we suddenly find that this thread and its topic gets hijacked.  If it's a coincidence then I am happy to accept it.  However, in previous postings on Talkswindon by Muffins, Richard Beale and yourself, Tea Boy, you have been rigorous in holding the council to account.  I am doing nothing different.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Smiler on June 25, 2012, 02:47:24 PM
@Cllr Vera Tomlinson

Quote
VT – As a resident, it is your right to be able to comment and challenge any planning application that comes in. If you feel, I don’t want to sound patronising – you’ve known me for a while now, I don’t mean that, but if you feel out of your depth with planning speak which is quite different from our everyday language, then contact one of your councillors, any councillor will do, and try to get them to support you, and they can do this work for you.[/quote.]

Does VT need to contact a councillor for planning advice herself?  After all, wasn't she the Vice-Chair of Planning Committee for a couple of years or more which would make her totally unable to understand planning speak?  Some of us have known her for a while now and support wouldn't be a word you would associate with her actions unless it's a surgical intervention such as removing any opposition's voicebox.  Look for support against Tadpole Farm and she'll tell the committee to approve it.

Support - another definition for the political dictionary could be a political equivalent of a surgical truss that holds up one's moral fibre when it's drooping under the weight of disingenuousness.

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: sonicated on June 25, 2012, 03:23:13 PM
I note sonicated has yet again tried to take this off topic and I couldn't care less what Cllr Sewell does in her private life.  Her private life has nothing to do with what's happening at Tadpole Farm.  Why is it that since it has been mentioned by another poster that the Tories are trying to discredit people in Okahurst we suddenly find that this thread and its topic gets hijacked.  If it's a coincidence then I am happy to accept it.  However, in previous postings on Talkswindon by Muffins, Richard Beale and yourself, Tea Boy, you have been rigorous in holding the council to account.  I am doing nothing different.

I've "yet again tried to take this subject off topic"? Pfft! I have never taken this thread off topic!

When I made my first off topic post this thread was already offtopic talking about Justin Tomlinson's wedding I merely continued that. Is commenting on Cllr. Sewells official register of interests which she is required to declare really taking this thread off topic? No. What if her ghost busting group is sponsored by Crest?!
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: sonicated on June 25, 2012, 03:29:54 PM
We are discussing the facts about what the Tories have actually done in North Swindon and you change the focus every time.

I'd just like to remind you that the thread topic is "North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm".

If you want a thread where the discussion is limited to "What the Tories have actually done in North Swindon" then I suggest you create one.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Smiler on June 25, 2012, 03:31:52 PM
@Cllr Vera Tomlinson

Quote
VT – As a resident, it is your right to be able to comment and challenge any planning application that comes in. If you feel, I don’t want to sound patronising – you’ve known me for a while now, I don’t mean that, but if you feel out of your depth with planning speak which is quite different from our everyday language, then contact one of your councillors, any councillor will do, and try to get them to support you, and they can do this work for you.[/quote.]

Does VT need to contact a councillor for planning advice herself?  After all, wasn't she the Vice-Chair of Planning Committee for a couple of years or more which would make her totally unable to understand planning speak?  Some of us have known her for a while now and support wouldn't be a word you would associate with her actions unless it's a surgical intervention such as removing any opposition's voicebox.  Look for support against Tadpole Farm and she'll tell the committee to approve it.

Support - another definition for the political dictionary could be a political equivalent of a surgical truss that holds up one's moral fibre when it's drooping under the weight of disingenuousness.

You've just done it again.  At least we know you're a Tory supporter now.  I think you fell into the trap!!
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 25, 2012, 03:37:56 PM
We are discussing the facts about what the Tories have actually done in North Swindon and you change the focus every time.

I'd just like to remind you that the thread topic is "North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm".

If you want a thread where the discussion is limited to "What the Tories have actually done in North Swindon" then I suggest you create one.

@sonicated

Can't you start it off yourself?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: sonicated on June 25, 2012, 03:47:21 PM
@sonicated

Can't you start it off yourself?

Yes, but I don't want to thanks.

I was making a point that this thread is about North Swindon expanding and so Mr Grumble should not grumble about the focus not being on "What the Tories have actually done in North Swindon".
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on June 25, 2012, 04:00:51 PM
Hi again, I haven't gone off thread, other than to answer other contributors queries.

Oh and by the way, my 'butterfly orchard' (which implies that's it's all airy fairy) which shows you certainly don't know me!, WAS saved from development by the Seven Fields Conservation Group, by nalerting the right people in one department in the borough to what another department was up to. And then a lot of networking and being in the right place at the right time to find a good, necessary community use for it.  We've also so far managed to stop them building on the 7F's (nature reserve bit) and/or part's of it, by pointing out the good community use  to which it could be put (and it's importance) and various bits of the Park end which has been under threat of housing for some time.

I'm right behind any group/community saving any green or open space - and there are some who won't like me saying, but it's true, that most of the time WE were fighting the Labour group in Swindon, it's only recently it's all gone Tory. So its not about

The only difference in between then and now is the matter of consultation and methods of consultation, or rather lack of it. Planning law and developers influence always stood between us and success. 

Over the years I've learned what it is, that you/we, say/write that makes them - developers/councillor/officers, pigeon hole you and therefore lessen your case in their eyes. 

Purely co-incidence, why would I want to help any of them take land and make your lives a misery?

I'm sure the reason you want to fight this development is because you don't want the damned thing there, bought your house in good faith, or the problems it brings offsite - not JUST because you are opposed to the present administration or a nimby. 

As to North Swindon support, it's taken nearly 30 years to build up a network just for such support around here. I wouldn't be starting over at Oakhurst.

I've looked back at my last post and see I missed the word 'if' out. 

"It's rather unfair to blame officers too, the officers are there to guide them in making the right and legal decisions, (IF) there are legal reasons why they can or can't make planning decisions"

Now you have to unpick, whether or not the officers are not guiding them properly, by doing a quick learning curve on planning law.  Officers can be disciplined/sacked for mis-guiding councillors, but you can't sack a councillor.

Over at Coate, several times we have asked the people who own the land not to sell or asked them can we buy it, have you done that?

Good luck when you do! It's life long commitment.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on June 25, 2012, 06:17:31 PM
@ Muggins

Hi again, I haven't gone off thread, other than to answer other contributors queries.

Oh and by the way, my 'butterfly orchard' (which implies that's it's all airy fairy) which shows you certainly don't know me!, WAS saved from development by the Seven Fields Conservation Group, by nalerting the right people in one department in the borough to what another department was up to. And then a lot of networking and being in the right place at the right time to find a good, necessary community use for it.  We've also so far managed to stop them building on the 7F's (nature reserve bit) and/or part's of it, by pointing out the good community use  to which it could be put (and it's importance) and various bits of the Park end which has been under threat of housing for some time.

I'm right behind any group/community saving any green or open space - and there are some who won't like me saying, but it's true, that most of the time WE were fighting the Labour group in Swindon, it's only recently it's all gone Tory. So its not about

The only difference in between then and now is the matter of consultation and methods of consultation, or rather lack of it. Planning law and developers influence always stood between us and success. 

Over the years I've learned what it is, that you/we, say/write that makes them - developers/councillor/officers, pigeon hole you and therefore lessen your case in their eyes. 

Purely co-incidence, why would I want to help any of them take land and make your lives a misery?

I'm sure the reason you want to fight this development is because you don't want the damned thing there, bought your house in good faith, or the problems it brings offsite - not JUST because you are opposed to the present administration or a nimby. 

As to North Swindon support, it's taken nearly 30 years to build up a network just for such support around here. I wouldn't be starting over at Oakhurst.

Muggins, I think the butterfly orchard is a very special thing to you and to many in Swindon.  The point is that our home in Oakhurst is just as important as your butterfly orchard is to you.  The residents up here have approached the ward councillors and we have attended the meetings where they have promised us this and that.

But we have been so shocked that they went against their word and even recommended this development for approval.  Oakhurst Way will take 45% of the traffic.  The only way we could have stopped our local road being affected was for the councillors to turn it down and fight on.  How would you feel if you went to your elected reps in your hundreds and then they stabbed you in the back.

Our home is a beautiful place, with a lovely protected field that appears to be going to rack and ruin.  The councillors knew how badly our home would be affected but they just didn't care.  That's where Mr Grumble is coming from.  The poltical party doesn't matter, it just so happens all our councillors are Tory, it's the betrayal that hurts.

We only want them to take the responsibility for what they've done in word and deed.  I'm sure you will understand that.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on June 25, 2012, 06:22:26 PM
Not making any apologies for posting this here, someone was interested and you can see just how much North Swindon expanded in 20 years. You can see Tadpole Lane and  Blunsdon Abbey site in the top left hand corner. Greenmeadow is bottom  left  Groundwell industrial Estate is top right. This is not my copyright, but photographers name has been lost in the fullness of time. So thanks person/organisation!

And Mr Grumps, I understand..........really I do............and trying to help with info, the more you know the better you can defend.  My home was next to open countryside 20 years ago. in the phot, my home is middle centre.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on June 25, 2012, 07:41:09 PM
Thanks Muggins for posting the photograph.  It really shows how much of Swindon has gone under the builders concrete.  I was standing on Tadpole Lane the other day very early in the morning - there's hardly any traffic going towards the SCRailway because of the bridge repairs.  It was tranquil.  The birds were chirping and the sun was rising.  It suddenly dawned on me that Tadpole Lane was no longer the last protection for Swindon.  I was very sad.

Now you know why I feel the way I do about the airy fairy decision makers in Swindon.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Jean on June 25, 2012, 08:00:09 PM
Glad you put that map up Muggins. One of my favourite journeys in Swindon took me along Tadpole Lane - it was so tranquil and rural. I've not been back for years - it is too painful to see it as it is now. How I hated the people who moved into those new houses, as if it was all their fault - which, of course, it wasn't.

I've known Muggins for nearly 30 years and I know what a fighter you have been for the community and the environment. And what a fight you had with the builders in your area for a development that none of us wanted (and I live in Oxfordshire). You might have been accused of being a NIMBY then but the rest of us in the Thamesdown Environmental Forum and the Swindon Agenda 21 Forum certainly weren't. But once planning permission was granted, we didn't sit around pointing fingers, we got on with making the best of a worst case scenario and tried to get the developers to build something half decent. We failed there too, but thanks to you and the people of Penhill and Haydon Wick, there were ears to the ground to ensure that the best wildlife habitats had someone there to look after their welfare.

That's what we plan to do with regard to the Coate development. No we don't want the bloody carbuncle built and neither do people drawn from all around the world because of the Richard Jefferies' associations. But we will do our damnedest to protect the best bits and hope that we can influence the design at the detailed planning application stage and push to make sure that the buffer land around Coate Water is protected into perpetuity.

To the folk in Oakhurst - Muggins has been trying to help based on her many years of experience with the Northern Development Area.

I've given up posting on this thread as you just come across as NIMBYs to me. Stop wasting your energy pointing fingers. You have a lot of work to do in the future. So save your energy for fighting the detailed planning applications and the fights that you will have with the idiot builders. Take it from me, the Tadpole Farm planning application would have lost on appeal. It was even talked about at the Coate appeal. I knew that we would lose that one too but we gave it our best shot.

Of course you are angry. It's no good getting mad. You will all run out of steam and when the time comes to do something positive to reduce the impact of the TF development you will all have run out of steam. Believe me. I've seen it happen so many times.   

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Richard Beale on June 25, 2012, 08:58:26 PM
here here Jean and Tea Boy

You don't get know as 'That Bloody Woman' by the whole of a planning department for being planners and developers best friends O0 >:D btw, I was once introduced by a landscape architect to a planner as That Blody Woman's son, extra kudos for me there! :banana:. some might think that disrespectful, what I found was the opposite, she made their work harder, but but they respected her for it!

Respect is a cast iron currency in planning terms.

There is something common that runs through a lot of this, new councillors....

During and after very election councillors would be doing and saying unsustainable things. Cllr Elliot has done such a thing to get elected, however once elected he has found himself, as did every other north Swindon councillor, with the unenviable task of trying to extracate himself from the sh1t he has blundered into (completely of his own making)

Watching his priory vale facebook site comments is particularly cringe worth as he keeps digging that hole deeper and deeper, trying desperately to back track, he doesn't seem to know when to cut his losses. I might say he is stalling for time, but why?
Most of what he is saying is from what HE THINKS is going to happen or what HE WANTS to happen, unfortunately for him and his fellow ward councillors i think its only going to look much worse in the end. Officers are there to advise him, yet from the statements he is making it is obvious he is in the land of wishful thinking and hasn't stopped to check what the possibilities are and are not.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: sonicated on June 25, 2012, 09:17:55 PM
When I moved from Oxford to Swindon I did it well knowing that Swindon would continue to expand so I'm certainly not a NIMBY. I just can't beleive the lack of infrastructure for Tadpole Farm. It seems everyone can see this but is allowing it to plough ahead regardless.

To get to work I could once take a right at the Whalebridge roundabout from Corporation Street to get onto Fleming Way. Now I have to take a left, do a u-turn at the mini roundabout, come back, left onto Princes Street, U-turn at the traffic lights, back down Princes street and finally a left onto Fleming Way. I have to go so slowly on my motorbike around the mini roundabout that cars keep edging forward which means sometimes I have to stop, this is dangerous and gets the drivers irate but would stop any collision.

This is progress? I challenge any Councillor or Officer to ride pillion with me on my journey to work!

And then you have the Queensfield curfew. Have they learnt nothing? They are effectively planning the same thing for Oakhurst Way that they are fixing with the curfew at Queensfield!

My experience of Swindon town planning beggers belief.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: carole bent on June 25, 2012, 09:44:47 PM
Dear Sonicated, yep indeed... practically everyone bar the SBC highways team & their " expert firm" has highlighted that the access  for the School that SBC are building on the Croft - bang in the middle of a residential area isnt going to work... ignored

2 MPS  - past & present  - Labour & Conservative , 200 people, 3 firms of experts & an Olympics infrastructure expert all said access proposals were wrong.... listened to? nope.

Tadpole Farm? Whalebridge? Marlborough lane? .........
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Richard Beale on June 25, 2012, 10:12:57 PM
looks like facebookers are stating to ask question's

from Priory Vale facebook (names redacted)

Quote
xxxxx xxxx

 I'm probably being dumb here, but....
 
Now that the new Crest development has been given the go ahead, subject to additional conditions that they have to negotiate with local councillors etc to address local residents' concerns, can we get an update as to how this process will continue? For example, if the councillors tell Crest what we think of their "traffic survey" (chuckle), how will Crest's response, and proposed resolution be fed back to us? What if we still aren't happy? Or are we (with all respect) going to have to trust our councillors to understand what our responses would be etc?
 
Cheers
 
xx

6 hours ago

Toby Elliott Hi xxxxx, the meetings haven't been confirmed yet. We as councillors are going around asking people's thoughts; ALL suggestions regarding issues that need to be addressed will be put to Crest. You can email us as well. I will update when I have more information.
2 hours ago via Mobile


This sounds very much like a behind closed doors jobby. So Cllr Elliot will be interpreting replies from crest? how can we be sure 'ALL suggestions regarding issues' as quoted will be addressed and replies given. Transparency any one?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on June 26, 2012, 07:34:46 AM
Sonicated "I just can't beleive the lack of infrastructure for Tadpole Farm."

Oh! Believe me, we can....................

Not that I don't agree with you, but Swindon was fit to burst when they started NorthDev, it really can't take much more.

"Now you know why I feel the way I do about the airy fairy decision makers in Swindon"

No 'NOW' about it, I always knew how you felt, how you would feel and what you are going to be feeling, up against in the next ten years, if you don't bottle out and move.  I didn't have that choice, whatever was going to happen I would have to stay and watch. 

I have had a thought, usually, if they expect to use more land later on, planning/developers/ build in sone extra road width, even if it's under grass at present.  Are your main-er roads like that?  Is the ability to widen roads there, or out the other side of the new development onto a main road there?  We often drive through there, so I'll look next time. 




Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Steve Wakefield on June 26, 2012, 08:28:35 AM
Bursting I think more like a bycycle with a slow puncture the end is obvious just more slowly and the puncture has to be fixed in the end. Until recent years Swindon expanded in a controlled manner, but the developers free for all that came with the 1980s changed that, by the looks of it forever. I do agree with Muggins sentiment about bursting inso far that without infrastructure it is already past burtsing.

I live in West Swindon that sprung up out of farmland and it has grown into a community, but it has not had any major development for at least the last 20 odd years, but watch this space. Oakhurst people have told me that they are fed up with people lecturing them about being NIMBY. In my opinion this word was thought up by the worst Environment Secretary we have ever had in this country up until now. So it sums up my attitude towards the word and the self interested person who coined it in the first place.

Mannington Western and West Swindon want a quality of life, not to be the universal rat run for North Swindon escapees at least twice a day and the time gap between the two long bursts is getting shorter. I have never knowingly said development should not take place. My objection to development at Tadpole is to the traffic generated with insufficient road provision to deal with it and what I say about that is a matter of record. I readily admit it is not only about roads and transport, but also about schools provision, which affects some families in Swindon.

I am on record for saying I am not against development as long as it comes with the provision of sustainable infrastructure with roads, schools, village centres, shops, community facilities pubs etc, etc. No infrastructure no build simples! That is what Swindon people tell me they want and anyone with common sense can see they must have it as the 21st Century cranks on. Development is not about how few or how many big houses can be built on a patch. It is all about  that they should not even consider being built with a 19th Century infrastructure of poor community facilities and a lack of open space. If water and sewage companies cannot deal with more sewerage how long before cesspits make a return and water towers that fill up during the periods of low demand?

No doubt when a community believe that Councillors have said one thing and done another that to some may be deemed to be finger pointing. To some others it may be deemed as holding them to account for their actions and decisions. In regards to Coate how many people have witnessed a certain councillor taking flak from people over their decisions? I know some on TS; and in the press  have called them to account for their decisions also calling them some harsh names into the bargain. However as any councillor will tell you it is free speech and it ain't always pretty.

The North Swindon Cllrs are getting a dose of the same presently nothing more and nothing less, which is part of democracy and a fact of political life. Politics is a rough trade and all politicians expect that they will be held accountable for what they say and the decisions and choices they make.  I make no bones about it I attended the planning committee and I spoke about the impact of traffic in West Swindon. To alleviate some of this the traffic in Meadway  I asked that the the Purton/Iffley road link be restored into the core strategy and made one of the priorities for SBC to pursue. I also support a spine road to the A419. I did not speak on that, as I was hoping  another cllr would do so.

As for a Queensfield Curfew there is currently a de facto one operating in Tadpole Lane due to bridge works. The traffic has increased coming into west Swindon via Washpool and Lydiard Millicent I am told that Oakhurst Way is quieter as a result. I do not condemn people for seeking a restriction on Queensfield and frankly speaking if people called for  one  Meadway and on any road in Mannington Western in general until the Purton/Iffley link road is constructed.  I would in principle be in support of such a request.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: the gorgon on June 26, 2012, 08:39:05 AM

I have had a thought, usually, if they expect to use more land later on, planning/developers/ build in sone extra road width, even if it's under grass at present.  Are your main-er roads like that?  Is the ability to widen roads there, or out the other side of the new development onto a main road there?  We often drive through there, so I'll look next time.


Looking at google's aerial photos looks like Oakhurst Way could, at a push, be converted into a dual carriageway.
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ll=51.602179,-1.825597&spn=0.001799,0.003449&t=k&z=18 (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ll=51.602179,-1.825597&spn=0.001799,0.003449&t=k&z=18)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on June 26, 2012, 08:44:41 AM
Thats a road we've driven down many time.  It's actually quite pleasant.

Scary - ain't it!

And look at how much concrete/tarmac there already is, not just the road, but and around the houses too!
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on June 26, 2012, 09:11:03 AM
Gorgon, thank you for posting the photograph of Oakhurst Way.  Isn't it shocking to think that St Andrews Tories would want to widen that road to the detriment of the people who live in Oakhurst.  I do not have the ability that you have and would hope you can help me out by posting a similar picture of Dorcan Way all the way through from one end to the other just to show how easy it would be to dual carriageway that road for the EDV.

If we don't fight Oakhurst Way now then Dorcan will be next.  I am sick of hearing the only people who want Oakhurst Way dualled and no parking on it are bus drivers.  The bus drivers like Torun Way now it has bollards on it and I'm worried that bus drivers will take their complaints to the Borough and they will allow parking restictions and bollards along Oakhurst Way.

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Jean on June 26, 2012, 10:33:42 AM
There's nothing wrong with being a NIMBY - it gets people motivated to do something about a matter that might affect their quality of life. My only hope is that folk see the bigger picture. I remember reading a travel-to-work report for Wiltshire. Marlborough, apparently, had the lowest number of people travelling to work by car - Swindon was one of the worst. Swindon is an extremely car-based orientated town. Is it too late to turn this around? Even if a new community is designed to be self-contained with the basic necessities of life on their doorstep, would people use them? Allowing parents a choice as to where their children go to school has been a disaster for the community. Out-of-town employment areas, supermarkets and public facilities are equally so. People no longer choose to live near to where they work. And with the instability of the job market, even if they do, there is no guarantee that this will be the case a few years down the line.

It is getting impossible to escape the noise and inconvenience of too much traffic on our roads. How are we going to resolve the matter? Even if the Tadpole Farm development could be designed so that Oakhurst wasn't used as a rat run, who else would ultimately suffer from the inconvenience unless we can get people out of their cars. I'm told that it will never happen - that we have gone too far. If a new road is built or widened, someone suffers and it is often communities off the beaten track where motorists try to find their way around traffic pinch-points. Swindon is doomed unless we can persuade government, as one body, that Swindon should not grow any bigger.     
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: the gorgon on June 26, 2012, 11:39:50 AM
Gorgon, thank you for posting the photograph of Oakhurst Way.  Isn't it shocking to think that St Andrews Tories would want to widen that road to the detriment of the people who live in Oakhurst.  I do not have the ability that you have and would hope you can help me out by posting a similar picture of Dorcan Way all the way through from one end to the other just to show how easy it would be to dual carriageway that road for the EDV.

If we don't fight Oakhurst Way now then Dorcan will be next.  I am sick of hearing the only people who want Oakhurst Way dualled and no parking on it are bus drivers.  The bus drivers like Torun Way now it has bollards on it and I'm worried that bus drivers will take their complaints to the Borough and they will allow parking restictions and bollards along Oakhurst Way.

If what you say about bus drivers is true then the road might well be widened just to provide dedicated bus lanes (or rapid transit scheme as SBC will call it).

They could reinstate Lady Lane as a thoroughfare, but my feeling is that it is another potential 'rapid transit' route, by doing that it remains as a cycle route.  Worth checking what was done when car/motorbike access was restricted, if buses can still theoretically use it then SBC won't require planning permission to use it as a bus route.

As for Dorcan Way, well I'm surprised it hasn't been made a dual carriageway already, because when you look at the footbridge/subway over/under it it they're big enough for a dual carriageway.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 26, 2012, 01:25:37 PM
Nothing posted on the Oakhurst Residents Blog today-so far http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/ (http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/) perhaps they are having a rest?  :fish:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Smiler on June 26, 2012, 01:27:18 PM
@Jean

The people in Oakhurst have lived with development for years. We do not object to building, we are surrounded by it.  Let me spell this out for you so that you understand. 

Some of the brief points are:

We do not want building where there is already insufficient school places.
We do not want the traffic increased or doubled on our roads.
We want politicians who will do what they say instead of those who say something and do the opposite.

As you can see politicians have said all sorts of things about Tadpole Farm and flip flopped.  Allowing parents a choice of where they send their children has been a disaster for this community because the parents are very clear they want their children schooled in Oakrhust.

Your talk about supermarkets does not wash in North Swindon because the Orbital centre was built to cut down on internal traffic journeys.  Yes, you're right that there is too much traffic already.  That's why we don't want it increased on our roads.

We do not accept that even if Tadpole Farm could be designed so as not to use Oakhurst Way as a rat-run then someone else would suffer.  Our point is that new road provision would reduce this impact wherever it goes.  I'm so pleased you agree if a road is widened that someone suffers.  Our community is not off the beaten track.  Our community was designed just a few years ago with its roads in place.

You cannot believe sincerely that people in Oakhurst have not been shoddily treated by the Council and its representatives.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: MrGrumpy on June 26, 2012, 01:36:37 PM
@Gorgon - here is Dorcan Way, soon to be a multi-lane Expressway? :-)
 
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Dorcan+Way,+Swindon&aq=0&oq=dorcan+way&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=9.806345,18.127441&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Dorcan+Way,+Swindon+SN3,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.558554,-1.732529&spn=0.005036,0.008851&t=h&z=14&output=embed (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Dorcan+Way,+Swindon&aq=0&oq=dorcan+way&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=9.806345,18.127441&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Dorcan+Way,+Swindon+SN3,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.558554,-1.732529&spn=0.005036,0.008851&t=h&z=14&output=embed)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: the gorgon on June 26, 2012, 01:53:15 PM
@Mr Grumpy

Have a look at this bridge, heck of a coincidence that it's just the right width for a dual carriageway.

Streetview doesn't like getting embedded so here's a link. http://goo.gl/maps/iT3c (http://goo.gl/maps/iT3c)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 26, 2012, 01:54:55 PM
From a purely individual point I venture this opinion. North Swindon, is an area made up of communities Penhill, Pinehurst also start with a P. the people of Priory Vale moved into their newly developed homes like those people who moved into Pinehurst before the war and those into Penhill after the war.

Each community is autonomous and able to make their own decisions. The people of Priory Vale are doing what those in Penhill and Pinehurst have done before. They are organising themselves to deal with a situation that is affecting their neighbourhood. I believe comments and advice from people who live in North Swindon or somewhere to the North of Swindon are listened to.

The people of Priory Vale are patient people who are using their own voice to make their own point as it affects their daily lives where they live. This is in no way different to people who live in Penhill or Pinehurst.  I think Priory Vale people would contribute to any similar debate in Penhill or Pinehurst, but I do not think they would tell those communities what they think is best for them. Only the people living there 24/7 can possibly know that.

The people of Priory Vale have had their patience driven into the ground by a system that they will find difficult to forgive.  :wakeup:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on June 26, 2012, 02:13:11 PM
"The people of Priory Vale have bad their patience driven into the ground by a system that they will find difficult to forgive." 

You aren't getting the point - if you think you've been pushed to the limit, how do you think other's feel and have felt.  At this very moment, you are not on your own.  Croft, to take just one example,  it's just a matter of you joining the club, and you catching up with what the rest of us have had to put up with. But welcome to our world, anyway.

It's all very well examing other roads in the town, that have been left wide enough for dualling, but you must not  point to them and say - they can take it instead of us.  That is just shoving the problem on to someone else.

Jean's right, we need to give a huge collective. all over Swindon 'enough is enough'.  Because everyone is sick of the constant threat and knowledge of how underhnad the system here can be.

Those bus companies - they are not being selfish when they want to use roads anywhere in Abbey Meads, Propry Vale, they are probably the ONLY roads that they can use.  The longer and wider buses become, the less road there is for them.  In an attempt to stick as many houses as possible on it, the large roads where kept to a minimum, effectively forcing bus routes on to those that could just about take them.

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on June 26, 2012, 03:05:21 PM
Residents are already in touch across swindon... we know the power of teamwork.

Pity this sorry bunch in charge ( but out of control) don't know how to spell it...

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Jean on June 26, 2012, 03:13:04 PM
Smiler - read my post again.

You ask me: "You cannot believe sincerely that people in Oakhurst have not been shoddily treated by the Council and its representatives."

I do not believe that you have been fairly treated. Welcome to Swindon. I've been dealing with a dose of this for donkeys' years. Broken promises - how long a list would you like? You hear from the Crofters on Talkswindon but ask the people in Old Town about the Front Garden development and how they were promised that this area would always be protected. I could bore you ad nauseum about the Coate development and all the promises made about that area too. There are people fighting to prevent every tiny bit of green space or their allotments from being bull-dozed for development in Swindon and others fighting development on the outskirts. The people of Swindon have had a really rough deal for a long time now and it's time for it all to stop.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on June 26, 2012, 03:43:13 PM
And was it Oxford or Gloucester that was reputed to have said, we don't want the developments here - let Swindon have it?   
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on June 26, 2012, 03:47:33 PM
@Steve Wakefield
NIMBY - This word has a lot to answer for down the years from Nick Ridley to two jags John Prescott and his Missus (both NIMBYs by the way), Jeremy Clarkson and ramblers. We are all (or most of us) NIMBYs - only an insane person would want to see the field they live next door to concreted over forever.

@Jean
You sound like a cuddly liberal and it is sad that someone who dedicated so much of their life fighting for Coate has felt the need to quit the sinking ship for Oxfordshire. Let's hope you live near David Cameron or Rebekkah Brooks or otherwise the "For Sale" signs may have to go up again.

There are many things wrong with the planning system and the new NPPF, despite what the Tories and Justin Tomlinson said to me, is a developers charter. It will become much harder to stop development in next few years as the desperate Tories (whose economic policies are failing - we've all seen the public spending borrowing figures this morning on TV going up increasing the deficit!) try to kick-start the anaemic economy by boosting the construction sector.

Which leads me to a point I made several pages ago about if you have to build where should you build given that everybody is a NIMBY and nobody wants it in their backyard?

Broken record time. The most sustainable location for development in Swindon is East Swindon. All the evidence base concluded this yet no development has occurred there - school places, access to employment etc etc. Instead we're buiding at Coate and Tadpole etc etc :bash:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: sonicated on June 26, 2012, 03:50:46 PM
Oxford and Gloucester are surrounded by Greenbelt so the land is a lot more protected.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: the gorgon on June 26, 2012, 04:06:35 PM
And was it Oxford or Gloucester that was reputed to have said, we don't want the developments here - let Swindon have it?   

Using STFC parlance, I wouldn't be surprised if it was Poxford  :wink:  as the greenbelt surrounds Oxford.

Gloucester is the Swindon of Gloucestershire, it gets the unwanted developments. Look at the average house prices £150k in Gloucester (even less than Swindon, it's that desirable a place to live  :D), £250k in Cheltenham.  The greenbelt here is between the two cities and there has been plenty of development to the south of Gloucester alongside the A38 to provide commuter housing for Bristol.

Perhaps it was Cirencester? I'm going to have to dig around a bit but I'm sure it was their former MP Nicholas Ridley, Secretary of State for the Environment who approved the whole NSD - I guess Jean or you yourself Muggins might remember better.

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on June 26, 2012, 04:13:12 PM
Re: Tadpole Farm
“the Highways Agency is now in a position to withdraw its objection subject to conditions that ....ensure that a Travel Plan is secured to bring about car trip reduction”.

That Travel Plan was the Rapid Bus Transit. Remember, Crest got the Council to drop the Purton-Iffley road upgrade on the basis that they were going to get people out of cars onto the RBT.

If the RBT is not delivered - and there is no guaranteed funding to do it - can or will the Highways Agency re-instate its objection?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: carole bent on June 26, 2012, 04:24:40 PM
Hi George - I just read this thread & a line that you wrote really stood out . 

"The people of Priory Vale have had their patience driven into the ground by a system that they will find difficult to forgive."

It would serve the current administration well to start to pay heed to the dissatisfaction being expressed across the borough & to ask what needs to change within the relationship & the "systems."
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Jean on June 26, 2012, 04:25:53 PM

@Jean
You sound like a cuddly liberal and it is sad that someone who dedicated so much of their life fighting for Coate has felt the need to quit the sinking ship for Oxfordshire. Let's hope you live near David Cameron or Rebekkah Brooks or otherwise the "For Sale" signs may have to go up again.


Just to put the record straight - I've never lived in Swindon. I live in Longcot and before that London. I joined Swindon Friends of the Earth nearly 30 years ago as it was my nearest active group. I'm a cuddly green anarchist if you want a label for me. I haven't spent all this time just fighting for Coate. I've also done my best to stop Swindon being targetted for more development and had to learn planning law, environmental law and god knows what else to know how best to campaign. I haven't been very successful, I might point out!

The only way that development to the east might be sustainable is if it was created as a new town in its own right and not dependent on Swindon's infrastructure to work. This is not what is proposed.

Sonicated mentioned greenbelt around Oxford and Gloucester to protect them from spreading. The government would not give Swindon Green Belt status because it has known for years that Swindon was going to be the target for growth. It had a Rural Buffer but that was reduced to buffers to stop Swindon engulfing villages. Even that protective policy seems to be disappearing.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on June 26, 2012, 05:31:06 PM
Jean - cuddly liberal   :2funny: :2funny: :2funny: :2funny: :2funny: :2funny: :2funny:

It's not the first time Jean's had th You don't live in Swindon' thing thrown at her (it wasn't because she was cuddly) - no one and I mean no one has worked harder to save Swindon from the worst excesses of development or worker harder to mitigate it when it has come about and no one has taken more insults from 'above' in so doing. 

Another 'group' the Council for the Protection of Rural England, represented by another lady we don't hear much of these days, Charmian Spickernell, had actively compaining to protect our rural buffer.  Between them, they had/have the knowledge and the long long hours and ability and will to travel and sit through endless planning appeals etc. and share what they knew with us and we were grateful. Thank them if you can still see green between here and Royal Wootton Bassett.

There is a Silver Book, shown to me in the 80's that predicted the development of all that has been developed since.  Ithink we must be on the Gold one by now.   
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Smiler on June 26, 2012, 06:52:57 PM
VT-
Quote
the MP who has given his opinion several times is Justin Tomlinson, North Swindon MP, is my son, and he has told me his thoughts and he has put it in print. He is against inappropriate development – make of that what you like, but those are his words.

Can't VT even resist having a go at her own son to score a few points.  Make of that what you like!  Even she has spotted that there is no substance in JT's utterances on planning.  As he's always saying to residents - you're the expert on this subject.  No JT, you were the councillor, you're the MP, aren't you?  You're residents aren't paid to do your job, are they?

Records speak for themselves and JT spent 10 years doing absolutely nothing to protect Abbey Meads ward from inappropriate development.   We've yet to see evidence in the concrete jungle (his words) up here of his intervention.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 26, 2012, 06:59:05 PM
Quote
make of that what you like, but those are his words.

I have and I have the urge to be :tickedoff: but should I  ;D or  :'(  If he did say it then he has not said much different since the leaflets.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: MrGrumpy on June 26, 2012, 07:03:29 PM
Just spotted this on the ORA blog.  Does the newest St Andrews councillor have a mind of her own?  Well, now that's a thought.  A Tory having a mind of their own about TF?  Poor old Toby Elliott didn't stand a chance with the black widow spider and the laughing hyena watching his every move at planning.  One was playing games with his mind whilst the other smiled like a Cheshire cat as his political future crashed onto the rocks.

Quote
I am Cllr Mary Friend and I would just like to say I would like to reiterate everything that my fellow ward councillors have said, and I shall be speaking on Tuesday night because while we were campaigning so many people brought it up on the doorstep.  It shocked me how many people were against it and reading the application there are so many things that are wrong with it for the people that already live in the area.


That's why she said the application should be approved because all the residents supported her decision and it was such a great application.  Good one MF!  :spin:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 26, 2012, 07:06:51 PM
What did she say on the Tuesday night?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: MrGrumpy on June 26, 2012, 07:19:02 PM
@George Elliot

Well, I understand from those in the know that it could be VT's turn in the hot seat tonight.  I for one can't wait.  So get your late showing ticket for the front row, get your knitting needles out, ........ and wait for the whirring of the political guillotine to 'cuttez off 'er 'ead!
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on June 26, 2012, 07:45:16 PM
I think it's time Adinsell Road was opened up for Tadpole Farm. What does Dave Cameron say: "We're all in this together." here's looking at you Redhouse  :wakeup:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on June 26, 2012, 08:09:09 PM
After all Redhouse is already spoilt, all we hear from them is how bad the developer has been. That way lovely Oakhurst, that we all love, can stay the beautiful, peaceful haven it is.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on June 26, 2012, 08:10:17 PM
So time to man up Toby and show granny who's boss!
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on June 26, 2012, 08:23:36 PM
Seriously I'm sure all the new Tadpoles will want to shop at the Tesco express and get their fish and chips from Redhouse. Won't they? If they can feel there way out of there mansion through the smog from the incinerator...
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on June 26, 2012, 08:24:20 PM
So time to open Adinsell Road.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 26, 2012, 08:42:12 PM
So time to open Adinsell Road.

Zlaten

Welcome to the thread. Can you explain what is so special about this road and it's location and who or why has it been closed.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on June 26, 2012, 09:00:37 PM
Adinsell Road was always planned as a link road between Tadpole Lane and Redhouse. Some time ago Crest decided to keep the road as a cul de sac. VT lives very near that road. Is there a link between these two facts, only you can decide?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 26, 2012, 09:10:33 PM
Adinsell Road was always planned as a link road between Tadpole Lane and Redhouse. Some time ago Crest decided to keep the road as a cul de sac. VT lives very near that road. Is there a link between these two facts, only you can decide?


Zlaten

Not sure but here is a quote that may cast some light on what happened.
Quote
No link is currently proposed to Adinsall Road/Eastbury Way in Redhouse. Reopening Lady Lane to vehicles is no longer an option and it is now officially a bridleway. Oakhurst Way will not be widened as the green area beside it is designated open space and part of flood mitigation measures in North Swindon.
http://www.swindonlink.com/news/oakhurst-way-not-to-be-main-route-for-tadpole-farm---in-short-term (http://www.swindonlink.com/news/oakhurst-way-not-to-be-main-route-for-tadpole-farm---in-short-term)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: MrGrumpy on June 26, 2012, 09:38:45 PM
Hi Zlatan, it's great to have you on board.

What happened with Addinsell Road?  It was included in the 2009 core strategy as one of the link roads for Tadpole Farm.  The Redhouse Residents' Association formed on the campaign to keep this road shut and residents there put in objections to its use in the core strategy for this purpose.  Addinsell Road has a green space which the developers, same as at TF, own and a road could be constructed to connect Addinsell Road to Tadpole Lane.

JT and VT have been very close to this Association and VT still is.  In fact there are questions about whether she runs it from behind the scenes. I have heard that she recommended a new chair recently.  JT and VT made sure that this link was never created.  Just like they made sure that Lady Lane remained shut. 

As VT knew that she would be going to St Andrews ward rather than Priory Vale she made sure that all her roads were protected.  There is evidence that JT knew that he was protecting Redhouse to the detriment of other areas.  However, this decision was still taken.  This would have meant that there would have been direct access to the Orbital Centre (as Eastbury Way was changed from bus route only into an AVR)

The point is not one of you have all the traffic and we'll have none.  But it goes to the fairness of councillors doing deals with one Association but not with other areas.  Taking decisions on favouritism and then arguing that this AVR is different to that AVR because a lot of people park on Addinsell but not on Oakhurst Way.




Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Smiler on June 26, 2012, 09:47:49 PM
A lot of us attended the developers insult-ation and they made it clear to us that the closure of the Addinsell Road link reduced the 'permeability' of the site.  Having links top and bottom of Tadpole Farm was not the way it was supposed to work to share out the extra traffic that was generated.

It was a very unfair decision to close it and one that the Tories cannot be proud of, can they?  Ah but are the rumours true that one of RRA's committee members has senior tru blu connections?

All the residents of St Andrews Ridge/Blunsdon/Oakhurst wanted was a fair deal but when have the local Tories been fair?  Easy votes for the least effort.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Richard Beale on June 26, 2012, 10:20:45 PM
Adinsell Road was always planned as a link road between Tadpole Lane and Redhouse.

i think the developers certainly think so, why else was a section of ancient field hedge along tadpole lane, that was aligned with Adinsell Road removed as if it was to have a road pushed through. Saves time later when you want a quick job done.

looking at later plans for the housing a the top of Adinsell Road a line could be drawn extending the road straight through the removed hedge
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Richard Beale on June 26, 2012, 10:54:24 PM
A lot of us attended the developers insult-ation and they made it clear to us that the closure of the Addinsell Road link reduced the 'permeability' of the site.  Having links top and bottom of Tadpole Farm was not the way it was supposed to work to share out the extra traffic that was generated.

It was a very unfair decision to close it and one that the Tories cannot be proud of, can they?  Ah but are the rumours true that one of RRA's committee members has senior tru blu connections?

All the residents of St Andrews Ridge/Blunsdon/Oakhurst wanted was a fair deal but when have the local Tories been fair?  Easy votes for the least effort?

I used to be a member until I moved away from the area (we were the 2nd new house to be occupied on Redhouse Way, when the development was new, beaten by 3 days!), I don't think the RRA was very politically biased, the group in its early days was very critical of the council's approach. If any thing it has just become very cosy with its ward councillors when it really could do with seperating itself from all political parties.

The group itself was very effective in chasing up developers and getting council services sorted, whether that has now changed and has become a way of being a visible supporter that ward's local politiicans I don't know.

I would say to any community association , use politicians to get help, find funds, facilitate etc, but don't get too close or you risk being tainted or seen as a mouth piece.


As for Vera and Justin T, at the time (i was at thoase meetings) of Addinsell Road development it is my belief that they were in fact just representing their ward constituents who bothered to protest at that time and as such were doing their job. If that was in some way advantageous now, then that is just a side effect of listening to the local electorate 10 years ago. Hindsight is 20-20
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: the gorgon on June 26, 2012, 10:56:51 PM
Planning document relating to the permanent closure of Lady Lane http://ww5.swindon.gov.uk/moderngov/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=32634 (http://ww5.swindon.gov.uk/moderngov/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=32634)

Interesting statement
Quote
The closure of Lady Lane and its conversion to a Green Route was scheduled for
completion following the completion of Thamesdown Drive and of other roads linking
it to Tadpole Lane
. Parts of Lady Lane were closed to traffic in 2002, however in
order to facilitate the construction of Bridlewood School the section between
Chartwell Road and Sandstone Road was left open.


Looks like there were definite plans to have more that one road linking Thamesdown Drive to Tadpole Ln.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Smiler on June 26, 2012, 11:43:11 PM
@Richard Beale
Quote
As for Vera and Justin T, at the time (i was at thoase meetings) of Addinsell Road development it is my belief that they were in fact just representing their ward constituents who bothered to protest at that time and as such were doing their job. If that was in some way advantageous now, then that is just a side effect of listening to the local electorate 10 years ago. Hindsight is 20-20

When the new core strategy (2011) was published it was possible to revisit the decision to stop the Addinsell Road link.  It was raised by the community on several occasions but neither VT or JT were interested.  If what you say Richard is true then an advantageous situation for one group could have been redressed in light of the whole community at this stage ie. fairness.

The decision to keep Addinsell closed was announced by VT at a meeting with community reps at the end of 2010.  So this isn't hindsight this is a Tory stitch-up.  If it was another party that had done it I would be happy to call it by another name but this was a blu decision to protect Redhouse.  Why Redhouse?  Wasn't Abbey Meads a lot bigger than Redhouse?  Can you answer that?  Please produce evidence not just hearsay or conjecture because you are speaking to residents with evidence of everything they say.

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 27, 2012, 12:29:33 AM
Cllr Mary Friend states that they would lose all control of this development, but why?
Quote

And if we lost on appeal, and it is very likely we would, we would lose all control over this development.  And residents would then get the very worst deal.  Crest’s reputation is not at all good and so, in light of all this, I will repeat my agreement to Cllr Tomlinson’s proposal to this committee  - to vote for Officer’s recommendations but to include ward councillors in their negotiation so that you can get the very best deal for all our concerned residents.  Thank you."


http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/councillors-quotes-at-planning_26.html (http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/councillors-quotes-at-planning_26.html)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Smiler on June 27, 2012, 12:43:13 AM
Cllr Mary Friend states that they would lose all control of this development, but why?
Quote

@George Elliot

This is something that has puzzled me too.  Having looked at the figures then what is likely to be lost on appeal would amount to very little more than the Haydon 3 agreement per house built - this was considered a bad deal for the area, as it was lost on appeal too, and many politicians and officers bang on and on about this.

Surely the loss of control has been in the 2 years that this has been on the table.  It's very unusual for politicians to be worrying about control when they've had the opportunity to sort things out for so long.  Maybe they are recognising that they haven't done their job properly and want a second bite of the cherry.

At best this is incompetence, at worse a political graveyard.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on June 27, 2012, 12:51:38 AM
Perhaps some of the Tory councillors are afraid of the ultimate loss of control?  The blu leader may have gained the upper hand over the Northern councillors by removing VT from planning committee and stuffing the committee full of cabinet members (who had already recommended it for approval) and pro-Tadpole councillors?

It would be ironic if VT's biggest nightmare came true and she was no longer running the show!

Don't worry about ghouls and ghosts and bumps in the night, the spectre of Rodject gave VT a right fright!

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Richard Beale on June 27, 2012, 01:25:42 AM
Quote
Redhouse?  Wasn't Abbey Meads a lot bigger than Redhouse?  Can you answer that?
haven't a clue why you feel Redhouse is 'special', I really dont think they (local councillors) were looking that far ahead when they made that decision. I'm no stranger to SBC planning dept, at that time this was an easy win for politicians and planners, made both seem more effective than was actually the case.

I'm fairly sure that there wasn't supposed to be anymore than one road opening onto tadpole lane (oakhurst way) in the original framework plan, Muggins will know for sure (she may still have the plans), however one or two have since been punched through by developers. None appeared on the framework plan, I assume they had planning permission BEFORE construction.

That it again came up for discussion in 2010, i don't know about as by then I was no longer involved professionally and no longer lived there.

I'm not defending what went on, but Redhouse/oakhurst are large housing areas and invariably what's right for one street is not right for another. It was bad enough for open space which at the time was my 'domain', you could NEVER get it right, one persons lovely kids playground/shrubbery/open space was their next door neighbour's den of iniquity and late night hell....

Its extremely difficult to please all so you have to be very careful when making decisions.....
 
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on June 27, 2012, 06:37:58 AM
It's all history now. Let's look to the future. At the moment Oakhurst Way is the stream route for new Tadpoles to get to Town and the M4.

It strikes me there are only two fair and sensible options.

1. Stop Tadpole Farm (it's just daft - where are all these rich people in their mansions going to work? I haven't noticed an employment strategy to get jobs for the 2000+ people who will live in Tadpole Farm)

Or

2. Open Addinsell Road and Lady Lane so that there is a fair spread of traffic across the northern areas.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 27, 2012, 08:18:48 AM
Richard

Quote
Redhouse?  Wasn't Abbey Meads a lot bigger than Redhouse?  Can you answer that?
haven't a clue why you feel Redhouse is 'special', I really dont think they (local councillors) were looking that far ahead when they made that decision. I'm no stranger to SBC planning dept, at that time this was an easy win for politicians and planners, made both seem more effective than was actually the case.

I'm fairly sure that there wasn't supposed to be anymore than one road opening onto tadpole lane (oakhurst way) in the original framework plan, Muggins will know for sure (she may still have the plans), however one or two have since been punched through by developers. None appeared on the framework plan, I assume they had planning permission BEFORE construction.

That it again came up for discussion in 2010, i don't know about as by then I was no longer involved professionally and no longer lived there.

I'm not defending what went on, but Redhouse/oakhurst are large housing areas and invariably what's right for one street is not right for another. It was bad enough for open space which at the time was my 'domain', you could NEVER get it right, one persons lovely kids playground/shrubbery/open space was their next door neighbour's den of iniquity and late night hell....

Its extremely difficult to please all so you have to be very careful when making decisions.....
 

Some of us have been unaware of the history and circumstances surrounding the Adinsall road decision. Your open and informative contribution is appreciated. You may have been number 2 into Redhouse way, but you are number 1 when it comes to a contribution to this thread about Adinsall. O0

Onto politics and the rewriting of history there was I thinking what a web they weave as a wholesale revision is underway. The people of Priory Vale are now seeing that the political swirl created over this application is far from transparent. Populist  politicians  must be careful of creating a murky pond on Tadpole with a primordial slime that few careers, credibility and integrity could survive. :fish:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on June 27, 2012, 08:46:49 AM
"Stop Tadpole Farm (it's just daft - where are all these rich people in their mansions going to work? I haven't noticed an employment strategy to get jobs for the 2000+ people who will live in Tadpole Farm)"

That's exactly what we were saying about the whole of the Northern Development 20 years ago! But that is not a critisism of you using it now.

Of course Abbey Meads is bigger than Redhouse..........Abbey Meads is the name of the area between Lady Lane (that was)and Cricklade Road. It contains the 'villages' of St. Andrews Ridge, Ash Brake, Groundwell, Hollywood park (who quickly dropped that name thank you very much!   

It's equivalent on the other side of Lady Lane (that was) is Priory Vale that contains the 'villages' of Tawhill, Redhouse, Oakhurst, Hayden End etc.

The Blunsdon Road through Haydon Wick gave out on to Lady Lane approx by the The Manor pub, it went straight up the hill alongside ASDA (as it is now). Tadpole Lane met it at the top of the hill and Tadpole Lane ended and Lady Lane carried on to the right out onto The old road at Blunsdon Hill.  Only part of Lady Lane (the bit from Haydon Wick to where it meets Tadpole Lane) has been closed to traffic and it was practically single lane anyway, as you can see from the resulting cycleway.  I think there might be some confusion here, with people thinking that Tadpole Lane is the name of the road right through to Blunsdon hill (as was). 

I'm afraid I don't know/have the original plan for a link from the 'villages' to Tadpole Lane, but it would make sense to have two ways out, one either side of the development and links between villages, in case of disaster.i.e. they are all mostly small roads and one big accident or something and you could be all locked in without a back door exit. And a link could have been about having a bus service through at a later date. These things were discussed in meetings about Abbey Meads.

Another clue to proposed or anticipated further development is by the roundabouts, have they a kerb line that shows the ability to put in another exit off them?   I think there are few like this up behind St. Andrews Ridge.  The people who would know of the chops and changes is the Haydon Wick Parish Council.

I don't understand the bit about a road off Thamesdown Way to Tadpole Lane, there is one - the one in the Google Earth photo that was put up on this thread. We use it regularly to get to Cricklade on the back Road (as we call  it), we don't always want to go there by the A419. I've often said to Mr Muggins that I find it a pleasant road with the green spaces/stream  on one side and, really handy, with the bus route.  I can see why you are getting upset about it being busier.

As to jobs for people, have a chat with those who live around you and you might find that it's being used as a dormitory i.e. Lots of people live here because it's cheaper, but commute out of town. One of Swindon's problem is how mobile a population we have. Going and coming all the time.

Also, I thing I have found in numerous negotiations over the years, is that the Thamesdown Transport can be amazingly influential in road decisions. Changes could have been about them - or more likely, lack of anticipated bus routes.



Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Smiler on June 27, 2012, 09:13:50 AM
Hi Muggins,

As you hold such strong opinions over the Oakhurst crew can you let me know whether you have been in contact with anyone in Oakhurst to support their campaign.  Their's has been a very linked up campaign group with lots of others all over Swindon.  If you are such a strong minded campaigner surely you will have been prepared to share your expertise with them?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on June 27, 2012, 09:23:13 AM
I don't think I've expressed an opinion as such, cetainly not a strong one, and I'm posting here, to help.  Any information that is here, that you think is helpful, you can take to the Oakhurst Association.

I'll say it again though, just to be sure, I can understand anyone wanting to defend their home against any threat.

I know what it's like dealing with the council. Whatever you are going through, I've been through. Several times.

If you and others think that what I add to this conversation is not useful I can butt out.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Terry Reynolds on June 27, 2012, 10:23:52 AM
Muggins we may have different views on life on some things, but, and those who do need to see this, you should carry on with what your are saying, anything can help and those who need it should take it on board.. :wink:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on June 27, 2012, 11:04:44 AM
Muggins you said:

"Stop Tadpole Farm (it's just daft - where are all these rich people in their mansions going to work? I haven't noticed an employment strategy to get jobs for the 2000+ people who will live in Tadpole Farm)"

That's exactly what we were saying about the whole of the Northern Development 20 years ago! But that is not a critisism of you using it now. "

**So 20 years ago the developers were promising 5 bedroom houses only in the NDA? I doubt it.**

Muggins you also said:

"Another clue to proposed or anticipated further development is by the roundabouts, have they a kerb line that shows the ability to put in another exit off them?"

**Have a look at the end of Adinsell Road. It looks like a 5 year old has finished it off. A clear indication that it was a proposed through route. Why bother finishing something when you think you are going to extend it.**



Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: sonicated on June 27, 2012, 11:52:55 AM
I'm afraid I don't know/have the original plan for a link from the 'villages' to Tadpole Lane, but it would make sense to have two ways out, one either side of the development and links between villages, in case of disaster.i.e. they are all mostly small roads and one big accident or something and you could be all locked in without a back door exit.

I raised this issue with Cllr. Faramarzi shortly before the planning meeting. The weekend before there was an arson attack in Oakhurst in flats near my home. We were woken by an explosion shortly after 4am. We went outside and there were people trapped in the flats with their heads out of the windows, one man was shouting that the garage that was on fire had a large gas cannister in it.

We were obviously very scared but this paled into insignificance compared to the people who were trapped.

I have to commend the emergency services as they arrived in minutes and were very professional. At one stage there were eight fire engines on Cassini Drive. Thankfully no one was seriously hurt but people were treated in hospital and at the scene.

That lead me to think that if Tadpole Farm is built Oakhurst Way will be the main access route for emergency vehicles. Is it up to it?

Wiltshire Fire Service approved the Tadpole Farm development so I emailed them with the above before the planning meeting and I am still waiting a reply. I am going to chase this via my councillors.

Justin Tomlinson has assured me there is no intention to turn Oakhurst Way into a dual carriageway and from this thread I learn it cannot be as the area around it is designated open space and is required for flood mitigation.

I don't want Tadpole Farm to be built and I certainly do not want Oakhurst Way to be changed. But with a health and safety hat on, if Oakhurst Way is the only main access to Tadpole Farm should it become a more major road?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: MrGrumpy on June 27, 2012, 12:30:38 PM
@Muggins
Quote
As to jobs for people, have a chat with those who live around you and you might find that it's being used as a dormitory i.e. Lots of people live here because it's cheaper, but commute out of town. One of Swindon's problem is how mobile a population we have. Going and coming all the time.

That is the problem with this application - it has internalised a huge proportion of the trips as it assumes residents will be walking to work, walking to schools and walking to shops....and even on this hopelessly optimistic and rosy view they are expecting to take Oakhrst Way to an 88% degree of saturation.  We all know that people will have to travel to work, school and shops by car - so why have they been allowed to get away with internalising the trips-rates?

@sonicated -
Quote
Justin Tomlinson has assured me there is no intention to turn Oakhurst Way into a dual carriageway and from this thread I learn it cannot be as the area around it is designated open space and is required for flood mitigation.

Unfortunately in these days of expediency all too many things get done / said for political reasons that should not be....when the NDA was planned, it was said it would be all right as the Purton-Iffley Link would take the traffic away to mitgate the impact of 10000 houses on the local roads.....but it never has been built and we all suffer with traffic on Mead Way / Akers Way and the other local roads that we are all forced to use as a result.

The North Locality group passed a motion the other year calling for a halt to development in the north until such time as the promised infrastructure was in place to support it...but we fear that once again the views of the communities will be buried under the caterpillar treads of the developers and Council who are, to use the words of some of the Councillors at the Tadpole Planning Committee meeting, trying to get those communities the best deal possible...

With a shocking lack of school places in North Swindon, congested roads and an application that does nothing to address any of these issues, how is approving it getting the existing communities a good deal?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Smiler on June 27, 2012, 12:53:55 PM
@Sonicated

A feasibility study to widen Oakhurst Way has already been put through one of the local Parishes.  The brook could easily be piped!  JT/VT are aware about that information I am sure and VT has made it clear that she own's half of Oakhurst Way.  I understand that the Parish have already noted this and the Parish boundary will be adjusted accordingly to protect the green space.  I hear that it is already in the green space policy of the local Parish.

Also the planning report for Tadpole talked about Bus Rapid Transit and the officer acknowleged that it is about bus laning and other measures.  I'm not sure what thread you are talking about but nobody in Oakhurst has said it is impossible to widen Oakhurst Way and we don't trust a word the local politicians are saying.  Oakhurst Way will become a rat-run from hell and the NDA Tory councillors voted that through.

No S.106 renegotiation can sort that mess out!
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Tea Boy on June 27, 2012, 12:56:06 PM
Hi Muggins,

As you hold such strong opinions over the Oakhurst crew can you let me know whether you have been in contact with anyone in Oakhurst to support their campaign.  Their's has been a very linked up campaign group with lots of others all over Swindon.  If you are such a strong minded campaigner surely you will have been prepared to share your expertise with them?

Has anyone bothered to pm muggings.....  You might learn how to fight this, who to approach. She's got a track record.  :clap:

It's at least worth talking to. Certainly a legend when it comes to old north Swindon.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Steve Wakefield on June 27, 2012, 01:11:16 PM
Anyone who thinks that Oakhurst way can become a Meadway is having a giraffe. Do people really want to have a Meadway outside their doors? In my personal opinion  the only solution to this jumble of muddled and ill-thought out dysfunctional road planning is as you've guessed, Purton Iffley link.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on June 27, 2012, 01:42:00 PM
@Tea Boy

Thank you for your most kind offer to pm Muggins.  I know that you mean well and though a person may be a legend in the old North Swindon, their campaign to stop building at Groundwell, Abbey Meads and now Tadpole Farm bears fruit that although the campagin was hard it was not successful. I do not know Muggins and if they live in Oakhurst then they would be aware that ORA has been running for 8 years.

I know some of the people on ORA and there are many of my neighbours who are members of ORA.  If one of those is Muggins then they have not introduced themselves at any of ORA's meetings of which there have been several.

I will admit that I am a resident of North Swindon and Priory Vale and support the ORA group in all the work they do for the Oakhurst community.  They care about what is going on and they listen.  Now they have organised themselves to defend us from the capitulation of the people who are elected to represent us.

ORA really is about the residents of Oakhurst and our community.  We look from within ourselves and our resources to follow the course of action currently in progress.  As we move forward, if Muggins has been involved in obtaining an injunction during their campaign then I am sure if they write to the ORA committee they will deal with it.

Like other people in North Swindon my neighbours and I love our community.  To use the ever-jaded locality word - we like where we live.  It would appear our elected representatives do not.

I hope Muggins likes where they live so therefore we probably share much common ground and share some stuff in common.

What's saddens me is that the only councillor who appears to have objected to this application in the planning report was Cllr Wakefield.  I know he appears to be droning on about the Purton/Iffley Road link but despite his repitition he is right.  That is what people in Oakhurst want. 

We have seen on the Oakhurst blog that ward councillors attended planning committee to speak out (a term I use loosely) and what they said is on the ORA blog.  However, when I looked to see if any of the objections appear in the planning report alongside Cllr Wakefield they are not there and there isn't one from the MP either. 

Why is this?  Did they only have a touch of second thought after the report and after Labour approached the people in Oakhurst?  Otherwise their absence in the report speaks volumes.

We do not want a Mead Way imposed upon Oakhurst Way.  How many schools are actually off Mead Way?  How many roundabouts are there off Mead Way?  How many pavements run the length of Mead Way?  How many bus stops are there on Mead Way?

As you can see having a laugh about converting Oakhurst Way into Mead Way is one thing but to quote John McEnroe to our elected representatives you cannot be serious!

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on June 27, 2012, 01:54:17 PM
 :WTF: Widening Oakhurst way will achieve these things:

All in all North and West Swindon needs to  :wakeup: because Tadpole Farm traffic will be coming to Oakhurst Way, Thamesdown Drive, Akers Way and Mead Way....and they're all too busy already!!
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on June 27, 2012, 02:21:56 PM
"Muggins you said:

"Stop Tadpole Farm (it's just daft - where are all these rich people in their mansions going to work? I haven't noticed an employment strategy to get jobs for the 2000+ people who will live in Tadpole Farm)"
"

Oh NO I didn't say that, I quoted someone else!!  I put it in to comment on the employment strategy.

I know that ORA has been going a long while now, No 1 Son lived in the area and attended some of the meetings. Or was that Redhouse?  Though I can't remember any of said members of either being at any community/residents group meetings I've been to.  I am interested in following community groups and their activities. Sometimes if a worker helps a group set up, we share that worker.

Ref "there being nothing to stop the brook being piped'.  I'm jolly sure you could stop that happening. They tried to suggest that over here at Groundwell Brook, we put out foot done on that one. Can't get my water course bearings right at present but if that isn't the Haydon Brook it must run into it and so to the River Ray and then to the Thames.  It will have been kept for a reason. At the very least as wildlife corridor. Now I wish I had the planning schedules for it! If that were by me the campaign Placards would be being polished up and made ready.

Smiler, I don't live at Redhouse or Oakhurst. I live on Penhill, right behind Penhill Copse, the field below me, left, right, above,beyond etc. has been built on in the last 20 years and my children either have, or are living in the Northern Development.  Like I said I know what you are going through and I can't understand why you are so hostile.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 27, 2012, 02:23:47 PM
All in all North and West Swindon needs to  :wakeup: because Tadpole Farm traffic will be coming to Oakhurst Way, Thamesdown Drive, Akers Way and Mead Way....and they're all too busy already!!

I am non plussed when west Swindon councillors complain about Ridgeway Farm and Washpool traffic, pouring into Shaw but somehow do a Nelson's Eye to traffic from Tadpole Farm  :-\

Smiler

Are you talking about the councillors in Abbey Meads? Did you note Shaw or Freshbrook Councillors  objecting after careful reading I could not find their objection in the report.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on June 27, 2012, 02:42:30 PM
@George Elliot

I don't want to be political but what you have missed is that all the councillors share one thing in common.  The same party and leader.

Cllr Nick Martin is as contradictory as any of those in North Swindon.  The one thing you can rely on is their political unreliability to do what they say.  Priory Vale ward had a turnout lower than Penhill.

So if previous Penhill (ward) voters are pd off the same as the people in Priory Vale then it is understandable that poltical turnout is so low.

We have one thing in common.  North Swindon bounced off the boundaries of Penhill and now Tadpole is bouncing off the natural boundary of Tadpole Lane.  If we had been as unfortunate as the people of Penhill who do not have a road coming from the development through Penhill then Priory Vale people would feel they are very lucky.

As we have said Priory Vale and Penhill are communities in North Swindon.  If it is good enough for the people of Penhill not to have the traffic from the North Swindon development pouring through where they live then surely that is good enough for Priory Vale.  We do not want to be treated any worse than Penhill would.

What we have is a sorry tale of Oakhurst Way being eyed up like a big chicken by a wily blu fox.

@ Muggins

We are not hostile people in Oakhurst.  Passionate.  We care about our community.  We love where we live and if you detect some frayed tension from me then it was the last thing that I wanted to do, to appear hostile.

I live in my community, I'm close to my neighbours and the only people we are hostile to are the developers and the councillors who allowed this to happen.  But as far as my posts towards you Muggins.  :surrender:

So anyone reading my posts should not be mistaken that our parlez is a sign of surrender or weakening of our spirit.  We are prepared to fight on this.  So anyone who doesn't want to be caught in collateral damage should be aware before they enter this thread.  TalkSwindon is a great place to be and it does say this forum uses live ammunition. 

People in Oakhurst are not in a hostile mood they are in a defensive mode.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on June 27, 2012, 03:00:35 PM
@Mr Grumble

"People in Oakhurst are not in a hostile mood they are in a defensive mode."

The best form of defence is attack!  >:D

If I was a North Swindon Councillor I'd be watching my back and keeping to the rules. The people of Oakhurst are looking for any excuse to get them dragged in front of the standards committee. BEWARE!  :bottom:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on June 27, 2012, 04:27:11 PM
@George Elliot

I don't want to be political but what you have missed is that all the councillors share one thing in common.  The same party and leader.

Cllr Nick Martin is as contradictory as any of those in North Swindon.  The one thing you can rely on is their political unreliability to do what they say.  Priory Vale ward had a turnout lower than Penhill.

So if previous Penhill (ward) voters are pd off the same as the people in Priory Vale then it is understandable that poltical turnout is so low.

We have one thing in common.  North Swindon bounced off the boundaries of Penhill and now Tadpole is bouncing off the natural boundary of Tadpole Lane.  If we had been as unfortunate as the people of Penhill who do not have a road coming from the development through Penhill then Priory Vale people would feel they are very lucky.

As we have said Priory Vale and Penhill are communities in North Swindon.  If it is good enough for the people of Penhill not to have the traffic from the North Swindon development pouring through where they live then surely that is good enough for Priory Vale.  We do not want to be treated any worse than Penhill would.

What we have is a sorry tale of Oakhurst Way being eyed up like a big chicken by a wily blu fox.

@ Muggins

We are not hostile people in Oakhurst.  Passionate.  We care about our community.  We love where we live and if you detect some frayed tension from me then it was the last thing that I wanted to do, to appear hostile.

I live in my community, I'm close to my neighbours and the only people we are hostile to are the developers and the councillors who allowed this to happen.  But as far as my posts towards you Muggins.  :surrender:

So anyone reading my posts should not be mistaken that our parlez is a sign of surrender or weakening of our spirit.  We are prepared to fight on this.  So anyone who doesn't want to be caught in collateral damage should be aware before they enter this thread.  TalkSwindon is a great place to be and it does say this forum uses live ammunition. 

People in Oakhurst are not in a hostile mood they are in a defensive mode.

The reason we haven't got a road going through Penhill is because we blessed well fought off more than one attempt to put one though.  It's no good comparing Penhill with Priory Vale or any part of it it is so different both at a social and demographic level. I told you where I lived to show you that I would be empathising with you about having all those houses on your doorstep that you didn't account for when you moved there. You and I have a lot in common.

And I didnt say the people of Anywhere were hostile, I said you come across as hostile to me - me personally. Why would that be, I'm not critisising you or any of you over there, and I don't know why you think I am.  I am empathising. 

Could it be that you do know me, though a mutual friend maybe? by reputation anyway, and that I've already done something somewhere else to upset you? 
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 27, 2012, 06:24:03 PM
Another link S106 Fings ain't wot they used to be North Swindon got 6% and the borough got 82% that is 88% what happend to the other 12%?
Quote
The minutes give a good background to the problems associated with spending the initial £21m, as expenditure on the necessary infrastructure required some government grant funding which was not forthcoming. It appears that there was a danger that the funds would be lost so some delicate negotiations were undertaken, with the developer, to ensure that the majority of the money was not lost.
 
The results were that
 ?the developer's contribution was reduced to £14m
 ?there was a more liberal interpretation of the S106 rules
 ?only ?£700K was to be returned back to the community?.
 
On the face of it, it appears that the community has been locked out of the information flow regarding the expenditure of these funds. Haydon Wick Parish Council are quoted as saying ?Only 6% spent in Haydon Wick. 82% spent in rest of borough. Residents feel short changed? and that the ?amount coming back [into the area] was derisory?

http://haydonend.co.uk/index.php?itemid=188 (http://haydonend.co.uk/index.php?itemid=188)

I wonder if decisons to spend the S106 were made during the period when Justin Tomlinson MP was an Abbey Meads Councillor or in SBC Cabinet?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on June 27, 2012, 06:27:41 PM
@ Cllr Mike Bawden

Quote
Mike Bawden (Con, Old Town and Lawn) is the longest-serving councillor in Swindon, having been a member for 42 years.
 
He said the plans would be a major change in how the council works, but also warned that ward councillors would require sufficient funds to make it successful.
 
Mr Bawden added: “There’s no point in delegating responsibility to ward councillors unless they have a budget and they have authority to deal with routine planning matters.[/quote
 
“There’s no point saying to me that Old Town and Lawn will have a budget of £20,000 a year, because I can’t do anything with that. A road crossing costs £50,000 to £100,000.
 
“It’s pointless unless you have a budget that’s meaningful and can deliver what residents want.”
Quote

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/local/9150642.Council_management_cull_will_save_over___1m/ (http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/local/9150642.Council_management_cull_will_save_over___1m/)

So an ex-Tory leader of SBC says you can't do anything with £20,000 but the current Tory leader thinks that £60,000 is enough money to stop the devastating impact of the traffic from 1,695 houses on the local roads of Oakhurst Way/Garsington Drive.

It's absolute hypocrisy!
 
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Smiler on June 27, 2012, 06:38:20 PM
@George Elliot
Quote
I wonder if decisons to spend the S106 were made during the period when Justin Tomlinson MP was an Abbey Meads Councillor or in SBC Cabinet?

JT was on cabinet when the Haydon 3 S.106 agreement was renegotiated. 

He was also around when all the decision were taken about where development should go on the North West border.  Trouble was you had the West Swindon mafia running cabinet at this time and they made sure that West Swindon was looked after.  As the nest was empty in North Swindon it was a case of whilst the cat's away the mice do play. 

Was JT culpable for what has happened here?  Who knows?  Some may say or think that at best he is guilty of incompetence - not bothering to protect the area or at worse he is complicit but playing the game of I wasn't involved.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on June 27, 2012, 06:50:31 PM
@George Elliot

The issue about the S.106 has not been cleared up.  There still haven't been any answers and if Rod Bluh wants to communicate through localities then this is something he shouldn't just do in the run up to an all-out election.  Rod has to learn that democracy is something that happens every day in Swindon along with accountability.

Is Rod going to supply the information about where the money went including the 12%?

I, and many others, in North Swindon are surprised Rod and his cabinet carved up S.106 and spent it in West Swindon, Dorcan and Croft.

After this example what guarantee is there that the S.106 at Tadpole Farm is going to be spent for the benefit of Priory Vale?

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 27, 2012, 07:01:42 PM
the West Swindon mafia running cabinet at this time and they made sure that West Swindon was looked after.

By that do you mean Cllr Martin who at the time was in charge of finances and Cllr Greenhalgh who was in charge of planning and highways nearly forgot Cllr Perkins who at the time I believe was in charge of Schools.

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on June 27, 2012, 07:13:00 PM
:
  • And worst of all...higher likelihood of vehicle+pedestrian road traffic accidents...given that parents already have problems crossing the road due to how busy it is making it more busy is stupid...having said that a local councillor recently said something about "kids dying outside schools al the time" - I am sure someone can dig out the proper quote and name...please
[/b][/list]


The Councillor in question was the then Old Town WC Bawden ( Conservative)  making representation to the Croft Planning Committee on Nov 29 2011. Quite who he was representing we did not know.

You have to read it in context therefore I have included the whole spiel.
It is worthy of note that when later questioned Cllr Bawden could provide no evidence to support his statements re the silent majority.

"Cllr Bawden.. who spoke for  7minutes 42 seconds at the planning committee unchecked by the Chair, Cllr D Heenan..  For reference, expert speakers were permitted 5 minutes, residents 2 minutes.
 
Cllr Bawden….
I don’t intend to enter into so and so said something and somebody else said something, whatever I have said , I will stand by what I said this, the 3 of us have ensured that the views of the residents  have got into the system.

Can I go through the sequence of events as far as I am concerned, it is the policy of the council that an application should be made for a school on the site. Various searches took place, we all know that Stagecoach is not available at this point in time and we all know , so lets’s concentrate really on what the Council decided and the Cabinet decided. The Croft Site was identified as a suitable site, my 2 colleagues can speak for themselves.. I will speak for myself.

One of the things I was particularly concerned about was access, I did my best to ensure that when Halcrow did their appraisal that Halcrow looked at coming in off Croft Road as well as Marlborough lane. I pushed that question hard and I believe that was the right decision to push hard. The Halcrow people said that , in their opinion, Croft Road wasn’t  suitable due  to traffic volumes and gradient. 

The real debate then moved on to Marlborough lane. As far as I am concerned ,when Halcrow 1st came back they did not address the problem of the Marriott. I said at that point that the Halcrow  report was flawed. I did my best to ensure that Halcrow addressed this problem, when they came back with the final report this particular problem was addressed.

So really where we are now, and I ask Gwillam ( Lloyd) this question, the Officers, the Halcrow Report, they are International Consultants, they are saying that , in their opinion , using Marlborough lane is a fit for purpose way to serve the site. Our officers have said in their professional opinion coming in off Marlborough Lane is a solution which is capable of delivering the access into the site.

We all know that residents around the site are very much against it. We started off with the numbers , now we are finished up where I always thought the debate should be on access via Marlborough lane.

So really where we are now is that the Planning Committee have to make a judgment, in my opinion, whether they feel that the professional input from Halcrow and the professional input from officers say that the road is fit for purpose.

There are many examples across town of services roads to schools not being any wider and in many  cases not so wide.

You , Mr Chair and your committee  , have a difficult decision

Can I make just 1 point, the silent majority of people in the Old Town area, in my opinion 80-90%, say we need another school. Those that know me know me know I do not walk away from what telling what I believe to be the facts, in my opinion, I will stand by this, is that the majority of Old Town Residents support the school.

Can I also make the point, many of you have heard me say before,  Children have only 1 chance at education. If I personally didn’t think that this was a site which would provide  a sports centre, provide playing pitches which  cost of £1-5 to £1.6m , if I didn’t think for 1 moment that putting a school there would not give the children who go there…….. and remember ..talking about the life of a school of 60 years, that’s thousands of  pupils. I think this is a fantastic site.

I personally am prepared to accept  Halcrow’s professional report and am personally willing to accept Gwillam Lloyds’s professional opinion . I pose a question to Gwillam , is he happy to assure me that the road is fit for purpose, it doesn’t mean that he can guarantee that there won’t be an incident there because incidents….just listen..

There are accidents outside of schools. Children die outside of schools. You cannot under any circumstances stop accidents .So I really wanted to pose to Gwillam that ( asking the chair) .
. you might want Chair ( Cllr D heenan) to Gwillam Lloyd… a direct question to the Head of Highways.. so a  direct  answer.


Gwilliam Lloyd stated : A Direct answer:  Yes,  subject to mitigation works and financial contribution this is a suitable and a safe proposal."
[/i]

Note .. the £1.5 - 1.6m playing pitches were funded in most part from Haydon 3 S106 money ... as Cllr Bawden later delighted to tell us..

Cllr Bawden ran away to another ward in May 2012.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mart on June 27, 2012, 07:21:14 PM
Cllr Bawden ran away to another ward in May 2012.

Slunk, slithered, ambled even, but ran, no. What price loyalty?

I find it easier to trust none of them, then apologise if you have sullied them.

Developers own Swindon, that's a fact, the best you can hope for is to screw them for a few more bob, or point them at another ward.

The rules count for nothing, they are bendier than a very bendy bendy thing.

I may not have added much to the intellectual weight of the argument, but dems de facts.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Jodie Maggio on June 27, 2012, 07:39:34 PM
.

The rules count for nothing, they are bendier than a very bendy bendy thing.


Is this one for the politicsl dictionary?

Truth , a very bendy bendy thing from our political masters

See thread about tarred brush memory recall failure
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on June 27, 2012, 07:51:50 PM
Cllr Bawden ran away to another ward in May 2012.

Slunk, slithered, ambled even, but ran, no. What price loyalty?

I find it easier to trust none of them, then apologise if you have sullied them.

Developers own Swindon, that's a fact, the best you can hope for is to screw them for a few more bob, or point them at another ward.

The rules count for nothing, they are bendier than a very bendy bendy thing.

I may not have added much to the intellectual weight of the argument, but dems de facts.

Cllr Bawden ran away along side Cllr Foley... Cllr Mattock stayed... we have his measure.

All 3 of them presided over the funding and approval of a school with money asked for and given by the Gov for a need in North and Central Swindon. When North Swindon folks want to know where their school places are... come and see the abomination on the Croft.

These 3 were not alone... Perkins, Renard and Bluh have all been involved in this travesty as did every Cllr who voted this through. North Swindon Cllr Tomlinson amongst them..

Shameful and shabby..

 
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on June 27, 2012, 09:15:59 PM
Thanks jennyb
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: MrGrumpy on June 27, 2012, 09:17:53 PM
the West Swindon mafia running cabinet at this time and they made sure that West Swindon was looked after.

By that do you mean Cllr Martin who at the time was in charge of finances and Cllr Greenhalgh who was in charge of planning and highways nearly forgot Cllr Perkins who at the time I believe was in charge of Schools.

Yes that's about it but worse than that it appears that Cllr Martin was Lead Member for Resources and Chair of Governors (or at least on the board of governors) at the time when he transferred the money to Greendown school.  So you sign off Borough money to a school where you are on the governing body.

Also I've heard that Cllr Perkins and Cllr Greenhalgh served on the governing body.

These pitches were supposed to be self-funding when they were put in at Greendown and there was money kept for the purpose of replacing them when they got worn out.  However, the money was apparently frittered away on other things.

I've never seen a declaration of interest from Cllr Martin on this subject on the Borough's website.

Cllr Bawden isn't used to sharing the Old Town S.106 money - he used his own and then took other peoples to partly pay back when some more money came into the Old Town coffers.  If anyone ever opened up that can of worms they would find that Old Town is quids in from the S.106 pot.  Where was the Borough wide approach there that was imposed on the Haydon 3 renegotiated agreement. 

Cllr Greenhalgh signed off the Borough wide cabinet member decision note for S.106.

Shame on you all for your behaviour - that's the politics of power in a few hands.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Steve Wakefield on June 27, 2012, 09:36:24 PM
Cllr Martin is free to vote and to represent Shaw as he sees right and proper, but that does not mean residents agree with him.  I am a resident of Shaw and people who live here are concerned, some of them gravely about the increase in  traffic that now uses Swinley Drive and then Purton Road to avoid using Meadway past the Chinese Pagoda.

Shaw is becoming more of a rat run in my opinion Cllr Nick Martin does not represent me or my view by permitting a development at Tadpole Farm that increases traffic using Meadway. I understand feelings are running high in Oakhurst. They are beginning to brew here in Shaw and the more that Shaw becomes gridlocked the more that brew is likely to ferment. Councillors along with the South Swindon MP have held open meetings and made comments about an increase of traffic in the area from Ridgeway Farm development. They know the extent of the feelings and concerns in Shaw about increased traffic.

On another matter I  note the exchanges between one or two posters that may live in Oakhurst and those that may live without. Tadpole farm and development in the North East part of Wiltshire, Ridgeway Farm, Washpool, Pry Farm is the reality we are now facing. I believe that reality is too important for us to fumble the ball at this point and "Knock On" against ourselves.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 27, 2012, 11:54:23 PM
It appears from what is being discussed the S in S106 is like an S as in Spanish Maine, with councillors being a type  of Walter Raleigh sailing the high seas of development and then plundering the treasure. Bringing the treasure back  is easy but finding where  it is hidden is more difficult without a map and big X marking the spot?  :2funny:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Richard Beale on June 28, 2012, 12:03:30 AM
After this example what guarantee is there that the S.106 at Tadpole Farm is going to be spent for the benefit of Priory Vale?

Its all according to the wording in the S106 agreement, some developers have got wise and stipulate where its to be spent, some just want tocough up and build, and pretty much don't mind where its spent.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 28, 2012, 12:06:45 AM
After this example what guarantee is there that the S.106 at Tadpole Farm is going to be spent for the benefit of Priory Vale?

Its all according to the wording in the S106 agreement, some developers have got wise and stipulate where its to be spent, some just want tocough up and build, and pretty much don't mind where its spent.

I read that as whichever way it is spent,  it is as they say all within the rules!
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: MrGrumpy on June 28, 2012, 12:56:36 AM
@George Elliot

The problem with that sort of statement "all within the rules" is the implication that the rules are open and transparent.  The renegotation of the Haydon 3 agreement was done in secret.  The changes to the S.106 rules which allowed Borough wide expenditure were hidden in a non-related section of the Full Council report which took some time to find years later with directions.

That's within the rules but not exactly open and transparent.  It's like trying to spot a needle in a haystack.  There's a bit of luck finding the needle if you happen to jag yourself with it.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 28, 2012, 07:17:21 AM
The decision made by planning committee is now posted on the Oakhurst Residents Association blog. It is just over two weeks since that fateful decision was made and a lot has been posted and discussed since then on this thread.
Quote
Cllr Toby Elliott had proposed approval with extra conditions and Dale Heenan had seconded the motion.

Cllr Lovell (Chair):
 "OK, just before we go to the vote it would be useful just to clarify what the proposal is."
Richard Bell (Head of Planning):
"Thank you, Chair.  As it stands, as far as I understand it, we have a motion now to the effect you’d be voting on “that the Head of Planning be authorised to grant outline planning permission under delegated authority and approve the means of access subject to:
1.     completion of a legal agreement in consultation with the Chair, Vice-chair and ward members to secure the planning obligations that are material to that decision; and,
2.     conditions set out in this report, with delegated authority to make reasonable amendments   to those conditions before issuing formal consent as may be necessary.
If, by the 13th September the legal agreements and conditions have not been satisfactorily resolved, the Head of Planning may refuse planning permission for the following reason:
Developer has failed to enter into legal agreements to secure the necessary infrastructure provision to mitigate the development, and as such the proposal is contrary to policy DS8 of the Swindon Borough Local Plan under urban policy for infrastructure."
Cllr Lovell:
"That’s it."
Cllr Elliot:
"Could we make a change so it’s not just ward members as this is in St Andrews ward, but as we have previously mentioned the majority of traffic goes through Priory Vale ward?  So if we then include all Northern Sector councillors..."
Cllr Lovell:
"Right...so..".
Cllr Martin:
"You are asking us to vote on a totally new..."
Cllr Lovell:
"Absolutely, absolutely....ok, Nick, you’re next then and Vera I’ll be with you in a moment."
Cllr Martin:
"The only point I will agree with you on this is there seems to be a link between outline approval and the section 106 agreements.  Now, I agree with everything you have said about negotiating the section 106 agreement, but I don’t quite understand, because – correct me if I’m wrong, but outline approval granted, if we don’t ever agree the section 106 then the outline approval won’t succeed.  You know, we actually have to have a section 106 agreement for the outline approval to fly, take off, run a way whatever you want to call it, so actually making the outline approval wait until you’ve actually negotiated and agreed 106 – I mean if you look at Regent Square, Regents Circus, and the old college building – we gave outline approval to that but it eventually took 8 months to negotiate the 106."
Mr Awojobi (Borough Solicitor):
"Thank you, Chair.  I think you are saying the same thing that they recommended, it is just that this is a very fine distinction.  What they, the decision tonight, which is a resolution to grant, so which means he doesn’t have to come back to you as long as the conditions of your resolution are met, and one of those conditions is that the 106 be agreed in consultation with ward members, Chair and Vice-chair.  So if that is not possible then there is no planning permission to be granted.  So you can in principle, you can agree that but subject to that being agreed as asked.  And that is the way it is always done.  So that remains the package."
Cllr Lovell:
"Thank you, right - Vera as ward member?"
Cllr Tomlinson:
  Cllr Tomlinson again did the non inclusive Tory stuff we have grown to expect when she said 
Quote
Cllr Tomlinson:
"I am sorry to be controversial on this, I did ask at the beginning that the three ward councillors – this will be attached to the St Andrews ward - the road that keeps coming up, Oakhurst Way, is half theirs  half ours – we can look after what happens on that road.  I feel if too many councillors are included in consultations and decision making we will never get anywhere and if that's the reason that Priory Vale ward councillors are included then surely people in Blunsdon, Highworth,  St Margaret, Moredon, Rodbourne Cheney, Haydon Wick should all be included as well."


Cllr Toby Elliot may have been off message when he said
Quote
  Cllr Elliott:
"Tonight you have complained about the fact that consultation does not always happen and you want to close the circle further?  I think that as many ward councillors as want to have a say should."


Cllr Heenan assists with an intervention
Quote
"Ok, ok – can somebody from the floor actually give a suggestion how we resolve this?"
Cllr Heenan:
 "I think because he has proposed and seconded a motion that the Northern Sector councillors and therefore I propose we vote...."


A decision is made and all the North Sector Councillors can be included.  :clap:

http://www.oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/councillors-quotes-at-planning_28.html (http://www.oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/councillors-quotes-at-planning_28.html)

Do they think it's all over?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on June 28, 2012, 07:59:20 AM
The decision made by planning committee is now posted on the Oakhurst Residents Association blog. It is just over two weeks since that fateful decision was made and a lot has been posted and discussed since then on this thread.
Quote
Cllr Toby Elliott had proposed approval with extra conditions and Dale Heenan had seconded the motion.



Cllr Toby Elliot may have been off message when he said
Quote
  Cllr Elliott:
"Tonight you have complained about the fact that consultation does not always happen and you want to close the circle further?  I think that as many ward councillors as want to have a say should."


I was at the meeting and heard Cllr Elliot's statement.... when he let slip the truth...  I am sure his ears would have been soundly boxed for that one!

With regards to S106 Money... the Crofters were informed in Nov 2010 that the Croft Muga Pitches had been funded by the Football Foundation and S106 money from the Malborough Park deveopment.

It only later came to light that £1.265m S106 money had actually been appropriated from the Haydon3 S106 fund by our then WCs. Cllr Bawden actually rubbed his hands and crowed with delighted when he told us. 

Residents were shocked that money meant for mitigation in one part of the Swindon was being used in another without public knowledge, involvement or agreement.  A bit like daylight robbery....
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on June 28, 2012, 08:06:31 AM
What I'd like to know is what Rod Bluh 'signed away' to get wined and dined up in London by Crest.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 28, 2012, 08:34:42 AM

I was at the meeting and heard Cllr Elliot's statement.... when he let slip the truth...  I am sure his ears would have been soundly boxed for that one!


Jennyb

After reading the Croft thread I may have been a touch hasty in my comment about Cllr Elliott as he may not be off message after all?  Oakhurst Way is not in a  single ward issue because Cllr Tomlinson says it is. Cllr Elliott has clearly identified it as a multiward issue. The Croft Thread indicates somewhere in it that it would appear it is in someway responsible for this happening? I believe this as Croft re defined the petition criteria --- if I am not mistaken - care to comment on that observation?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on June 28, 2012, 09:46:29 AM

I was at the meeting and heard Cllr Elliot's statement.... when he let slip the truth...  I am sure his ears would have been soundly boxed for that one!


Jennyb

After reading the Croft thread I may have been a touch hasty in my comment about Cllr Elliott as he may not be off message after all?  Oakhurst Way is not in a  single ward issue because Cllr Tomlinson says it is. Cllr Elliott has clearly identified it as a multiward issue. The Croft Thread indicates somewhere in it that it would appear it is in someway responsible for this happening? I believe this as Croft re defined the petition criteria --- if I am not mistaken - care to comment on that observation?

The Borough Solicitor ruled that it is not the location of a utililty but rather the market that utility is in place to serve that determines the ward/multi ward definition ( this is a precis of his wordy responses).

In trying to close down debate on the Croft he has redefined the rules. I am not sure that the BS thought this one through.

What this means in real terms is that for example, any public road or school or pub or hotel or business or shop or medical facility or housing developments advertised for sale to the general public ... become multi ward issues and therefore councillors from any ward may make representation at any committee or in the public on these matters.

It would also imply to me... that any resident may avail themself of support from either the North or South Swindon MP on these matters.

The Croft has brought many matters to the surface.... don't you think?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Steve Wakefield on June 28, 2012, 11:53:56 AM
I was at the meeting and I will await the minutes to see what was agreed before I comment on this matter. My only observation is that Cllr Tomlinson did ask that only St Andrew's councillors be involved and Cllr Elliott did insist that Priory Vale councillrs be involved. I am it appears not a Northern Sector councillor, but Mannington Western is affected by this decision based on the interpretation of Northern Sector. That said I am content to allow the Conservative Councillors from the two wards to get involved with the planning decison and its outcome. They are the elected councillors that straddle Oakhurst Way in the Northern Sector and I would not seek to quarrel with that.

I will make my representations to Labour Group Leader Cllr Jim Grant about the decision and the Purton/Iffley Road Link to allow a co-ordinated response.  . I will also continue to support local people who object an increase in traffic along  Meadway and Bruce St Bridges.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on June 28, 2012, 12:32:16 PM
@Steve Wakefiled

"I will also continue to support local people who object an increase in traffic along  Meadway and Bruce St Bridges."

How? Tadpole Farm has been agreed and the traffic is coming your way. Are you going to stand in the road with a stop sign and ask if people started their journey in Tadpole Farm? Yeah I know it's a daft idea. So is pretending that you have any influence on this matter. You might say you can support local people but the developers have this sown up unless Planning Committee change its mind. Get real and start the campaign for a Judicial Review!
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on June 28, 2012, 01:49:54 PM
WANTED
For Crimes Against Oakhurst and its Residents
Have you seen these traitors?

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Steve Wakefield on June 28, 2012, 02:11:01 PM
The decison may have been posted by ORA, but here is an update from the developers website.

Quote


Welcome

Crest Strategic Projects welcomes you to this website which will inform you of our plans for a major new development on land at Tadpole Farm, Blunsdon, North Swindon.

A planning application for a new neighbourhood of nearly 1,700 traditional family homes, alongside 149 acres of public open space and around 11 acres of employment space was approved unanimously by Swindon Borough Council’s planning committee on Tuesday 12th June 2012. This is subject to conditions and a legal agreement to be concluded by 13th September 2012.

Crest are delighted with the outcome and are looking forward to bringing forward the new community. The Masterplan and design, including the nature park, the common and the woodland will deliver a high quality , lower density of development.

Crest will continue to work will both the Council and the community in refining and providing more detailed plans leading up to the first phase and throughout construction.

The application can be viewed on the Council’s web site, [url=http://www.swindon.gov.uk]www.swindon.gov.uk[/url] ([url]http://www.swindon.gov.uk[/url]), ref S/11/1588.
http://www.tadpolefarm.com/index.html (http://www.tadpolefarm.com/index.html)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on June 28, 2012, 03:56:32 PM
Steve, not sure how the quote from the developer changes the price of fish...

1. Crest has received planning permission and there is a snowball's chance in hell of the planning committee withdrawing permission because extra S.106 money wasn't forthcoming. (Unless Toby Elliott mans up and represents his ward instead of being a Rod Bluh patsy.)
2. There is massive pain coming in terms of traffic, education provision overload, environmental damage and extra flood risk (concrete doesn't absorb water as well as soil, grass and trees).
3. So given 1 and 2 we the people of North and West Swindon need to rise up and challenge this ridiculous, cynical and morally bankrupt planning decision through Judicial Review!

Who's with me?

:argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Jean on June 28, 2012, 04:22:21 PM
Steve, not sure how the quote from the developer changes the price of fish...

1. Crest has received planning permission and there is a snowball's chance in hell of the planning committee withdrawing permission because extra S.106 money wasn't forthcoming. (Unless Toby Elliott mans up and represents his ward instead of being a Rod Bluh patsy.)
2. There is massive pain coming in terms of traffic, education provision overload, environmental damage and extra flood risk (concrete doesn't absorb water as well as soil, grass and trees).
3. So given 1 and 2 we the people of North and West Swindon need to rise up and challenge this ridiculous, cynical and morally bankrupt planning decision through Judicial Review!

Who's with me?

   


If you think that you have grounds for Judicial Review, think again unless you have very deep pockets and don't care that you will lose. Planning permission has been granted either by Council or on appeal for many sites in Swindon where all the constraints you mention apply. The Judicial Review of the Front Garden planning application also failed.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on June 28, 2012, 04:29:58 PM
 :WTF:

Oakhurst won't roll over and die.

Priory Vale has been stabbed in the back by our MP and ward councillors as this shows...
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on June 28, 2012, 05:03:07 PM
@ Steve Wakefield

Interesting how the developers are sure of the approval.  I hear the Tory councillors are talking about how they are going to control this application towards a refusal if the developers don't play ball.  I don't know whether you're of the same opinion but there is not a chance of refusing this application when the developers have already coughed up enough 106 money to fulfil their planning requirements.

It's all an interesting game of political cat and mouse to delay the inevitable failure of local councillors to fairly represent the community.  Fair is a good word and fair share of the traffic is also a good concept.

I did some checking around this afternoon and managed to get hold of one of the ORA committee members.  I understand that you have attended every single one of ORA's public meetings.  Your theme has always been the excess traffic flow on Mead Way and the need for the promised infrastructure to be delivered as part of the Tadpole Farm application, namely the Purton-Iffley Road link.  You attended their last but one committee meeting to discuss this topic.

Your view is shared in the resolution passed by the Parishes of Blunsdon St Andrew, Haydon Wick Parish Council, ORA and the Rodbourne Cheney Residents' Association at a Locality meeting in 2011.

From my perspective it's a shame you represent Mannington and Western not Priory Vale.  We could have done with an on the ball councillor in the NDA.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 28, 2012, 11:26:56 PM
Zlatan

I admire your style thrust in hard like a striker through the defence. Keep the posts coming  as the Oakhurst Avenger has been a little quiet of late.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 29, 2012, 08:08:40 AM
Cllr Vera Tomlinson on ORA website from planning committee.
Quote
A development of great magnitude - and not only that, but we would lose the 106 money that we could, if we had it, use to mitigate the harm arising from this development.  Also, we must take into account costs.  They would be awarded against us, which would have to be borne by the Council Tax payer, i.e. you and me.  Regretfully, and with a very heavy heart, I believe that if we can’t have an outright refusal tonight the only way forward is for the Planning Committee to go along with the Officer’s recommendation.   


Why would the S106 have been lost?
http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/councillors-quotes-at-planning_29.html (http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/councillors-quotes-at-planning_29.html)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Smiler on June 29, 2012, 09:38:41 AM
@George Elliot
Cllr Vera Tomlinson on ORA website from planning committee.
Quote
A development of great magnitude - and not only that, but we would lose the 106 money that we could, if we had it, use to mitigate the harm arising from this development.  Also, we must take into account costs.  They would be awarded against us, which would have to be borne by the Council Tax payer, i.e. you and me.  Regretfully, and with a very heavy heart, I believe that if we can’t have an outright refusal tonight the only way forward is for the Planning Committee to go along with the Officer’s recommendation.   


Why would the S106 have been lost?
[url]http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/councillors-quotes-at-planning_29.html[/url] ([url]http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/councillors-quotes-at-planning_29.html[/url])


Good point George.  The whole phallacy of the Tories argument is that the S.106 money would have been lost.  Let's think about Haydon III.  When the NDA was lost on appeal did all the S.106 money disappear?  If you look at what's on the table at Tadpole Farm it works out roughly the same as the Haydon III, lost on appeal, money per house built.

We are always hearing about how bad the Haydon III money was - the Tories renegotiated it in secret and lost several £m more.  So why are we worrying about losing the TF S.106 if it's in the same ball park as lost on appeal Haydon III?

I don't know about you but all we hear about is money, money, money.  Not good design, not superb infrastructure, just money.  What's the difference between Ridgeway and Tadpole?  Is the infrastructure in place, no to both or yes to both?  Where is the S.106 money going to go from these sites?

Isn't it up to the ward councillors to take the view that the council tax payer wants to spend the money fighting development at TF?  After all there was no co-equivalence between Commonhead and TF?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on June 29, 2012, 09:52:17 AM
@Cllr Tomlinson at the North Locality meeting 7/6/12

Quote
It is not a done deal if we turn it down, if this Planning Committee turns it down, that the inspector will also turn it down. We have the right to speak at that appeal and if our arguments are good then the inspector will agree with us.  So don’t think that if it is turned down it is going to cost you all a lot of money.  Not necessarily so.

Was Cllr Tomlinson grandstanding in front of a packed locality meeting?  Why does she constantly try to get the sympathy vote for shafting the residents?  Are north Swindon residents open to the old jedi mind trick thing?  Remember she has the ear of the Leader and has had a meteoric rise from the ranks.  She surely isn't in need of sympathy?

Where were the 4,000 leaflets the NDA Tories talked about?  Was most of Oakhurst informed about the planning committee?  If they delivered 4,000 leaflets then where were the St Andrew's residents on the night?  Why would you talk about getting improvements to Oakhurst Way when you've had two years to sort out the issue?

Cllr Tomlinson attended the developer consultation and made it clear that she thought that is was a great application.  She certainly spoke on many occasions to the developer's PR consultant?  Many residents in Oakhurst felt that she wasn't really against the application but had an agenda to get the Redhouse Village Centre completed.



Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Jean on June 29, 2012, 09:55:28 AM
I have explained this before, so sorry to those of you who have read it. The offer made by developers with regard to S106 money is normally more if planning permission is granted by the local planning authority. If the case goes to appeal, the planning inspector still makes recommendations about S106 contributions and conditions that should be agreed should s/he recommend that the appeal is upheld. However this is usually much more rigorous and less than the sweeteners that developers originally offer as a briibe to gain planning permission.

This is certainly true with regard to the Coate appeal. We lost about £1m in contributions to improve Coate Water.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Smiler on June 29, 2012, 12:31:46 PM
@Jean

I have explained this before, so sorry to those of you who have read it. The offer made by developers with regard to S106 money is normally more if planning permission is granted by the local planning authority. If the case goes to appeal, the planning inspector still makes recommendations about S106 contributions and conditions that should be agreed should s/he recommend that the appeal is upheld. However this is usually much more rigorous and less than the sweeteners that developers originally offer as a briibe to gain planning permission.

This is certainly true with regard to the Coate appeal. We lost about £1m in contributions to improve Coate Water.

Are you missing the point because I have explained before that the S.106 at TF is in the ball park of the Haydon III S.106 deal that was a lost on appeal.  Per house built what are we getting?  The same as a masterplan lost on appeal? So what does that say about what has been negotiated as part of TF?

Why is the focus always on the 106 not on the infrastructure/concept debate?  Money isn't the only thing involved in planning unless you subscribe to the developers/LPA type argument?  Surely not Jean as you have higher end wishes?

It's a multi-layered process and every one of the layers has to be dealt with properly.  This is the only way Swindon will grow sustainably and benefit Swindon residents properly without undue harm.

If you've been working in this field for so long then please don't lose your credibility by expounding the jaundiced view of those with a vested interest in the outcome.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on June 29, 2012, 01:26:15 PM
VT already new the game was up nearly two years ago. Anyone remember the Redhouse Residents Association meeting that Dave Potter spoke at? When someone asked Dave if Tadpole Farm was likely to get planning permission he said that although he couldn't say for sure it was likely to happen sooner or later. VT (sat in the crowd near the questioner) turned to them smiled and nodded...STITCH UP OR WHAT!!

At the end of the day the NDA is a cash cow for the Tories. Let developers build. Hoover up the S106 money and spend it to keep the votes where they are under threat. Then they can say to the electorate there; "Look what we've done for you - vote for us!" Not that any of the other parties wouldn't do it if they had thought of it of course...

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on June 29, 2012, 01:28:49 PM
Don't forget they postponed the Tadpole Farm decision till after the local election...wonder why that was?!?!?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: oldtowner on June 29, 2012, 01:38:10 PM
Don't forget they postponed the Tadpole Farm decision till after the local election...wonder why that was?!?!?

Just as they turned down planning permission for the Locarno/ Corn Exchange in Old Town just a few weeks before the local elections back in 2011 when Cllr Foley was up for re-election.

Sorry for the thread drift but it does show a behavioral pattern
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: sonicated on June 29, 2012, 01:53:51 PM
Are you missing the point because I have explained before that the S.106 at TF is in the ball park of the Haydon III S.106 deal that was a lost on appeal.  Per house built what are we getting?  The same as a masterplan lost on appeal? So what does that say about what has been negotiated as part of TF?

I wasn't taking notes at the meeting but I believe the borough solicitor confirmed, in response to Cllr Tomlinson, that if we lost an appeal the S106 money would be reduced.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on June 29, 2012, 02:15:47 PM
@sonicated

"I wasn't taking notes at the meeting but I believe the borough solicitor confirmed, in response to Cllr Tomlinson, that if we lost an appeal the S106 money would be reduced."

Are you an apologist for the poor performance and bad behaviour of our councillors or what? It's not about the money. No amount of money is going to mitigate the damage that stupid development like Tadpole Farm will do.

Think more carefully before backing up the fools and mountebanks that represent us (or more accurately don't represent us) in North Swindon.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: sonicated on June 29, 2012, 02:27:27 PM
Are you an apologist for the poor performance and bad behaviour of our councillors or what? It's not about the money. No amount of money is going to mitigate the damage that stupid development like Tadpole Farm will do.

I was merely backing up what Jean was saying.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 29, 2012, 02:38:19 PM
Don't forget they postponed the Tadpole Farm decision till after the local election...wonder why that was?!?!?


I never knew that it was postponed, there must have been a reason given if there was a postponement.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Smiler on June 29, 2012, 03:06:57 PM
Sadly it's not just the Tories, all councillors on the planning committee voted for Tadpole Farm. Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat.

I need to correct myself there, it appears the Lib Dem (Cllr. Sewell) wasn't at the meeting so didn't vote. I walked out in disgust at the recess so didn't witness the voting.

Does anyone know why she didn't attend?

If you walked out in disgust at the recess......

Are you missing the point because I have explained before that the S.106 at TF is in the ball park of the Haydon III S.106 deal that was a lost on appeal.  Per house built what are we getting?  The same as a masterplan lost on appeal? So what does that say about what has been negotiated as part of TF?

I wasn't taking notes at the meeting but I believe the borough solicitor confirmed, in response to Cllr Tomlinson, that if we lost an appeal the S106 money would be reduced.

how did you know what Councillor Tomlinson and the Borough Solicitor said?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: sonicated on June 29, 2012, 03:22:25 PM
If you walked out in disgust at the recess......

how did you know what Councillor Tomlinson and the Borough Solicitor said?

The recess was after about two hours, maybe even more. We didn't sit in silence before it! :)

By the time of the recess all the officers had done their presentations, all members of public had spoken, I believe all the non-committee councillors had spoken and Cllr. Tomlinson had her questions answered. In this time the solicitor had spoken twice.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Smiler on June 29, 2012, 03:28:26 PM
@ Sonicated

Thanks for that. O0
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Jean on June 29, 2012, 03:55:50 PM
@Jean

I have explained this before, so sorry to those of you who have read it. The offer made by developers with regard to S106 money is normally more if planning permission is granted by the local planning authority. If the case goes to appeal, the planning inspector still makes recommendations about S106 contributions and conditions that should be agreed should s/he recommend that the appeal is upheld. However this is usually much more rigorous and less than the sweeteners that developers originally offer as a briibe to gain planning permission.

This is certainly true with regard to the Coate appeal. We lost about £1m in contributions to improve Coate Water.

Are you missing the point because I have explained before that the S.106 at TF is in the ball park of the Haydon III S.106 deal that was a lost on appeal.  Per house built what are we getting?  The same as a masterplan lost on appeal? So what does that say about what has been negotiated as part of TF?

Why is the focus always on the 106 not on the infrastructure/concept debate?  Money isn't the only thing involved in planning unless you subscribe to the developers/LPA type argument?  Surely not Jean as you have higher end wishes?

It's a multi-layered process and every one of the layers has to be dealt with properly.  This is the only way Swindon will grow sustainably and benefit Swindon residents properly without undue harm.

If you've been working in this field for so long then please don't lose your credibility by expounding the jaundiced view of those with a vested interest in the outcome.

Don't shoot the messenger! Thanks for backing me up Sonicated.

I don't get why Smiler and Zlatan are so aggresive towards people who are trying to help.   
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Smiler on June 29, 2012, 06:16:00 PM
@Jean

I'm not aggressive Jean, I have an opinion.  If disagreeing with you makes me aggressive then when you disagree with me I could say you're aggressive.  I think you are entitled to your opinion, like Zlatan, Sonicated, Muggins and everyone else.

If you say something I don't agree with then expect to be challenged.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: sonicated on June 29, 2012, 06:54:21 PM
Smiler you may not be aggressive but you do come across as very aggressive to me. This could put experienced people off from helping and it could also put off local residents from getting involved which would be a shame.

I wasn't going to reply to your post questioning me earlier for this reason, but in the end I did want to let you know the format of the meeting so I replied.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on June 29, 2012, 07:11:00 PM
@Jean

"I don't get why Smiler and Zlatan are so aggresive towards people who are trying to help."

Whatever...shame people mistake passion and a refusal to give in for aggression
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on June 29, 2012, 07:12:31 PM
@sonicated

"I walked out in disgust at the recess so didn't witness the voting."

Lucky Churchill didn't walk out in disgust in 1940 isn't it!
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Smiler on June 29, 2012, 07:14:33 PM
@Sonicated,

That's your opinion and if you can provide evidence of where I am aggressive as you are not sitting in front of me as we talk then I am surely at a loss as to how you can work out the tone and inflection of my posts.  They are your perception.  As regards experience, people can put their contribution on this thread, it's not moderated and a discussion takes place.

Anyone who believes that residents would perceive my posts to be aggressive can only be talking to the Tories who are known for smear tactics.  And you are not doing that are you?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: MrGrumpy on June 29, 2012, 07:38:19 PM
 :clap: :clap: :clap: Well said, Zlatan and Smiler - just because posters aren't acting like the Priory Vale and St Andrews councillors and rolling over to let the developers tickle their tummies does not make them aggressive, it just means they are willing to have a view and stand by it.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 29, 2012, 08:23:42 PM
Are we following and contributing to a contentious argument? If that is what it is then it is hard to define as aggressive. IF I USE UPPER CASE what does that signify to some? I am SHOUTING I am mystified why there is a perception of aggression in the posts.

Is there an expectation that Zlatan and Smiler should start their posts with please, please, please and finish with ever so humble and  a million thanks for reading my post?

A debate may be controversial so far this one 500 posts in, is frankly quite tame. If people want to take offence then that is their right. But I do not read any of the psts as aggressive I have seen more aggression in a Priest's Sermon. Some I have listened to have been all hell and damnation and delivered with an aggresive posture, but the person sat next to me later thought they were insipid.

If a poster is looking for deference or that their posts  will be received as a font of knowledge then that is fine. It will assist us if they help by posting please clap at the end? These cues are missing from posts and without that it allows interpretation.  My partner has told me I have more opinions than a cab driver and can talk jibber ish with the best of them

I wish to apologise to all readers ever so humbly for posting my opinion up onto a forum.





Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on June 29, 2012, 08:40:27 PM
SO THERE!!!

Sorry

so there...sshhh
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on June 29, 2012, 08:44:13 PM
Right. Back to the point....

The politicians have let Swindon down again despite BIG promises to oppose Tadpole Farm just before the election.

Now we'll have to fight it without them.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: sonicated on June 29, 2012, 08:49:56 PM
Lucky Churchill didn't walk out in disgust in 1940 isn't it!

Churchill had power in 1940. At the planning meeting when the councillors were talking I had no power or influence (ok, I could clap when I hear something I supported) and the councillors were basically stating they were backed into a corner - so I left.

I didn't want to hear any more - I'm not ashamed of that.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: sonicated on June 29, 2012, 09:03:39 PM
Anyone who believes that residents would perceive my posts to be aggressive can only be talking to the Tories who are known for smear tactics.  And you are not doing that are you?

Damn right I'm talking to the Tories! My three councillors and MP are all Tories. I've asked the councillors questions on their public Facebook group trying to hold them to account. I publically requested Justin Tomlinson on Twitter to make a statement about Tadpole Farm and he offered to call me to discuss it.

When you say "And you are not doing that are you?" it seems to imply that it's a bad thing? I want to hold the people who represent me to account.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 29, 2012, 09:13:56 PM

I publically requested Justin Tomlinson on Twitter to make a statement about Tadpole Farm and he offered to call me to discuss it.


I am told that is a predictable response and you are not the first that has said so.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on June 29, 2012, 09:24:07 PM
@ Cllr Tomlinson at Planning Committee

Quote
But I would ask this Planning Committee to include in those conditions that no deals are done without the consent of ward councillors following consultation with them along with the Chair and Vice-chair of this committee.  I also wish the 106 agreement remains open for further negotiation to take place – one thing I think needs renegotiating is what is given for improvements on Oakhurst Way and several other places.


@ Sonicated
Anyone who believes that residents would perceive my posts to be aggressive can only be talking to the Tories who are known for smear tactics.  And you are not doing that are you?

Damn right I'm talking to the Tories! My three councillors and MP are all Tories. I've asked the councillors questions on their public Facebook group trying to hold them to account. I publically requested Justin Tomlinson on Twitter to make a statement about Tadpole Farm and he offered to call me to discuss it.

When you say "And you are not doing that are you?" it seems to imply that it's a bad thing? I want to hold the people who represent me to account.

Exactly how would you hold Cllr Tomlinson to account?  She's already done the dirty deed.  Do you believe in pointless conversations?  Did you ask her why she stabbed the residents in the back?

The real Oakhurst residents tend to be a little more discerning in their conversations with blu politicians.  Maybe that's because experience has taught them it's a waste of time.  But sonicated do carry on banging your head against a brick wall, it's your head and the world is made up of different styles (just in case you thought that Mr Grumble is also being aggressive).

@Vera Tomlinson

Notice how all her language appears to be about power and control.   The words deal and 106 (money) flow easily off the tongue along side negotiation.  Funny how the beginning of the speech was full of woe and sorrow, along with the disturbed sleep patterns.  Could anyone think that she also specialises in manipulating the facts as she looks sorrowful and she stabs you in the back? 

Sounds like sonicated could have fallen for her mind tricks or wants to look like he/she has?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: MrGrumpy on June 29, 2012, 09:26:01 PM
Ok, but I still can't get my head around Cllr Tomlinson -

http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/councillors-quotes-at-planning_29.html (http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/councillors-quotes-at-planning_29.html)

On 7 June 2012 she was calling Cllr Renard defeatist for arguing in a public meeting that they should approve Tadpole Farm-

Quote
It is a bit of a defeatist attitude, that one. We are fighting for something that means an awful lot to an awful lot of people that live in the area which we are talking about and who will be affected most. It is not a done deal if we turn it down, if this Planning Committee turns it down, that the inspector will also turn it down. We have the right to speak at that appeal and if our arguments are good then the inspector will agree with us.  So don’t think that if it is turned down it is going to cost you all a lot of money.  Not necessarily so.  And, in my opinion it is a fight worth fighting.  We have to do it, it concerns so many people and it is such a bad application


Yet just 5 days later she reversed her position and recommended approval of Tadpole Farm -

Quote
We do not have, bar the flimsiest reasons, any ammunition to defend our decision.  In planning terms and planning rules, we would without any shadow of doubt lose and would be heavily and soundly criticised.


So which was it - the rousing speech to a room full of residents to make them think she was on their side or the support for the developer at the Planning Committee 5 days later?  It makes my head spin when people change their position so quickly! :spin:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Terry Reynolds on June 29, 2012, 09:32:46 PM
give her an invite to come on here and state her current position.... :wink:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Smiler on June 29, 2012, 09:34:33 PM
@ George Elliot

I publically requested Justin Tomlinson on Twitter to make a statement about Tadpole Farm and he offered to call me to discuss it.


I am told that is a predictable response and you are not the first that has said so.

George we all appreciate your comments and give you masses of claps and praise but your dry wit has an aggressive edge on it (just joking). :2funny: :clap:  Be careful with sonicated he/she might get upset.

Was the predictable response the I am against inappropriate development (with a robotic tone for those who need interpretation of comments).  What does inappropriate development mean?  His own mother asked that kind of question at the North Locality meeting.  One presumes that if she doesn't know what he's talking about then who would?



Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 29, 2012, 09:36:36 PM
Mind tricks what a bizarre thought are the Tories svengali type characters or NDA versions of snake charmers? If you think that they are is it your right or priveledge non agressively of course to tell them to faquir off?  :2funny:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 29, 2012, 09:40:52 PM
give her an invite to come on here and state her current position.... :wink:

Why would anyone want to issue an invite? Are councillors so high and mighty they need an invite from Talkswindon? They can join like the rest of us.  :wink:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Smiler on June 29, 2012, 09:50:48 PM
Mind tricks what a bizarre thought are the Tories svengali type characters or NDA versions of snake charmers? If you think that they are is it your right or priveledge non agressively of course to tell them to faquir off?  :2funny:

@George Elliot

We've already indulged in that response but sonicated is lagging behind us in this argument.

But getting back to the subject of VT's comments rather than her character (sorry sonicated for our bad behaviour, joke, joke and by the way George you must learn how to behave).

Vera Tomlinson can change her position within five days.  It must have happened during her sleepless night.

What is more strange than a five day turn around is how she can start a speech without giving any indication of how it will end.  She is quite clever from what I understand at designing a clap-trap but the somersault of her short speech really takes the cherry.

How one can start a speech with woe it is awful and end up with we must support this is beyond my use of English comprehension.  I have spent most of the last week on Amazon looking for the Tomlinson guide to political skulduggery.  If anyone has a copy perhaps they will translate what VT's speech really meant?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 29, 2012, 10:02:46 PM
Could it be I feel your pain but you have to understand the bulldozer is ticking over and in an hour the driver will be on double time?  :2funny:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on June 29, 2012, 10:07:29 PM
@Smiler
Quote
How one can start a speech with woe it is awful and end up with we must support this is beyond my use of English comprehension.  I have spent most of the last week on Amazon looking for the Tomlinson guide to political skulduggery.  If anyone has a copy perhaps they will translate what VT's speech really meant?

I have seen JT and his mother perform:

a quadruple toe-loop, a triple axel, a double lutz and then some backwards crossovers all in the space of a few seconds.  They are sometimes referred to as the political Torville and Dean.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: MrGrumpy on June 29, 2012, 10:18:23 PM
I am getting even more confused by Cllr Tomlinson's confusion....

One minute she is upset because she feels she has been left out of a consultation about the Rapid Bus Transit scheme -

http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/quotes-from-officers-at-planning_23.html (http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/quotes-from-officers-at-planning_23.html)

Quote
"But this is relevant, and it is relevant to these people who live in that area that it will affect the most.  There has been no consultation with ward councillors who represent these people, and that’s my point.  This Council very often falls down on consultation because Officers take decisions and we are back on that old old story – who runs this Council? Members or Officers?"


The next minute she is trying to not involve anyone else in her consultations -

http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/councillors-quotes-at-planning_28.html (http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/councillors-quotes-at-planning_28.html)

Quote
Cllr Tomlinson:
"I am sorry to be controversial on this, I did ask at the beginning that the three ward councillors – this will be attached to the St Andrews ward - the road that keeps coming up, Oakhurst Way, is half theirs half ours – we can look after what happens on that road.  I feel if too many councillors are included in consultations and decision making we will never get anywhere and if that's the reason that Priory Vale ward councillors are included then surely people in Blunsdon, Highworth,  St Margaret, Moredon, Rodbourne Cheney, Haydon Wick should all be included as well."
Cllr Lovell:
"What sort of solution is that - Toby?"
Cllr Elliott:
"Tonight you have complained about the fact that consultation does not always happen and you want to close the circle further?  I think that as many ward councillors as want to have a say should.


So what is it about?  Is she happy to consult with herself, as that way nobody dares to argue back, but does not like it when other people may have dared not to include her in their consultations?

But then I guess that is the true double standards of a politician.....you have to consult with me but I don't have to listen to you...
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 29, 2012, 11:18:39 PM
Quote
But then I guess that is the true double standards of a politician.....you have to consult with me but I don't have to listen to you...


No sweat mate I feel your pain, but let us get this right; it is still your pain.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on June 30, 2012, 07:48:08 AM
Quote
But then I guess that is the true double standards of a politician.....you have to consult with me but I don't have to listen to you...


No sweat mate I feel your pain, but let us get this right; it is still your pain.

GE...

I think you have hit the nail on the head here...

To go back to the main issue ( someone will correct me if I'm wrong)...

Development without supporting infrastructure is not sustainable.

As such it should neither be presented for approval by officers or approved by the planning committee.

Because it is all about sustainability... is it not?

Is there a measure of 'sustainability' against which proposals can be assessed... or is it ...to use a well worn phrase ... 'all down to interpretation' ?

The Local Authority presented the Local Planning Authority with what residents, an MP and privately funded independent experts believed to be an unsustainable proposal for a school in the South of town ( funded by money which should have gone to the North of town).

The Local Authority recommended that the Local Planning Authority approve it. The Local Planning Authority obliged.

If this is the standard a LA applies to itself why would it apply any other standard to a private developer?






 
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 30, 2012, 08:25:30 AM
Jennyb

You are describing a game with no rules-almost. Is there no offside rule? No referee? No yellow card or sending off? It has been claimed that Crofty people paid £15,000 of their own money on legal advice.

It looks to me as if the recent grand order of events is testimony to the dawning of a realisation for some of us.  It is now clear that the days when the man woman in the street could thwart the best intentions of a benevolent planning system and an understanding inclusive  council are now long  gone.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on June 30, 2012, 08:56:53 AM
Jennyb

You are describing a game with no rules-almost. Is there no offside rule? No referee? No yellow card or sending off? It has been claimed that Crofty people paid £15,000 of their own money on legal advice.

It looks to me as if the recent grand order of events is testimony to the dawning of a realisation for some of us.  It is now clear that the days when the man woman in the street could thwart the best intentions of a benevolent planning system and an understanding inclusive  council are now long  gone.

We Crofties sought independent expert advice for which we paid £15,000.

We Crofties have learned that the word of officers is seldom challenged in public by those elected to serve and represent us.

We Crofties have heard officers say.. don't listen to the public or their experts.. listen to us.. because we are right and they are wrong..

We Crofties have studied the data used by officers and have demonstrated that their sums don't add up. We Crofties have heard the officers say... oh yes they do... we say ...oh no they don't... and then they present the data a different way and committees say... oh that is really scary... so it must be right..

We Crofties have learned that by the time it gets to the planning committee... it is too late...

We Crofties have realised why we were kept in the dark until it was all signed sealed and delivered.

The Croft has uncovered a pattern of behaviour which is manifesting itself on proposals across Swindon.  Tadpole is the latest example..

This administration and the officers who support them believe that their way works.... officers rated the Croft Consultation as 10 out of 10 ...all by themselves....  says it all ... don't you think?

Do they realise what they are doing to this town?

Do they care?

Or are we at the mercy of those who know the price of everything but the value of nothing?
 
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 30, 2012, 09:39:09 AM
Jennyb

£15,000 for advice that was ignored by councillors is evidence that money does not talk. The community capital that is created by this council's approach to executing its policies. Croft, Gorsehill, Tadpole, Chiseldon (Coate) and now rumbling in Wroughton along with a parish council review.

These are indeed  interesting times we are living in as council, community and local groups work together for the good of the Swindon.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: MrGrumpy on June 30, 2012, 09:47:07 AM
@george
Are you training for politics?   :wink:  They are all trained early on to share the pain around as many residents as possible without feeling any themselves.

@JennyB
We must remember that all politicians have a clear belief in their own omniscience - or as it appears in the political dictionary 'omnimissience', the all encompassing ability to miss the point of any argument that disagrees with your own point of view.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on June 30, 2012, 10:58:30 AM
@jennyb
Quote
Or are we at the mercy of those who know the price of everything but the value of nothing?

Absolutely.  The sad thing is that if you look at history the human race has a propensity to stand back and watch bad things happen.  Swindon people do have the power to change who runs the town.

As long as Swindon is run by councillors and officers who have the best interests of the Town at heart then I will be supporting those people.  At the moment that is not the case and the lack of openness and transparency pervades everything; sanctioned by those holding the decision-making control.

If you notice, it is the women of Swindon who are holding these politicians to account in nearly every part of the Town.  Maybe the end of this awful lot of Swindon ruiners will be brought about by all the women in the Town standing together.  Now there's a thought!

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on June 30, 2012, 11:04:33 AM
@MrGrumpy

"We must remember that all politicians have a clear belief in their own omniscience."

Time to cut their legs off at the knee then! (Metaphorically speaking)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: sonicated on June 30, 2012, 11:53:28 AM
£15,000 for advice that was ignored by councillors is evidence that money does not talk.

I think that's true until you take it to the extreme. £15,000 is a very large amount of money but it converts to a solicitor for two weeks. Tony Henman successfully fought the Weston Otmoor "Eco town" but local legend had it that he needed half his legal firm to fight it. This is fine for him but the real world cost would simply be astronomical.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on June 30, 2012, 12:22:52 PM
£15,000 for advice that was ignored by councillors is evidence that money does not talk.

I think that's true until you take it to the extreme. £15,000 is a very large amount of money but it converts to a solicitor for two weeks. Tony Henman successfully fought the Weston Otmoor "Eco town" but local legend had it that he needed half his legal firm to fight it. This is fine for him but the real world cost would simply be astronomical.

This £15,000 should be put into context.

We were given many hours of advice in addition for which we are eternally grateful.  We were given fair terms for which we are also grateful.   

We have response after response ( not answers... there is a very important difference...) from SBC that basically told us, the tax-paying public, that if we wanted answers to go and get legal advice.

This administration and the officers who support them appear to work on the basis that they are unaccountable and that the public cannot afford to challenge them.

They appear to take this stance on the internal legal advice for which we ,as tax-payers, are paying.

What we have is an organisation whose sole function is to serve the public...using public funds against the public ... suggesting that the public have to risk their own money to ensure that the LA does the job they are paid to do.

Why are they so frightened of scrutiny?

Those who do not examine what they do have no opportunity to learn.

Without an opportunity to learn there is no opportunity to improve.

Ask yourself what is happenning to Swindon and why?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: MrGrumpy on June 30, 2012, 12:37:12 PM
(http://)

Cllr Faramarzi beating a retreat from Vega Close this morning.

Cllr Elliott not far behind.

Residents saying they're giving them a hard time.  What a shame that spin never works.

Oakhurst doesn't want back-stabbing Tory councillors.



Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: The Oakhurst Avenger on June 30, 2012, 01:09:55 PM
Well, well, well. You live long enough you see it all....

Cllrs Toby Elliott in his gleaming white shirt (crisply pressed the night before) and badge, along with his sidekick Cllr Emma Faramarzi in a demure black number were out and about bright and early this morning in Oakhurst.

My bell rang but I did not answer; I would have opened the door to a Jehovahs witness, but not them. At least a JW believes they are telling the truth....

Not many people bothered to answer.

I walked down the stairs and found the following crisp, expensive looking A5 card, double sided. Side One is telling me how wonderful Justin Tomlinson our MP is...

Dear resident,

I called today (did you?) to see if I can assist you with any issues. If there is any way I can help, please do let me know......

Kind rgds,  blah blah blah


On the reverse side lots of info about my wonderful Priory Vale Ward councilors - Edwards, Elliott and Famarazi.

We called today to see if there are any issues we can help you with in Priory Vale ward. We can assist you with a whole range of issues, including schools, local transport, parking and planning, as well as every day "street scene" concerns like litter, graffitti, rubbish and recycling. We wil always do our best for local residents, no excuses, so please don't hesitate to contact us.

Now forgive me... is there an election coming up? I thought elections were last month.

This is wonderful....my councillors are going to help my child get into a local school and stop that dreadful Tadpole Farm application over the way, although they didn't mention Tadpole Farm in the flyer - funny that - they must have missed that off by mistake.

Oh well it's always comforting to get that blue flyer through the door. Makes you proud to feel British. Got to hand it to these Tory councillors they are always there for you "all year round" working hard for ME. :spin:

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on June 30, 2012, 02:42:14 PM
Well, well, well. You live long enough you see it all....

Cllrs Toby Elliott in his gleaming white shirt (crisply pressed the night before) and badge, along with his sidekick Cllr Emma Faramarzi in a demure black number were out and about bright and early this morning in Oakhurst.

My bell rang but I did not answer; I would have opened the door to a Jehovahs witness, but not them. At least a JW believes they are telling the truth....

Not many people bothered to answer.

I walked down the stairs and found the following crisp, expensive looking A5 card, double sided. Side One is telling me how wonderful Justin Tomlinson our MP is...

Dear resident,

I called today (did you?) to see if I can assist you with any issues. If there is any way I can help, please do let me know......

Kind rgds,  blah blah blah


On the reverse side lots of info about my wonderful Priory Vale Ward councilors - Edwards, Elliott and Famarazi.

We called today to see if there are any issues we can help you with in Priory Vale ward. We can assist you with a whole range of issues, including schools, local transport, parking and planning, as well as every day "street scene" concerns like litter, graffitti, rubbish and recycling. We wil always do our best for local residents, no excuses, so please don't hesitate to contact us.

Now forgive me... is there an election coming up? I thought elections were last month.

This is wonderful....my councillors are going to help my child get into a local school and stop that dreadful Tadpole Farm application over the way, although they didn't mention Tadpole Farm in the flyer - funny that - they must have missed that off by mistake.

Oh well it's always comforting to get that blue flyer through the door. Makes you proud to feel British. Got to hand it to these Tory councillors they are always there for you "all year round" working hard for ME. :spin:

It would be churlish to suggest that this is an attempt to set a trail to demonstrate that these councillors have 'engaged' with the public and have 'consulted' with them..... just in case this is all opened up to external scrutiny..

It would be very churlish indeed to suggest that elected representatives would stoop to this... so I won't..
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 30, 2012, 04:50:21 PM
Yes it would be churlish and I am grateful that you refrained from doing so.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 30, 2012, 05:11:48 PM
This is wonderful....my councillors are going to help my child get into a local school and stop that dreadful Tadpole Farm application over the way, although they didn't mention Tadpole Farm in the flyer - funny that - they must have missed that off by mistake.

Oh well it's always comforting to get that blue flyer through the door. Makes you proud to feel British. Got to hand it to these Tory councillors they are always there for you "all year round" working hard for ME. :spin:

You missed out the strong positive voice bit that is clearly printed on the card. Was it a Freudian slip?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Richard Beale on June 30, 2012, 05:49:49 PM
Desperation perhaps....

Me thinks The Tadpole farm debarcle this has backfired and now they ae out pounding the streets to see just how poorly they are thought of. Pity a few people didn't give them what for.

I'm sure the good people of Redhouse and Oakhurst have 'filled them in' on local opinion

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 30, 2012, 05:57:49 PM
Desperation perhaps....

Me thinks The Tadpole farm debarcle this has backfired and now they ae out pounding the streets to see just how poorly they are thought of. Pity a few people didn't give them what for.

I'm sure the good people of Redhouse and Oakhurst have 'filled them in' on local opinion




Yes you could say that in a strong voice.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Steve Wakefield on June 30, 2012, 07:56:04 PM
During rain squawls Oakhurst Residents are out talking to people who are commenting to them about a rash of politicians knocking on their doors nothing like a report straight from the doorsteps.  :popcorn:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on June 30, 2012, 08:20:26 PM
This is posted on the ORA blog.

http://www.oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/ (http://www.oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: MrGrumpy on June 30, 2012, 09:17:26 PM
Just come down Oakhurst Way - saw ORA people talking on the doorsteps, so honked my horn at them in support.  Got to admire the dedication of ORA out in this weather!
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on June 30, 2012, 10:50:18 PM
This is posted on the ORA blog.

[url]http://www.oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/[/url] ([url]http://www.oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/[/url])


Cllr Tomlinson's spiel beggars belief....


At the North Locality meeting on Thursday, 7th June 2012 Cllr Tomlinson speaks to the residents about how the Tadpole Farm application should be refused:

"We’ve got to get through this first hurdle, and you know our mission is to try and bring up enough points to persuade the committee to vote against it.  And it is only outline planning permission that they are seeking on the night.  So you don’t get all the conditions and bits and pieces – it is purely do we have permission to build and then the officer will decide what the conditions are. Now, if I was on Planning Committee I wouldn’t vote for that because I think the committee needs to know exactly what they are voting for......

Cllr Tomlinson was Vice Chair of Planning on Nov 29th 2011.  She heard point after point raised by residents and their experts. She heard the residents survey results. She saw the traffic chaos at the Croft Football Hub.

The Croft access mitigations that officers proposed for a 420 pupil school were a nonsense then and are still a nonsense now.

Cllr Tomlinson didn't ask a single question of Officers as she rushed to second Cllr Foley's Proposal to approve the Croft.

A school to be built in Old Town using money meant for North Swindon.

What a hypocrite...

Shameful..

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on June 30, 2012, 11:21:58 PM
A vile gentleman once blogged.
Quote
Once In A Bluh Moon, Even A Hypocrite Will Accidentally Tell The Truth….

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 01, 2012, 12:00:14 AM
Another post on the Oakhurst Residents Association. http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/councillors-quotes-at-planning_30.html (http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/councillors-quotes-at-planning_30.html)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Smiler on July 01, 2012, 12:07:41 AM
@George Elliot

A vile gentleman once blogged.
Quote
Once In A Bluh Moon, Even A Hypocrite Will Accidentally Tell The Truth?.
The hypocrite did tell the truth once during the TF debacle.  At the developer's consultation she told the residents what a great application it was.  It's funny how words stick in your mind for a long time.  One is never surprised by political ingenuineness but the truth hits you right between the eyes.  Shouldn't it be the other way round?  (said with heavy irony and masses of tearfulness :2funny:).

Careful, if I'm a politician the act of tearfulness will lead to a stab-in-the-back. :laugh:















Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on July 01, 2012, 12:23:52 AM
This is a serious post but not an aggressive one (for those who need interpretation) -

@Cllr Peter Heaton Jones

Quote
And I am not here to represent the Conservative administration of this Council – I am here as a ward councillor to represent the views of residents...To do anything else would not have been honest....Chair, I have to say a phrase that includes the words ‘not worth the paper it is written on’ springs to mind....My job tonight has been to tell you that many residents I represent, many of whom are here tonight, are opposed to this application. I share their concerns, the message is loud and clear, please do not ignore it.

There are 3 things to ponder here:

Cllr Heaton Jones' statement of:
Quote
I am not here to represent the Conservative administration of this council.

Compare this with Cllr Nick Martin at Planning Committee:

Quote
First statement of useful fact – Roderick Bluh, Leader of the Conservative Group, hasn’t discussed this application with me, hasn’t made any points to me about this application or hasn’t put any influence on me in any shape or form or publication on the subject of this planning application.  I therefore declare entirely and completely that I am unfettered in any views I take tonight and in the way I vote tonight.  I think that’s important for a member of the planning committee to state given some of the influences that have been brought to bear on some of the members which I have been interested to read and astonished me.

and Cllr Vera Tomlinson who had a five-day flip with a sleepless night:

Quote
Now, if I was on Planning Committee I wouldn’t vote for that because I think the committee needs to know exactly what they are voting for......
and then the u-turn:

Quote
... the only way forward is for the Planning Committee to go along with the officer’s recommendation [approval].

Is there an incredible coincidence here?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: MrGrumpy on July 01, 2012, 12:33:52 AM
...and add to that list of coincidences Cllr Faramarzi, who said at planning committee -

Quote
"Up until this weekend I have shared the views of Oakhurst Residents’ Association who’ve been quoted as saying that almost 100% residents in Oakhurst were against development in Tadpole Farm and that the application at this time needs to be scrapped.....But I am, however, also aware of the consequences of this not going ahead tonight which Cllr Tomlinson and Cllr Friend from St Andrews ward have highlighted."

So who or what changed her mind....
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 01, 2012, 07:38:55 AM
Was it a simultaneous damascene moment for the NDA councillors and was Nick Martin grumbling because  he had not had it?  :2funny:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on July 01, 2012, 09:23:14 AM
Nick Martin didn't need any special Bluh briefing - his vote was assured from the start as he has a vested interest in the approval of TF. No for what it is worth the circumstantial evidence indicates there was a meeting that weekend instigated by bluh party for the waverers. At this meeting they were told the 'facts of life' from high command
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on July 01, 2012, 10:07:20 AM
Of course you all know that the Local Planning Authority is independent from the Executive of the Council ie. Executive = the directors (officers) and the Leader/Cabinet (councillors)?  The Cabinet can have a view, even lobby the planning committee councillors, but they have to stop short of telling them how to vote.

Also the Planning Committee is not a whipped vote.  Councillors can vote freely - it's the only free vote that they get. 

The Labour leader called for a deferment but did his councillors follow his view unanimously?

The Conservative leader made it clear in a number of public ways that he and his cabinet were for development at Tadpole Farm.  Did his councillors follow his view unanimously?

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Smiler on July 01, 2012, 10:18:24 AM
To answer your question Mr Grumble:

The Labour councillors did not follow their Leader's view at all.

The Conservative councillors did follow their Leader's view unanimously including the ward councillors.  The only exception was Cllr Heaton Jones who made it clear that he was not going to represent the view of the Conservative administration.


Quote
The Labour leader called for a deferment but did his councillors follow his view unanimously?
 
The Conservative leader made it clear in a number of public ways that he and his cabinet were for development at Tadpole Farm.  Did his councillors follow his view unanimously?

What that all means I will leave to brighter minds than mine?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 01, 2012, 11:25:00 AM
The only exception was Cllr Heaton Jones who made it clear that he was not going to represent the view of the Conservative administration.

Smiler
Is Cllr Heaton Jones a member if the planning committee as I cannot find his name on the papers. If he is not then are his comments all for his own consumption or that of someone else?

Quote
What that all means I will leave to brighter minds than mine?

I agree  :D

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Smiler on July 01, 2012, 11:35:01 AM
@ George

What I love about you is your ability to read War and Peace between the lines.   :clap: :clap:

If only there were lots more Swindon residents like you. 

Would the current administration dare to stand for council again?  :2funny: 

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on July 01, 2012, 11:41:13 AM
@George Elliot

The only exception was Cllr Heaton Jones who made it clear that he was not going to represent the view of the Conservative administration.

Smiler
Is Cllr Heaton Jones a member if the planning committee as I cannot find his name on the papers. If he is not then are his comments are for his own consumption or that of someone else?

Cllr Heaton Jones is not a member of the planning committee.  It is interesting that both he and Cllr Mark Dempsey spoke in a similar vein.  The crowd pleaser for those with higher political ambition?  Have they copied the style of someone else we know? :)

(that was said with an element of mild suspense because the answer is just too obvious? :wink:)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: MrGrumpy on July 01, 2012, 11:52:48 AM
@Mr Grumble & George Elliot

I like answering simple questions! :2funny:

http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/tadpole-farm-north-locality-meeting-7th.html (http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/tadpole-farm-north-locality-meeting-7th.html)

Quote
the MP who has given his opinion several times is Justin Tomlinson, North Swindon MP, is my son, and he has told me his thoughts and he has put it in print. He is against inappropriate development – make of that what you like, but those are his words.


Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 01, 2012, 11:53:13 AM
@ George

What I love about you is your ability to read War and Peace between the lines.   :clap: :clap:


Distinguishing a Tolstoy from a Tallstory is child's play don't you think?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on July 01, 2012, 01:32:31 PM
Well, well, well. You live long enough you see it all....

Cllrs Toby Elliott in his gleaming white shirt (crisply pressed the night before) and badge, along with his sidekick Cllr Emma Faramarzi in a demure black number were out and about bright and early this morning in Oakhurst.

My bell rang but I did not answer; I would have opened the door to a Jehovahs witness, but not them. At least a JW believes they are telling the truth....

Not many people bothered to answer.

I walked down the stairs and found the following crisp, expensive looking A5 card, double sided. Side One is telling me how wonderful Justin Tomlinson our MP is...

Dear resident,

I called today (did you?) to see if I can assist you with any issues. If there is any way I can help, please do let me know......

Kind rgds,  blah blah blah


On the reverse side lots of info about my wonderful Priory Vale Ward councilors - Edwards, Elliott and Famarazi.

We called today to see if there are any issues we can help you with in Priory Vale ward. We can assist you with a whole range of issues, including schools, local transport, parking and planning, as well as every day "street scene" concerns like litter, graffitti, rubbish and recycling. We wil always do our best for local residents, no excuses, so please don't hesitate to contact us.

Now forgive me... is there an election coming up? I thought elections were last month.

This is wonderful....my councillors are going to help my child get into a local school and stop that dreadful Tadpole Farm application over the way, although they didn't mention Tadpole Farm in the flyer - funny that - they must have missed that off by mistake.

Oh well it's always comforting to get that blue flyer through the door. Makes you proud to feel British. Got to hand it to these Tory councillors they are always there for you "all year round" working hard for ME. :spin:

It would be churlish to suggest that this is an attempt to set a trail to demonstrate that these councillors have 'engaged' with the public and have 'consulted' with them..... just in case this is all opened up to external scrutiny..

It would be very churlish indeed to suggest that elected representatives would stoop to this... so I won't..

I will - They're desperate and we need to keep them that way! Lucky they didn't knock my door...
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on July 01, 2012, 01:44:53 PM
Nick Martin didn't need any special Bluh briefing - his vote was assured from the start as he has a vested interest in the approval of TF. No for what it is worth the circumstantial evidence indicates there was a meeting that weekend instigated by bluh party for the waverers. At this meeting they were told the 'facts of life' from high command

What vested interest?

Can we get minutes of the meeting?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on July 01, 2012, 02:06:43 PM
Rod Bluh gets a free dinner from Crest.

Tadpole Farm planning gets an easy ride with S106 money very low.

Is there a link here? Is Rod in Crest's pocket?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 01, 2012, 02:10:50 PM
Zlatan

Could this be an interest?
Quote
West Swindon councillor Nick Martin is worried that if Crest Homes’ plan for 1,700 homes at Tadpole Farm, north of Oakhurst and Redhouse is not approved, there is a good chance that Taylor Wimpey’s scheme for 700 homes at Ridgeway Farm will get the go-ahead at a planning appeal, to the disadvantage of Swindon
http://www.swindonlink.com/news/tadpole-farm-needs-approval-to-block-ridgeway-farm (http://www.swindonlink.com/news/tadpole-farm-needs-approval-to-block-ridgeway-farm)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on July 01, 2012, 02:43:18 PM
WTF! So Swindon allows a 1700 dwelling application to stop a 700 dwelling application...OMG!
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 01, 2012, 02:46:46 PM
WTF! So Swindon allows a 1700 dwelling application to stop a 700 dwelling application...OMG!

But why?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on July 01, 2012, 02:51:26 PM
You tell me! Sounds like Crest have been giving out brown envelopes...
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 01, 2012, 03:11:52 PM
You tell me!

Maybe it because Ridgeway farm has been a political issue pushed into the forefront of Shaw politics for the last 3 years. Shaw councillors are politically well connected all 3 have been in Cabinet and one was a deputy leader to boot.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 01, 2012, 04:02:33 PM
Quote
CONTROVERSIAL plans to build 3,000 homes to the west of Swindon have been slammed by Conservative councillors.


I chortled a little when I read this.

Quote
  “A Conservative government would return the power to make these sorts of decisions to local people. But in the meantime, this development must not go ahead”.


http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/local/4231949.Tories_slam_plans_to_build_3_000_homes_west_of_Swindon/ (http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/local/4231949.Tories_slam_plans_to_build_3_000_homes_west_of_Swindon/)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on July 01, 2012, 04:36:18 PM

...politically well connected...

What does this really mean then?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 01, 2012, 05:39:13 PM
For several years until quite recently a third of the Cabinet of 9 members 3 were from Shaw. No other ward has achieved that to my best knowledge and belief.  Which is in my opinion politically well connected.

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: MrGrumpy on July 01, 2012, 07:43:56 PM
Digging through some back issues of the Adver, found this from Cllr Martin -

Quote
“They want to do it on the cheap, bung us a primary school and use all the utilities and roads in west Swindon.”


http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/local/9692263.Housing_giant_appealing_against_plan___s_rejection/ (http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/local/9692263.Housing_giant_appealing_against_plan___s_rejection/)

Could he have been talking about Tadpole Farm?  Oh no, sorry - he thinks Tadpole Farm is a great idea because it is not in West Swindon......
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 01, 2012, 08:17:45 PM
There is a letter being popped through letter flaps in Oakhurst about Tadpole Farm.  It is creating a pleasant buzz amongst local residents.  Thank you to the bods for doing this, you know who you are.  :wink:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on July 01, 2012, 10:13:24 PM
For several years until quite recently a third of the Cabinet of 9 members 3 were from Shaw. No other ward has achieved that to my best knowledge and belief.  Which is in my opinion politically well connected.

The then Old Town and Lawn had 3 Conservative WCs, 2 of whom , Cllr Mattock and Foley were on Cabinet ( Croft approved and funded using North Swindon Money, Croft Muga Pitches/Haydon 3 S106) .. then Cllr Foley was off Cabinet.. on Planning Committee and Scrutiny( Croft Planning Application approved) ..now back on Cabinet for Lawn and Chiseldon.

Old Town now has 2 WCs on Cabinet.. the leader and lead member for adult social services.

Rock..paper..scissors?
 
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on July 01, 2012, 10:16:44 PM
Digging through some back issues of the Adver, found this from Cllr Martin -

Quote
“They want to do it on the cheap, bung us a primary school and use all the utilities and roads in west Swindon.”


[url]http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/local/9692263.Housing_giant_appealing_against_plan___s_rejection/[/url] ([url]http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/local/9692263.Housing_giant_appealing_against_plan___s_rejection/[/url])

Could he have been talking about Tadpole Farm?  Oh no, sorry - he thinks Tadpole Farm is a great idea because it is not in West Swindon......


Is Cllr Martin's umbrage over Ridgeview Farm linked to lack of money or lack of infrastructure?

Does Ridgeview farm have a price tag?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Rincewind on July 01, 2012, 11:36:10 PM
Has anyone thought about the role of the old North Wilts councillors, now Wiltshire Council, in the Ridgeway/Tadpole debate?

Why was Ridgeway Farm defended on appeal by Swindon Borough Council when it falls within Wiltshire?  Did the Leader of Wiltshire Council turn up to the appeal?

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 02, 2012, 11:34:56 AM
Redhouse is to get 33 more homes the ink is not yet dry on the OPP for 1695 at Tadpole. Why does this appear to have landed like a bolt out of the blu? Were St Andrew councillors and SBC not aware of this until after the application? Perhaps SBC planning chief will have to FOI themselves to find out exactly what is going on?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: sonicated on July 02, 2012, 11:57:17 AM
On the site where there should be a pub! Crest attempts to screw Swindon over yet again.

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9792175.Fears_over_plans_for_more_homes_at_Redhouse/ (http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9792175.Fears_over_plans_for_more_homes_at_Redhouse/)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: the gorgon on July 02, 2012, 12:06:39 PM
On the site where there should be a pub! Crest attempts to screw Swindon over yet again.

[url]http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9792175.Fears_over_plans_for_more_homes_at_Redhouse/[/url] ([url]http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9792175.Fears_over_plans_for_more_homes_at_Redhouse/[/url])


It isn't actually on the land earmarked for the pub, it's on land that was meant to be commercial units.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 02, 2012, 12:31:23 PM
It is also posted on the cafe culture in Redhouse thread.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on July 02, 2012, 02:21:30 PM
I've heard that a brewery has come in for the pub plot now...can anyone confirm?

Has anyone noticed that Rod Bluh is Director of the following companies...

Company Name Company Status 
LGIU ENTERPRISES LIMITED Active   :laugh:
LOCAL INFORMATION UNIT LIMITED Active   :laugh:
TRIDENT GEOTECH LIMITED Active   :laugh:
CLIFTON PROPERTY SOLUTIONS LIMITED Active 
CLIFTON PROPERTY SOLUTIONS LIMITED Active 
SWINDON CULTURAL PARTNERSHIP LIMITED Active 
THE NEW SWINDON COMPANY LTD Active   :laugh:
IT CLEANING LIMITED Active 
BANKS LIMITED Active 
BANKS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED Active 
PAYROLL HUMAN RESOURCE SERVICES LIMITED Active (Director Resigned 20/07/2006)
ONLINE50 LIMITED Active (Director Resigned 04/11/2004)
TFS PAYROLL SOLUTIONS LIMITED Active (Director Resigned 23/03/2005)
BANKS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED Active (Company Secretary Resigned 02/08/1993)
CLIFTON DEVELOPERS LIMITED Dissolved 
CLIFTON DEVELOPERS LIMITED Dissolved 
SWINDON RAILWAY HERITAGE CENTRE TRUST Dissolved 
FD ONLINE LIMITED Dissolved 
CLIFTON ANTIQUES LIMITED Dissolved 
CLIFTON ANTIQUES LIMITED Dissolved 
BANKS COMPUTER SERVICES LIMITED Dissolved


..a couple (highlighted) look interesting...wonder if there are some conflicts of interest here?? He hasn't listed them all on his declaration of interests - http://ww5.swindon.gov.uk/moderngov/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=454&T=6 (http://ww5.swindon.gov.uk/moderngov/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=454&T=6) - naughty naughty!!
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Jean on July 02, 2012, 05:55:56 PM
The minutes of the last Planning Committee Meeting have been put up here:

http://ww5.swindon.gov.uk/moderngov/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=5771 (http://ww5.swindon.gov.uk/moderngov/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=5771)

Quote
The Committee considered: -
 

(a) Applications for permission to develop;

(b) Recommendations of the Head of Planning.

(c) The views of interested persons set out in the report circulated with the Committee Agenda;

(d) The Additional Information Sheet circulated before the meeting;

(e) The comments of Councillors Faramarzi, Grant, Dempsey, Moffatt, Tomlinson, Heaton-Jones, Friend and Wakefield in respect of application numbered S/11/1588

(f) The comments of the following interested persons:-

 App No. Name
   

Address/Organisation
   
S/11/1588
   

Des Dunlop - Agent
Steph Excell - Haydon Wick PC
Paul Excell - 4 Southwald Close
John Harnett - Cricklade Town Council
Stuart Boyd - Blunsdon PC
Michael Hughes -
Kareen Boyd - Old Town
Julian Cope - Oakhurst Swindon
Richard Ball -
Sarah Mcdermid
Peter Edwards
David Morrison
Terry Hunt - Rodbourne Cheney Res Assoc

            Resolved – That, in respect of application numbered S/11/1588: (1) the Head of Planning be authorised to grant outline planning permission under delegated authority and approve the means of access subject to:

0(a) Completion of a legal agreement in consultation with the Chair & Vice Chair of the Planning Committee, and Northern Sector Councillors (St. Andrews and Priory Vale wards) and to secure planning obligations that are material to that decision; and

(b) The conditions set out in this report, with delegated authority to make reasonable amendments to those conditions before issuing formal consent as may be necessary.

(2) That if, by the 13 September 2012, the legal agreement and conditions have not been satisfactorily resolved, the Head of Planning may refuse planning permission for the following reason:

The applicant has failed to enter into a legal agreement to secure the necessary infrastructure provision to mitigate the development. As such the proposal is contrary to policies DS8, T1 and T2 of the Swindon Borough Local Plan 2011 (2006), policy DP2 of the Wiltshire Structure Plan 2016 (2006), Developer Contributions: Development Control Guidance Note Update (2010) and policy DMP4 of the Swindon Borough Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2026 Revised Proposed Submission Document (2010).
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Smiler on July 02, 2012, 10:56:01 PM
@George Elliot

Redhouse is to get 33 more homes the ink is not yet dry on the OPP for 1695 at Tadpole. Why does this appear to have landed like a bolt out of the blu? Were St Andrew councillors and SBC not aware of this until after the application? Perhaps SBC planning chief will have to FOI themselves to find out exactly what is going on?

What you don't mention is the Redhouse Community Centre that will be built as part of this deal.  Is this a more important part of the developer's proposals?

I've heard that at the North Locality Cllr Tomlinson has been talking non-stop about this for about a year.  She asked attendees to send her questions that they wanted raised with the developer at TF concerning this Community Centre.  Cllr T had a meeting with the developer earlier this year and reported back to the Locality hailing her success at getting them to commit to building the Community Centre.

Did the residents of North Swindon pay the ultimate price for the Community Centre?  How would they balance the TF decision against a community centre?


Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on July 02, 2012, 11:18:07 PM
@ George Elliot

Redhouse is to get 33 more homes the ink is not yet dry on the OPP for 1695 at Tadpole. Why does this appear to have landed like a bolt out of the blu? Were St Andrew councillors and SBC not aware of this until after the application? Perhaps SBC planning chief will have to FOI themselves to find out exactly what is going on?

@ Smiler

Quote
What you don't mention is the Redhouse Community Centre that will be built as part of this deal.  Is this a more important part of the developer's proposals?

Did the residents of North Swindon pay the ultimate price for the Community Centre?  How would they balance the TF decision against a community centre?

The funniest part of all this (said with a heavily ironic laugh but no aggression) was that a leaflet was issued by the Abbey Meads ward councillors asking where the residents would like to spend £700,000 that the Tories had secured from the S.106 pot.  The money was actually their's in the first place but was clawed back from cabinet and their Borough-wide spending and set up as a clap-trap for Cllr Tomlinson.

The leaflet gave some options for where the money could be spent.  Guess what came out on top? 

Is this the first time that any of you have heard of tax payers S.106 money being given to the Tories who then decide to spend it on their own project? :wakeup:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Rincewind on July 03, 2012, 12:16:33 AM
At a Redhouse Residents Association meeting last year, Cllr Tomlinson expressed dismay that the residents were voting for grit bins instead of her beloved community centre.

There was discussion of allowing groups like the scouts etc to have block votes to skew the vote to choose the community centre.

Did the residents expect to have to take 1,695 houses at Tadpole Farm and another 33 in Redhouse meant for commercial units and not houses to pay for their shiny new community centre?  Weren't they led to believe that the community centre was being paid for by s.106 money that Cllr Tomlinson had in the bank and not by selling out yet more land to the developer to build on?  Does this mean they get the community centre but lose the shops they have been waiting for?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: The Oakhurst Avenger on July 03, 2012, 03:07:56 AM
Cllr Tomlinson will get her beloved Community Centre to lord it over the plebs of Redhouse and North Swindon. She got her 30 pieces of silver from the Romans for her sell-out of Tadpole Farm. The residents she claims to reprsent couldn't give two figs for a community centre - they want shops, pub and restaurant and grit bins - useful things that serve the community not the self-obsessed, vain interests of Cllrs.

I hope Vince Cable when he finishes investigating the 'cess pit' of the City of London and the banks therein, comes to North Swindon where we have a cess pit of our own...
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 03, 2012, 07:25:04 AM
The Leapfrog Nursery has been empty and boarded up for years and what happend to the old Tesco that came and went in North Swindon? Taw Hill is coming like a ghost town you never see a blu councillor there!

Tadpole Farm was granted OPP and then bang another 33 units is going to fall onto the area that was going to be a commercial centre.

There is one thing here that does not add up we are told that to have a successful business economy in Swindon we need more houses. We get the houses, but then the Tories tell us the business units can't thrive, because there are not enough.... Houses!  :idiot2:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 03, 2012, 08:07:03 AM
Oakhurst website has a quote from Cllr Dale Heenan, is he trying to give his blu colleague a pub plug?  :2funny:

Quote
we’ve had the hard working councillors, like Tomlinson, trying to campaign for things like the pub and community centre, these kinds of things are things we need to nail down now and this period of further negotiation would allow Officers to really tackle those kind of points."
http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/councillors-quotes-at-planning.html (http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/councillors-quotes-at-planning.html)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on July 03, 2012, 08:56:56 AM
@ George Elliot

Oakhurst website has a quote from Cllr Dale Heenan, is he trying to give his blu colleague a pub plug?  :2funny:

Quote
we?ve had the hard working councillors, like Tomlinson, trying to campaign for things like the pub and community centre, these kinds of things are things we need to nail down now and this period of further negotiation would allow Officers to really tackle those kind of points."
[url]http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/councillors-quotes-at-planning.html[/url] ([url]http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/councillors-quotes-at-planning.html[/url])


Which Tomlinson is he trying to give a plug to - the one who wants a pub or the one who wants a community centre?  Can you have both on the site?  :fish:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Smiler on July 03, 2012, 09:09:41 AM
Some questions to answer on the ORA blog:

Does keeping the S.106 agreement for highways generic and high level mean that the money will be spent Borough-wide as in the Haydon 3 agreement?  Is there a danger that the money will never benefit the residents of Priory Vale?  What does the Community Centre or Pub at Redhouse Village Centre have to do with the application at Tadpole Farm?  Did the Planning Officer make it clear that this issue was not material to the Tadpole Farm application?  Would the Cabinet Member for Planning know this?  If he did, then why did he mention something that was not a material planning consideration for Tadpole Farm?  As Chair of the Planning Committee did Cllr Heenan ever ask members of the public to keep to material planning considerations only when discussing applications?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 03, 2012, 09:33:05 AM
What does Redhouse have to do with the application for Tadpole? Cllr Heenan as a former chair of planning  should have been aware  that Redhouse is not material to the Tadpole application.

Possibly it was a gratuitous political opportunity  plug that could  not be resisted?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Terry Reynolds on July 03, 2012, 11:49:40 AM
In reply to post 586, Pickards field, had it gone through, would have been given £700,000 s106 money, to build so many 'sociable housing' on the site, and that money never came from the habokus lot but from previous town developments... :wink:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on July 03, 2012, 12:16:44 PM
Cllr Heenan suggests the possibility that the RBT might not go ahead in which case the money currently associated with it could be re-distributed elsewhere to mitigate the impact of the development.

This is the same RBT that is vital to achieve trip reductions by car from the urban extension TF which was one of the Highway Agencys conditions for removing its objection to TF. The RBT was also the justification given by SK Transport on behalf of Crest to SBC for the removal of the Purton-Iffley road upgrade.

Has the process already started whereby s106 money from TF will end up elsewhere in the Borough? Does Cllr Bluh have any new pet projects on the horizon in Old Town for example? If so be very afraid....
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on July 03, 2012, 01:47:53 PM
Cllr Tomlinson will get her beloved Community Centre to lord it over the plebs of Redhouse and North Swindon. She got her 30 pieces of silver from the Romans for her sell-out of Tadpole Farm. The residents she claims to reprsent couldn't give two figs for a community centre - they want shops, pub and restaurant and grit bins - useful things that serve the community not the self-obsessed, vain interests of Cllrs.

I hope Vince Cable when he finishes investigating the 'cess pit' of the City of London and the banks therein, comes to North Swindon where we have a cess pit of our own...

The Vera Tomlinson Memorial Community Centre - yeah I know...... :D

Its sad but seemingly true that we are being stitched up in North Swindon...no RBT should mean bringing back the Purton-Iffley link back onto the table. It seems that the Tories will take the cash and use it to bribe the electorate in swing wards.  :tickedoff:

At the very least Addinsell Road should be completed to link Tadpole Farm with the Redhouse village centre, its new pub and community centre and then onto Thamesdown Drive. Afterall why has the Redhouse Junction got a roundabout and 4 or 5 lanes of traffic feeding onto/off of Thamesdown Drive? Plenty of space and capacity for Tadpole Farm Traffic!  :agreed:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 03, 2012, 02:07:27 PM
Candide7 & Zlatan

Good posts about the RBT  O0
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on July 03, 2012, 02:16:07 PM
@Zlatan

Yes it is a mystery why Redhouse Way has 5 lanes feeding onto Thamedown Drive as opposed to only 2 lanes for Oakhurst Way, yet all the traffic has to funnel down those 2 lanes of Oakhurst Way.

Mind you Vera Tomlinson doesn't live next to Oakhurst Way.....
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on July 03, 2012, 02:18:51 PM
You are talking about a stand alone community centre?? 

Normally these days on the new estates the community centre is part of the local school. Not at all ideal though.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Richard Symonds on July 03, 2012, 02:38:11 PM

The Vera Tomlinson Memorial Community Centre - yeah I know...... :D


No no Zlatan, she would want it to be named 'The Justin Tomlinson Community Centre' after her No 1 and favourite son!!

Did you know that Justin has a brother incidentally?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 03, 2012, 03:39:36 PM
On the Oakhurst Residemts Website another post has been made. http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/authentication-of-blog-communication.html (http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/authentication-of-blog-communication.html)



Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Geoff Reid on July 03, 2012, 03:52:01 PM

The Vera Tomlinson Memorial Community Centre - yeah I know...... :D


No no Zlatan, she would want it to be named 'The Justin Tomlinson Community Centre' after her No 1 and favourite son!!

Did you know that Justin has a brother incidentally?

I don't know why any of the above is relevant to either the thread or the residents of Oakhurst?

Unless the Tomlinsons choose to use their family members politically, (as we've already discussed in this thread), would it not be better to discuss the Tomlinson family in context with the thread and their dealings with Crest N. ?

Wouldn't want to give them the opportunity to claim that they're being trolled, would we?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Smiler on July 03, 2012, 04:32:43 PM
@Geoff Reid

Quote
Unless the Tomlinsons choose to use their family members politically, (as we've already discussed in this thread), would it not be better to discuss the Tomlinson family in context with the thread and their dealings with Crest N. ?

Wouldn't want to give them the opportunity to claim that they're being trolled, would we?

I agree with you Geoff.  Families are families, politics are politics.  Families only become material to the argument when they are used politically by someone's choice.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Smiler on July 03, 2012, 04:40:28 PM
@Zlatan

Yes it is a mystery why Redhouse Way has 5 lanes feeding onto Thamedown Drive as opposed to only 2 lanes for Oakhurst Way, yet all the traffic has to funnel down those 2 lanes of Oakhurst Way.

Quote
@ Candide 7

Mind you Vera Tomlinson doesn't live next to Oakhurst Way.....

No Cllr Tomlinson lives near to the Redhouse Village Centre off Eastbury Way (this is in the public domain).  Addinsell Road feeds onto Eastbury Way and now has no link to Tadpole Farm.  Was any interest declared by VT in the decision to keep Addinsell Road closed, a decision which she was a party to?

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Rincewind on July 03, 2012, 05:05:53 PM



@ Oakhurst Avenger

Quote
Cllr Tomlinson will get her beloved Community Centre to lord it over the plebs of Redhouse and North Swindon. She got her 30 pieces of silver from the Romans for her sell-out of Tadpole Farm. The residents she claims to reprsent couldn't give two figs for a community centre - they want shops, pub and restaurant and grit bins - useful things that serve the community not the self-obsessed, vain interests of Cllrs.

I hope Vince Cable when he finishes investigating the 'cess pit' of the City of London and the banks therein, comes to North Swindon where we have a cess pit of our own...

@ Zlatan

Quote
Its sad but seemingly true that we are being stitched up in North Swindon...no RBT should mean bringing back the Purton-Iffley link back onto the table. It seems that the Tories will take the cash and use it to bribe the electorate in swing wards.  :tickedoff:

At the very least Addinsell Road should be completed to link Tadpole Farm with the Redhouse village centre, its new pub and community centre and then onto Thamesdown Drive. Afterall why has the Redhouse Junction got a roundabout and 4 or 5 lanes of traffic feeding onto/off of Thamesdown Drive? Plenty of space and capacity for Tadpole Farm Traffic!  :agreed:

I have heard that at the North Locality meeting on 15th September 2011 Cllr Tomlinson remarked that she had been invited to sit down with the developer to discuss the Redhouse Village Centre.  She wanted to ask questions on behalf of the locality residents.

At the October 2011 North Locality meeting she announced the results of the meeting with the developer.

Quote
"I [Cllr Tomlinson] recently saw a plan of Redhouse I believe I was not meant to see - it showed the Medical Centre removed and the land for the Community Centre reduced. I complained, and these have now reappeared on the latest version of the plan. I had a meeting with Crest Nicholson recently about Redhouse Village Centre. There were two Crest Nicholson MDs and a lot of other Crest Nicholson people and myself. I asked them to build the Community Centre at their own cost and suggested they donate the land as well - they agreed to this. They have also agreed to put up three signs on the three plots to show that the plots of land are reserved for a Community Centre, a Medical Centre and a Restaurant/Pub. This is really good news for Redhouse."

Where is the pub now?  Where is the medical centre?  Why does only the community centre remain?  Why do Redhouse residents have to have another 33 houses when the community centre is being funded for free?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on July 03, 2012, 05:13:30 PM
Some questions to answer on the ORA blog:

Does keeping the S.106 agreement for highways generic and high level mean that the money will be spent Borough-wide as in the Haydon 3 agreement?  Is there a danger that the money will never benefit the residents of Priory Vale?  What does the Community Centre or Pub at Redhouse Village Centre have to do with the application at Tadpole Farm?  Did the Planning Officer make it clear that this issue was not material to the Tadpole Farm application?  Would the Cabinet Member for Planning know this?  If he did, then why did he mention something that was not a material planning consideration for Tadpole Farm?  As Chair of the Planning Committee did Cllr Heenan ever ask members of the public to keep to material planning considerations only when discussing applications?

Cllr Heenan was Chair of Planning on Nov 29th 2011 and presided over the Croft Farce.

Prior to the meeting he stated that

.

We were told in advance of the PC that we had to keep to material planning considerations... pity the same rules were not applied to officers..

On the morning of November 30th 2011 , Cllr Heenan was struck dumb by Graham Mack when he suggested that the planning committee had been a kangaroo court and that Clrl H didn't have a clue how a 420 pupil school would work with the attendant traffic.

The Croft Planning Application was as big a farce as Tadpole Farm... I have heard both of them and have read the transcripts... appalling.

 
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 03, 2012, 06:07:17 PM
Quote
On the morning of November 30th 2011 , Cllr Heenan was struck dumb by Graham Mack when he suggested that the planning committee had been a kangaroo court and that Clrl H didn't have a clue how a 420 pupil school would work with the attendant traffic.


Struck dumb, reading the ORA website he appears to have had a lot to say during the TF planning committee meeting?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Richard Symonds on July 03, 2012, 06:13:14 PM
Quote
On the morning of November 30th 2011 , Cllr Heenan was struck dumb by Graham Mack when he suggested that the planning committee had been a kangaroo court and that Clrl H didn't have a clue how a 420 pupil school would work with the attendant traffic.


Struck dumb, reading the ORA website he appears to have had a lot to say during the TF planning committee meeting?

But that would mean he does not necessarily know what he is talking about which is probably why he got the job in the first place!
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on July 03, 2012, 07:13:24 PM
Quote
On the morning of November 30th 2011 , Cllr Heenan was struck dumb by Graham Mack when he suggested that the planning committee had been a kangaroo court and that Clrl H didn't have a clue how a 420 pupil school would work with the attendant traffic.


Struck dumb, reading the ORA website he appears to have had a lot to say during the TF planning committee meeting?


But that would mean he does not necessarily know what he is talking about which is probably why he got the job in the first place!

Having heard the gentleman in many meetings.. either within the confines of council protocol or at residents/locality meetings .. he brings a certain pontification to the proceedings.. in my opinion...
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Richard Symonds on July 03, 2012, 08:00:41 PM
Having heard the gentleman in many meetings.. either within the confines of council protocol or at residents/locality meetings .. he brings a certain pontification to the proceedings.. in my opinion...

Yes what an interesting observation Jenny and so succinctly put as well!!

Sadly his position or his ability to handle it does not bode well for the future.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: swindoncentric on July 03, 2012, 09:44:06 PM
The questions that still need answering are -

What was it that changed Councillor Faramarzi's mind on the Tadpole Farm development?

What's the opinion and position of the councillors (including Councillor Tomlinson) after their pre-election fluff (see that fluff here http://swindoncentric.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/swindon-elections-your-bandwagon-is.html (http://swindoncentric.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/swindon-elections-your-bandwagon-is.html)) on delaying the introduction of parking control measures along Redhouse Way now that Tadpole Farm seems to be a racing certainty?

I see a handful of drivers in North Swindon are now parking up on the obesely-wide footpaths on the main roads. Are local residents sick of waiting for their elected officials to do anything except produce glossy leaflets and get their picture in the Adver?

Seems that way!
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 04, 2012, 08:30:16 AM
ORA website online from Cllr Dale Heenan about S106
Quote
Cllr Dale Heenan, Member of Planning Committee, speaking about the Tadpole Farm S.106 Highways contributions on 12th June 2012.

"And this scheme will be built over the next ten to fifteen years, so what we decide in the next few months may not be what actually is needed in the area in ten years time, so I would also like the period to be there so that the Highways Officers can be, I wouldn’t want to say as generic as possible, but keep the recommended scheme of works fairly high level...."
http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/ (http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 04, 2012, 09:08:02 AM
13 years of Labour blah, blah, blah yawn!! Justin was the councillor for Abbey Meads for 10 years. Could he have objected to vary the 1.5 parking space  when the Priory Vale houses were put through planning? The OPP was obtained after Swindon had refused it, but I believe the detail of Priory Vale was done on his watch.

Quote
North Swindon MP Justin Tomlinson is also aware of the problem. He said: “The last Labour Government was determined to see a reduction in car usage and allowed developers to restrict car parking spaces to 1.5 spaces per dwelling or less. 


http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9795735.Appeal_to_motorists_as_parking_problems_rise/ (http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9795735.Appeal_to_motorists_as_parking_problems_rise/)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on July 04, 2012, 09:21:59 AM
Swindo centric:  see a handful of drivers in North Swindon are now parking up on the obesely-wide footpaths on the main roads.


Wide footpaths are strategic cycle routes!  I never quite got what they meant by this example 'strategic'. But I think it means, they join up and go somewhere.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Richard Symonds on July 04, 2012, 09:57:03 AM
ORA website online from Cllr Dale Heenan about S106
Quote
Cllr Dale Heenan, Member of Planning Committee, speaking about the Tadpole Farm S.106 Highways contributions on 12th June 2012.

"And this scheme will be built over the next ten to fifteen years, so what we decide in the next few months may not be what actually is needed in the area in ten years time, so I would also like the period to be there so that the Highways Officers can be, I wouldn’t want to say as generic as possible, but keep the recommended scheme of works fairly high level...."
[url]http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/[/url] ([url]http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/[/url])


Could someone please interpret what he is actually trying to say here?

Has he already forgotten he said it?  (think about the difficulty he had with the minutes of a previous Planning Meeting when the Croft was discussed!)

Muddled thinking or what?

and to think he is now the Lead Member for planning!!

Has he got any idea what is required of his brief or is it more a case of bring what you want to the party and we will see whether or not we want to play with it.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 04, 2012, 10:36:02 AM
Richard

Well spotted O0 Conservative Councillor Dale Henan who served along side Cllr now MP Justin Tomlinson are they contradicting each other?

Justin
Quote
North Swindon MP Justin Tomlinson is also aware of the problem. He said: “The last Labour Government was determined to see a reduction in car usage and allowed developers to restrict car parking spaces to 1.5 spaces per dwelling or less.


Dale
Quote
"And this scheme will be built over the next ten to fifteen years, so what we decide in the next few months may not be what actually is needed in the area in ten years time, so I would also like the period to be there so that the Highways Officers can be, I wouldn’t want to say as generic as possible, but keep the recommended scheme of works fairly high level...."


So it was not a Labour Government as Dale points out, but local councillors and officers that have to plan for the next 10 to 15 years. Is this a simple case of blame shifting?  If the shoe fits wear it?

Richard

What did you make of Vera's quote from the locality meeting?  If you can't  then do you think Dale and Justin may be more helpful if they can inform people what they think this statement meant?
Quote
At the October 2011 North Locality meeting she announced the results of the meeting with the developer.

Quote
"I [Cllr Tomlinson] recently saw a plan of Redhouse I believe I was not meant to see - it showed the Medical Centre removed and the land for the Community Centre reduced. I complained, and these have now reappeared on the latest version of the plan. I had a meeting with Crest Nicholson recently about Redhouse Village Centre. There were two Crest Nicholson MDs and a lot of other Crest Nicholson people and myself. I asked them to build the Community Centre at their own cost and suggested they donate the land as well - they agreed to this. They have also agreed to put up three signs on the three plots to show that the plots of land are reserved for a Community Centre, a Medical Centre and a Restaurant/Pub. This is really good news for Redhouse."
 
  :fish:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mickraker on July 04, 2012, 04:58:20 PM
"Was any interest declared by VT in the decision to keep Addinsell Road closed, a decision which she was a party to?"

Would it be in the transcript of a meeting held in the records at the council offices.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: swindoncentric on July 04, 2012, 05:46:43 PM
Seems we didn't have to wait long for a picture in the Adver with serious-hardworking faces!

There's a story in today's Adver on the issue of parking in North Swindon and the appeal put out by Councillor Faramarzi on Twitter for locals to come to the photo op last afternoon garnered a total of no locals. The photo consists of Councillors Faramarzi and Elliott and appears to have been taken down a side road.

The story includes a quote that due to the council not being able to adopt the roads from the developers, "there is nothing we can really do at the moment."

There's a further two columns talking around the problem after that quote.

It's surprising Councillor Tomlinson wasn't in on this story, as she used it to fill column inches before the election.

More surprising is the 3 month suspension of the introduction of parking restrictions that Councillor Tomlinson objected to would be up. So are they to be introduced?

Allow people to park on the vastly-wide paving, as long as they leave enough normal-width pavement and move on to giving the reasons for voting in favour of a housing development you previously opposed which comes with no-where near the required infrastructure to service it.

Or keeping talking round a relatively minor issues so it looks like something is being done and do nothing on the big things (infrastructure any one?).
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mickraker on July 04, 2012, 06:03:08 PM
Vera Tomlinson could be on the bench waiting out the game and Justin Tomlinson is subbing for her.  :coolsmiley:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 04, 2012, 09:38:37 PM
Or keeping talking round a relatively minor issues so it looks like something is being done and do nothing on the big things (infrastructure any one?).

Thanks Swindoncentric I had missed that one.  O0
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on July 04, 2012, 11:05:42 PM
@Swindoncentric
Re: suspension of parking restrictions on Redhouse Way

Call me suspicious but isn't this just Super-NIMBY Vera Tomlinson just trying to ensure that Addinsell Way is not opened up to Tadpole Farm traffic.

The only way to reduce traffic volume on Oakhurst Way from TF is to open up a second route south from TF to Thamesdown Drive through Redhouse. VT negotiated with Crest to keep that route closed. The street parking argument was one of the arguments used. If parking restrictions are imposed that argument goes away.

This is VT's way of ensuring TF traffic doesn't go past her house
 :wakeup:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mickraker on July 05, 2012, 08:32:08 AM
"The Core Strategy – Controlled Development allows for necessary growth.
 
On Jan 19th, 2011, the SBC Cabinet discussed the following, according to The Minutes.
 
“Councillor Peter Greenhalgh, Cabinet Member for Sustainability, Strategic Planning, Property and Transport, explained that the Core Strategy was the key planning document in shaping the future development of the Borough, and to ensure that the right development occurred at the right time, in the right place and with the appropriate infrastructure. He advised that the document aimed to set the strategic framework and targets, and would be supported by more detailed supplementary planning documents. A bottom up approach had been taken to its preparation and it sought to ensure the future economic wellbeing of the Borough. He stressed its importance in identifying those areas that were suitable for controlled development to allow for the growth that Swindon needed to maintain itself as a thriving community and economy, and in defending land from inappropriate and unsupported development.”
http://haydonend.co.uk/index.php?itemid=159 (http://haydonend.co.uk/index.php?itemid=159)

Surprise, surprise the council has a strategy at its core for building. I thought it was done on a blind date between councillors and builders.  :surrender:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 05, 2012, 11:21:31 AM
Hi Mick

Welcome to the thread and thanks for posting I note the minutes to the council meeting can be followed by clicking on the highlighted word minutes in the story. The council minutes are  informative if you can undersatnd them  :WTF:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on July 05, 2012, 11:54:18 AM
At Swindon Borough Full Council Meeting on Weds 19th Jan 2011 the following comments were made:

Recently the Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning said, “as far as I am aware
there are no plans to alter Oakhurst Way”, the Deputy Leader said, “Oakhurst Way
is not fit for purpose with all it roundabouts and narrowings,” and a senior forward
planning officer said, “there will be no development in the Tadpole Farm area
without improvements to Oakhurst Way, not through S106 but at the developers
cost before any construction work will be allowed to commence”.


On the 12th June 2012 at the Planning Committee meeting the Head of Planning said £60k from Crest for 2 new zebra crossings on Oakhurst Way was fair and enough mitigation of the impact of Tadpole Farm traffic on Oakhurst Way (their conservative figures estimate 45% of TF traffic will go down Oakhurst way).

My question is what has changed the view of senior councillors and officers in a year?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mickraker on July 05, 2012, 01:11:09 PM
George, thanks I am now pleased that I never bought a house in Abbey Meads I thout about it more than once because I have an affection for studios in Abbey Rd.  :wink:

Candide7, I thought council people changed their mind faster than a Garrard Model RC70 record changer! Can anyone remember if you had one you were always invited to the parties.  O0
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on July 05, 2012, 03:46:05 PM
From Swindon Core Strategy with regard to Tadpole Farm:

"A rapid transit route is critical to deliver the smaller scale urban extensions
in a sustainable manner and should be phased in the early part of the
development."

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mickraker on July 05, 2012, 04:17:50 PM
From Swindon Core Strategy with regard to Tadpole Farm:

"A rapid transit route is critical to deliver the smaller scale urban extensions
in a sustainable manner and should be phased in the early part of the
development."


Candide7, Tadpole Farm is a sell out no matter how much bull councillors put around the egdges of it. People are not daft they can see through all the slap in short we know it is a pig no matter how much lippy is put on it and we know that the councillors know we know it.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 05, 2012, 05:12:59 PM
Charming? 

http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/ (http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/)
Quote
Dale Heenan has posted the following comments to ORA and he and Emma Faramarzi continue to tweet and post on Facebook about ORA. We welcome this effort from local politicians who are desperate to improve their readership to the extent that they are driving more web traffic to the ORA blog and improving our readership statistics.


ORA are now part of the interweb political conversation taking place in Swindon and this has been picked up on [url=http://www.talkswindon.org]www.talkswindon.org[/url] ([url]http://www.talkswindon.org[/url]). Geoff Reid is not one to miss an opportunity to expose and scrutinise the actions of the councillors at Swindon Borough Council.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Smiler on July 05, 2012, 05:14:08 PM
@Candide 7

From Swindon Core Strategy with regard to Tadpole Farm:

"A rapid transit route is critical to deliver the smaller scale urban extensions
in a sustainable manner and should be phased in the early part of the
development."


At planning committee on the 12th June, one of the highways officers spoke of the RBT being aspirational: 

"Chair, can I just make do a quick clarification. Chair in terms of the aspiration for Bus Rapid Transit. That aspiration is set out within Local Transport Plan 3.  It is identified as an aspirational need rather than detailed in terms of what proposals would come forward as a detailed scheme. As a result of that there have been consultations on the basic principles of Local Trasport Plan 3 but not detailed consultation by Officers or representatives of local highway authority on any proposals for individual junction improvements or bus lanes on any routes at this moment in time."

ORA set out some of the facts about the RBT:

http://www.oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/bus-rapid-transit-critical.html (http://www.oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/bus-rapid-transit-critical.html)

Are even SBC officers confused about their own policies?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on July 05, 2012, 05:21:25 PM
@George Elliot

Charming? 

[url]http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/[/url] ([url]http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/[/url])
Quote
Dale Heenan has posted the following comments to ORA and he and Emma Faramarzi continue to tweet and post on Facebook about ORA. We welcome this effort from local politicians who are desperate to improve their readership to the extent that they are driving more web traffic to the ORA blog and improving our readership statistics.

ORA are now part of the interweb political conversation taking place in Swindon and this has been picked up on [url=http://www.talkswindon.org]www.talkswindon.org[/url] ([url]http://www.talkswindon.org[/url]). Geoff Reid is not one to miss an opportunity to expose and scrutinise the actions of the councillors at Swindon Borough Council.



Is it amazing that these characters have nothing better to do than try to smear a local residents' association?  Is it a sign of desperation that Cllr Faramarzi has to slag off voluntary workers in her own ward because they have published what she's said?  Is there an easy answer to being caught with your pants down (metaphorically speaking)?

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Smiler on July 05, 2012, 11:20:52 PM
Over on Twitter and Facebook the Tories come of their shells and put the boot into a local residents' association.

As Corporal Jones would say they don't like it up them.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 05, 2012, 11:42:21 PM
Is Cllr Renard a sort of in reverse Aladdin?  Old schools for new classrooms exchanged! Have we now found  the old temporary school from Croft as a solution to ease school place pressure in NDA? http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9801367.Demand_for_classrooms/ (http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9801367.Demand_for_classrooms/)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 05, 2012, 11:46:20 PM
I have been nudged follow @weareoakhurst on Twitter the councillors and others are exchanging tweets  :2funny:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: MrGrumpy on July 05, 2012, 11:52:49 PM
The Tories have been tweeting rather inflated figures of popularity in Priory Vale.

For the record:

Emma Faramarzi received 12.5% of the total possible vote in Priory Vale = 8,624
Toby Elliott received 13.5% of the total possible vote
Mark Edwards received 14.8% of the total possible vote

With that sort of popularity rating might it be best to change careers?
It would be good to ask Cllr Faramarzi what happened to the other 7,515 voters?  Were they pleasant on the doorstep?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 06, 2012, 12:14:58 AM
The Tories have been tweeting rather inflated figures of popularity in Priory Vale.

For the record:

Emma Faramarzi received 12.5% of the total possible vote in Priory Vale = 8,624
Toby Elliott received 13.5% of the total possible vote
Mark Edwards received 14.8% of the total possible vote

That would translate into Cllr Emma Faramarzi is to stand for election in two years time. It is bad form for councillors to trash out at the electorate.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Smiler on July 06, 2012, 12:20:13 AM
@ MrGrumpy
The Tories have been tweeting rather inflated figures of popularity in Priory Vale.

For the record:

Emma Faramarzi received 12.5% of the total possible vote in Priory Vale = 8,624
Toby Elliott received 13.5% of the total possible vote
Mark Edwards received 14.8% of the total possible vote

With that sort of popularity rating might it be best to change careers?
It would be good to ask Cllr Faramarzi what happened to the other 7,515 voters?  Were they pleasant on the doorstep?

I hear that even the 'one thousand' may have deserted the sinking ship of Cllr Faramarzi and Cllr Elliott

@ swindoncentric


There's a story in today's Adver on the issue of parking in North Swindon and the appeal put out by Councillor Faramarzi on Twitter for locals to come to the photo op last afternoon garnered a total of no locals. The photo consists of Councillors Faramarzi and Elliott and appears to have been taken down a side road.

Maybe their self-confessed political hot air has gone off the rails?

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on July 06, 2012, 05:01:17 AM
Does anybody know what the salary and benefits package is for a ward councillor? I am intrigued to know why so many of these successful local businessmen and women seem so keen to be councillors and MPs? Most people I know with successful businesses are far too busy making money.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Jean on July 06, 2012, 06:37:06 AM
Does anybody know what the salary and benefits package is for a ward councillor? I am intrigued to know why so many of these successful local businessmen and women seem so keen to be councillors and MPs? Most people I know with successful businesses are far too busy making money.


There was this story in the Adver recently about councillors receiving a total of £0.5m in allowances and expenses in a year.  It says that Councillors receive a basic allowance of £7,500 a year.

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9793768.Swindon_councillors__allowances_and_expenses_top___500_000/ (http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9793768.Swindon_councillors__allowances_and_expenses_top___500_000/)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Richard Symonds on July 06, 2012, 09:54:05 AM
The Tories have been tweeting rather inflated figures of popularity in Priory Vale.

For the record:

Emma Faramarzi received 12.5% of the total possible vote in Priory Vale = 8,624
Toby Elliott received 13.5% of the total possible vote
Mark Edwards received 14.8% of the total possible vote

That would translate into Cllr Emma Faramarzi is to stand for election in two years time. It is bad form for councillors to trash out at the electorate.

And maybe they could enjoy some serious opposition in two years time because they didn't last time around and I would go so far as to say that Labour did not mount a campaign in the North worthy of the name!

Such a pity because things could have been so different Borough wide.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Richard Symonds on July 06, 2012, 09:58:09 AM
Does anybody know what the salary and benefits package is for a ward councillor? I am intrigued to know why so many of these successful local businessmen and women seem so keen to be councillors and MPs? Most people I know with successful businesses are far too busy making money.


There was this story in the Adver recently about councillors receiving a total of £0.5m in allowances and expenses in a year.  It says that Councillors receive a basic allowance of £7,500 a year.

[url]http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9793768.Swindon_councillors__allowances_and_expenses_top___500_000/[/url] ([url]http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9793768.Swindon_councillors__allowances_and_expenses_top___500_000/[/url])


Is that value for money? - I don't think so but neither is the big telly = still talking to itself and Le Pissoir which almost caught me short yesterday such was the effect of its now running again water!!
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on July 06, 2012, 10:30:59 AM
Re:

http://www.lgbce.org.uk/__documents/lgbce/submissions/swindon/swindon-bc-council-size-submission-aug-2010.pdf (http://www.lgbce.org.uk/__documents/lgbce/submissions/swindon/swindon-bc-council-size-submission-aug-2010.pdf)

According to the above document 54% of SBC Councillors in July 2010 were full-time employed/self-employed or business owners and yet the same councillors claim they spend between 26 and 38 hours per week on Council business.

£500,000 divided by 59 councillors = an average remuneration of £8,474. So if the basis allowance is £7,500 that means each councillor is also claiming an average of approx. £1000 of expenses on top of the basic allowance. In simple terms that is roughly equivalent to the Council paying all the annual petrol fuel costs for a councillor with a standard car.

Are councillors obliged to declare all their expense claims, like MPS now have to do?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Richard Symonds on July 06, 2012, 10:48:57 AM
Candide, Councillors declare their expenses and they are available to us.

It is fair to say that some of them do not claim a penny more than their basic allowance.

I think we should drastically reduce the number of Councillors, pay them appropriately and expect them to do the job properly.

I know that some of their number virtually do their case work as if it were a full time job so it begs the question as to how others can do justice to Cabinet, Council and a full time job effectively?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 06, 2012, 03:32:19 PM
Coincidence to do with Tadpole? http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/north-locality-fund-meeting-on-july.html (http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/north-locality-fund-meeting-on-july.html)

How and why can a locality be postponed at such short notice?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 06, 2012, 03:38:35 PM
Cllr Jim Grant invites you to a public meeting on 17th July 2012.   
Quote
Public Meeting to discuss the Tadpole Farm Development

I would like to invite you to a public meeting I have organised to discuss what actions North Swindon residents and community groups would like the Council and developer to take to mitigate the impact of the Tadpole Farm development. This public meeting will take place at Moredon Community Centre on Tuesday,17th July 2012, starting at 7pm.
http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/invitation-to-public-meeting-to-discuss.html (http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/invitation-to-public-meeting-to-discuss.html)

 :coffee:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mickraker on July 06, 2012, 05:56:29 PM
The Tories have been tweeting rather inflated figures of popularity in Priory Vale.

For the record:

Emma Faramarzi received 12.5% of the total possible vote in Priory Vale = 8,624
Toby Elliott received 13.5% of the total possible vote
Mark Edwards received 14.8% of the total possible vote

With that sort of popularity rating might it be best to change careers?
It would be good to ask Cllr Faramarzi what happened to the other 7,515 voters?  Were they pleasant on the doorstep?

It must be the lowest turnout ever recorded anywhere in North Swindon. 
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 06, 2012, 08:20:40 PM
I know Priory Vale begins with a P but it could be lower than a turnout for the old Penhill ward. Can anyone in statistics confirm that?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on July 06, 2012, 11:50:45 PM
@ Vera Tomlinson - North Locality 8/3/2012

I was looking through some North Locality notes for March and came across the funniest thing.

VT was talking about the old chestnut of her beloved Redhouse community building.  This building has also occupied the thoughts of Dale Heman at planning committee on 12/6.  In fact, the Heman praises her for working so hard.  It says in the notes that she'd got the money and she was getting the building.  There was enough money to purchase the land.  She'd had rough plans drawn up, etc, etc.  The rich tapestries her beloved weaves in her mind.

The kiss of death was that VT was looking for people to be on the project committee.  Hopefully commonsense has grabbed a firm hold of the Redhouse area and no-one has volunteered for this special project.

Anyway, the notes get even funnier - she made the comment that following the last meeting there had been complaints about two people laughing/sniggering when she spoke.   Laughing and sniggering at her pearls of wisdom?  Whatever next?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 07, 2012, 12:30:01 AM
Mr Grumble

Did you know this was on TS http://www.talkswindon.org/index.php/topic,7139.0.html (http://www.talkswindon.org/index.php/topic,7139.0.html)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Geoff Reid on July 07, 2012, 05:58:42 PM
Mr Grumble

Did you know this was on TS Vera Tomlinson Has 'Won' £700,000 of 106 Money to 'Spend' In The North? ([url]http://www.talkswindon.org/index.php/topic,7139.0.html[/url])


Beat me to it.
 
February 2011:


Quote from: Geoff Reid
Geoff Halls, apart from being Vera Tomlinsons political agent is also the Chairman of the Swindon Conservative Association, and Vera's fellow Abbey Meads Cllr, Peter Stoddart, (whose mug also appears on the top of the leaflet), is the Swindon Conservative Association treasurer:

Quote


    Swindon Conservative Association Team

    President - Cllr Nick Martin

    Chairman - Geoff Halls

    Deputy Chairman (Political) - Vacant

    Deputy Chairman (Membership & Fundraising) - Charles Linfield

    Treasurer - Cllr Peter Stoddart

    Constituency Officers - Cllr Dale Heenan (North), Cllr Michael Dickinson (South)

    Agent - Vacant

    Office Manager - Sue Grounsell

    To contact any officer of the Swindon Conservative Association:

    Address: Unit 17, Dorcan Business Village, Murdock Road, Swindon SN3 5HY




This a party-political leaflet isn't it?, and if we agree that it is a political leaflet, then WTF do the Abbey Meads Councillors think they are doing offering out £700,000 of public money via a party-political leaflet?

Looks like a very blatant attempt to purchase votes prior to Peter Stoddarts re-election attempt in May this year.


Oddly enough, I was having a closer look at Geoff Halls the other day.  It didn't take long to realise he has some interesting connections, (and influence), along the Tory 106 money trail.....


 :popcorn:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 07, 2012, 11:57:30 PM
Geoff

I think that you will agree it has turned out to be quite a fortuitous thread when trying to work out political manoeuvring of times gone by.  :fish:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 08, 2012, 07:20:23 AM
Oakhurst Residents Website http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/ora-attend-oakhurst-community-primary.html (http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/ora-attend-oakhurst-community-primary.html)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 09, 2012, 12:59:27 AM
Labour is having a public meeting and Tories are having a drop in.  :popcorn:

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9805315.Public_meetings_on_1_700_homes/?ref=twt (http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9805315.Public_meetings_on_1_700_homes/?ref=twt)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on July 09, 2012, 08:38:21 AM
The thing is with these 'drop in' type meetings are that they are crafty.

 I know they are meant to give a longer time chance for people to attend, but that means, that those who do, do not hear what the other attendees or organisers say, or how many actually do attend.  So the results are all up to interpetation ONLY by those who are there for the whole meeting.

Personally I much prefer to attend meeting where I can hear the debate/points, see who speaks, their expressions and body language -and the expressions of those in response.  Then after I have left I know I can give a fair account of what happened. Drop-ins can prove nothing and the outcomes can be manipulated.

That's not to say that an 'all in together' type of meeting cannot be misinterpreted/manipulated at will, but at least those who attend will know the truth.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Steve Wakefield on July 09, 2012, 09:59:00 AM
Personally I much prefer to attend meeting where I can hear the debate/points, see who speaks, their expressions and body language -and the expressions of those in response.  Then after I have left I know I can give a fair account of what happened. Drop-ins can prove nothing and the outcomes can be manipulated.

That's not to say that an 'all in together' type of meeting cannot be misinterpreted/manipulated at will, but at least those who attend will know the truth.

Muggins

In the USA Town Hall meetings are considered a part of the lifeblood of local politics, representation, accountability and democracy. In my opinion I think you may have just summed up one of the reasons why?   :wink:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on July 09, 2012, 10:53:50 AM
FLASH TWITTER ALERT

Those following her will have noticed Emma Faramarzipan whining about the massive effort she made to stop TadpoleFarm at the planning meeting (yeah right!!).

Anyway having had a pop at @WeAreOakhurst about it the official twitter account for Oakhurst Residents has cornered her nicely...it goes something like this....

  @WeAreOakhurst ~9PM last might:

  "The message is clear from Oakhurst Residents. We don't want #tadpolefarm and #Swindon councillors have stabbed us in the back."

  @EmmaFaramarzi at 10.11 AM today

  "@WeAreOakhurst When Peter Heaton Jones and I spoke out against the current plans exactly how did we stab anyone in the back. #disinformation"

  @WeAreOahurst at 10.15 AM today

  "@EmmaFaramarzi You haven't publicly disagreed with the planning decision. You haven't called for Judicial Review. Now's your chance..."

We she's been silent ever since. :D Probably talking to the Blu Mothership for a help (unless hubby Oli has been stealing her identity again) :clap:....and the cheek of accusing someone else of #disinformation into the bargain!!! :WTF:

Will she reply...its 40 minutes and counting...
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mickraker on July 09, 2012, 02:34:25 PM
 :wakeup: has the person in question answered yet?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on July 09, 2012, 02:36:52 PM
Nope just had a couple of whinges about trolling and having a real job unlike the rest of us....dodge dodge dodge
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on July 09, 2012, 02:44:22 PM
Of course when Dale, Emma and Oli decided to troll the whatsits off of the Oakhurst Resident's Association that was okay during work hours...I guess that's because they own the business...

...more double standards...
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mickraker on July 09, 2012, 03:03:04 PM
I must join twitter and have shufti for myself!
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on July 09, 2012, 03:09:36 PM
She dodged it again. To think some Oakhurst Residents believed the "We will continue to oppose Tadpole Farm" clap trap in her election hand-outs.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mickraker on July 09, 2012, 03:15:26 PM
Wait for me I am signing up!
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mickraker on July 09, 2012, 03:40:54 PM
Now following weareoakhurst it also recomended I follow ladygaga chrismoyles and low and behold Mark Dempsey how did he manage that one, rubbing shoulders with gaga and moyles no less!
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on July 09, 2012, 03:49:30 PM
@WeAreOakhurst is a bit flat and too easy going for my liking. Can't see why the official ORA twitter account doesn't kick off more.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mickraker on July 09, 2012, 04:11:51 PM
It could be they are ordinary everyday decent people who only deal in the facts of life in Oakhurst and do not court controversy for the sake of it. Unlike some of the more political types who never let the facts get in the way of a good story  >:D
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Smiler on July 09, 2012, 06:17:39 PM
A thought has crossed my mind that suddenly the main stab-in-the-back Tory has ducked his head below the papapet.  Do you remember that gentleman called Toby Elliott who lives in Oakhurst, has used ORA for political purposes and proposed approval for TF?

Perhaps his mate JT has tried to protect him with all the noise about Cllr Faramarzi?  Just a thought?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on July 09, 2012, 07:27:47 PM
That's hard on Emma though.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: ph1lc on July 09, 2012, 09:01:18 PM
On what grounds do ORA think they should have a judicial review?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on July 09, 2012, 09:48:39 PM
@ph1lc

You'll just have to wait and see.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: ph1lc on July 09, 2012, 10:05:52 PM
Indeed - we'll have to wait and see.

What I don't understand is why ORA think Councillors Famarazzi and Heaton - Jones should call for one?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 09, 2012, 11:13:37 PM
It could be they are ordinary everyday decent people who only deal in the facts of life in Oakhurst and do not court controversy for the sake of it. Unlike some of the more political types who never let the facts get in the way of a good story  >:D

Political types if you mean councillors for the NDA read one of their leaflets you will see it brings a new defintion to poltical hypocrisy and :spin:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on July 10, 2012, 06:42:31 AM
Indeed - we'll have to wait and see.

What I don't understand is why ORA think Councillors Famarazzi and Heaton - Jones should call for one?

Emma, Toby and Mark all promised to "continue to oppose the Tadpole Farm development" before the election. The planning application should have been rejected on prematurity grounds.

Imo-Either the Priory Vale councillors äre puppets or liars. They made a hollow promise just to get elected.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 10, 2012, 08:14:26 AM


Imo-Either the Priory Vale councillors äre puppets or liars. They made a hollow promise just to get elected.

 or political kippers - two faced with no guts reeking of rank hypocracy?   :2funny:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Steve Wakefield on July 10, 2012, 09:58:45 AM
At the risk of using a political cliche or two. Politics is a rough trade sometmes the buck stops with you, but if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. :o

In my opinion/perception Cllr Toby Elliott and Cllr Mark Edwards are two councillors that have by luck or judgement managed to dodge more of the political and community backlash/bullet on this one. Do their North colleagues need to sit down them down  for a cup of coffee and a bun to discuss how they are able to do it?   :coffee:

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on July 10, 2012, 10:05:56 AM
Coincidence to do with Tadpole? [url]http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/north-locality-fund-meeting-on-july.html[/url] ([url]http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/north-locality-fund-meeting-on-july.html[/url])

How and why can a locality be postponed at such short notice?


In June 2011 Old Town and Lawn WCs cancelled the Local Panel meeting just days after the meeting at which the access to the Croft School was presented to a shocked and disbelieving residents.

It is a pattern of behaviour associated with this administration.. in my opinion.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on July 10, 2012, 10:16:54 AM
From what I'm hearing about locality meetings and locality funding, maybe that particular meeting was called a bit premature - decisions are still being made on how they handle the locality funds and we are getting conflicting messages. When we get a bit of paper with it all laid out in writing, that's when we wll know for sure what's happening.

Also, the Locality Leads and Facilitators seem to be feeling their way through their new jobs and the concept so no doubt a few mistakes will be made.  I wouldn't expect there to be any demons about this meeting.  Maybe later, aye?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on July 10, 2012, 02:18:19 PM
Look what I found blowing around Redhouse...finally proof of how we have been let down by our political representatives. @WeAreOakhurst was right all along.

Take a good read of the attached and remember that:

1 - The application could (and should) have been turned down on prematurity grounds.

2 - The Priory Vale councillor promised to "continue to oppose the Tadpole Farm development" before the election and with two months have U-Turned

3 - The councillors will have no more control than they would have had if they had rejected it. All they have achieved is a breathing space to decide where the S106 money is going to be spent.

3 - They haven't even had the guts to post it in Oakhurst yet.

How does this make you feel?? >:(
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 10, 2012, 03:13:57 PM
Quote
the application had run out of time under planning rules

Why?  :fish:

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: MrGrumpy on July 10, 2012, 03:15:37 PM
To make it easier to read, here is the image -
(http://)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: ph1lc on July 10, 2012, 06:27:21 PM
Look what I found blowing around Redhouse...finally proof of how we have been let down by our political representatives. @WeAreOakhurst was right all along.

Take a good read of the attached and remember that:

1 - The application could (and should) have been turned down on prematurity grounds.

Absolute nonsense - this would have barely delayed the process. The end whatever you want to say is that Tadpole will be developed. In the interim you would have a que of developers trying to get permission on a far wider area than Tadpole.

2 - The Priory Vale councillor promised to "continue to oppose the Tadpole Farm development" before the election and with two months have U-Turned.
 I don't know how he voted, but only one Priory Vale councillor had a vote.

3 - The councillors will have no more control than they would have had if they had rejected it. All they have achieved is a breathing space to decide where the S106 money is going to be spent.
 Yes the Council will have far greater control. True they have a breathing space regarding theS106, and the developer has a fixed end date to come to agreement with the Council re S106. Had the Council turned down the application the outcome would have without doubt have been worse for the wider area.

3 - They haven't even had the guts to post it in Oakhurst yet.
 I agree if they have not yet posted the leaflet in Oakhurst then this IS gutless.

How does this make you feel?? >:(
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 10, 2012, 07:07:49 PM
Quote
Yes the Council will have far greater control. True they have a breathing space regarding theS106, and the developer has a fixed end date to come to agreement with the Council re S106. Had the Council turned down the application the outcome would have without doubt have been worse for the wider area.


I don't think evidence has been provided on TS to support that opinion I would like to see it, if it exists.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Candide7 on July 10, 2012, 07:44:38 PM
@ Ph1lc

1 - The application could (and should) have been turned down on prematurity grounds.

Absolute nonsense - this would have barely delayed the process. The end whatever you want to say is that Tadpole will be developed. In the interim you would have a que of developers trying to get permission on a far wider area than Tadpole.

Are you a solicitor? Every application has to be considered on its own merits.

2 - The Priory Vale councillor promised to "continue to oppose the Tadpole Farm development" before the election and with two months have U-Turned.
I don't know how he voted, but only one Priory Vale councillor had a vote.

Toby Elliot not only voted for it he proposed it should be approved!

3 - The councillors will have no more control than they would have had if they had rejected it. All they have achieved is a breathing space to decide where the S106 money is going to be spent.
Yes the Council will have far greater control. True they have a breathing space regarding theS106, and the developer has a fixed end date to come to agreement with the Council re S106. Had the Council turned down the application the outcome would have without doubt have been worse for the wider area.

Approval of TF is going to have an impact on whole of North Swindon as well as West Swindon so hard to see how it could be worse.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 10, 2012, 08:14:24 PM
If it was turned down not gone ahead with then the amount Oakhurst Way would have lost is a percentage of £60k. Would that have made much difference to the blight on the quality of life people will now endure?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: ph1lc on July 10, 2012, 08:58:01 PM
@ Candide7

1) No I'm not a solicitor, but it doesn't take much research to see that refusal on the grounds of prematurity is not easy. Indeed the Secretary of State lost in court this year on one case. I don't think anyone will deny that developers are eyeing a great deal more land in the area than Tadpole. Even the Labour party in Swindon accept that Tadpole will be developed.

2) If Councillor Elliott voted in favour of the plan then he owes his constituents an explanation. As a ward Councillor he is elected specifically to serve the interests of them, it's hard to see here how he has fulfilled that obligation. In the circumstances i think description of a Kipper was generous.

3) Personally I believe that approval of Tadpole will actually benefit the wider area of North and West Swindon. I believe that this the way the Council can best keep control - and help keep to the draft local plan, which is the best we can hope for.

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Richard Beale on July 10, 2012, 10:02:16 PM
I believe that this the way the Council can best keep control - and help keep to the draft local plan, which is the best we can hope for.

They, Swindon Borough Council hardly "kept control" of any other part of the northern sector, ask residents in that area who are still waiting for facilities, finished roads and open spaces. Also worth asking how many planning applications have been retroactively approved in the area. The results woud certainly give an insight into build first and fill out the paper work second, method of "planning control".

Not saying its a common occurance, but it shouldn't occur at all, but does.

10 years of dealing with them taught me one thing about builders and developers, don't take your eye off the ball, not over what they are supposed to build, where, when and certainly just how much Section 106 money they are supposed to pay. That's their profit SBC is eating into and they don't like it....

By the way, councillors don't control developers (they might like us to think they do in their glossy vote for me leaflets), officers do that and there aren't many of them left.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: The Oakhurst Avenger on July 10, 2012, 10:03:45 PM
@ Ph1lc @Candide7

A draft plan is only that a draft. In planning law it does not carry the legal weight of an adopted plan. Swindon has an adopted local plan and Tadpole Farm isn't in it. Besides by approving TF it prejudices the decision about Ridgeway Farm. The adopted plan called for 1000 houses to west of swindon - this could be Ridgeway Farm rather than Tadpole Farm.

I respect your view about North and West Swindon. I don't know if you live there but Tadpole Farm will just add to the infrastructure deficit already there on school places and traffic

People will slag me off for this but Rod Bluh has been the only Tory politician honest enough to say he supported TF from the start. All the North Swindon Tories were saying they opposed to the voters but behind the scenes had to follow their leader Bluh. The fallout from this will be bad for the Tories because voters hate nothing more than being misled or worse lied to.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 10, 2012, 10:22:14 PM
voters hate nothing more than being misled or worse lied to.

That is a very true statement though it is also overlooked that voters do have a brain they are not consumers buying a product like coffee. Looking nice and having a flash brochure to hand out with free pens may work for comparison sites. Tadpole Farm is not about he development people accept that houses are needed. It is not just houses they want, water, and sewerage, but not running through their properties. Roads, schools, jobs and shops etc is what people want and not having their lifestyle trashed by the lacklustre performance of councillors.

Are NDA councillors getting it yet?  :wakeup: and smell the  :coffee:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: the gorgon on July 11, 2012, 08:30:29 AM
@ Ph1lc @Candide7

A draft plan is only that a draft. In planning law it does not carry the legal weight of an adopted plan. Swindon has an adopted local plan and Tadpole Farm isn't in it. Besides by approving TF it prejudices the decision about Ridgeway Farm. The adopted plan called for 1000 houses to west of swindon - this could be Ridgeway Farm rather than Tadpole Farm.

I respect your view about North and West Swindon. I don't know if you live there but Tadpole Farm will just add to the infrastructure deficit already there on school places and traffic

People will slag me off for this but Rod Bluh has been the only Tory politician honest enough to say he supported TF from the start. All the North Swindon Tories were saying they opposed to the voters but behind the scenes had to follow their leader Bluh. The fallout from this will be bad for the Tories because voters hate nothing more than being misled or worse lied to.

Probably because Rodney had nothing to lose by supporting TF (and possibly everything to gain) as his ward is the other side of Swindon.

Frankly speaking after having seen the 'Silver Book' I'd have preferred that politicians in the 60's were just honest and said yes that's what we'll do.  The plans were far from perfect but at least there was some joined-up thinking. Instead what we've ended-up with is most of the Silver Book housing implemented in a piecemeal fashion. TF would still have been developed but everyone would have known where they stood and the appropriate infrastructure would have been there.

Politicians of all levels and all flavours, nationally and locally, have a lot to answer for.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on July 11, 2012, 09:18:33 AM
Back in the ND planning stages, great care was given that the whole development would not be developed piecemeal.

A vast master plan was drawn up, and consulted upon. Then as it got closer and the consortium of developers was formed the 'village planning' came in based around the master plan (still have a copy of that)  Starting with the Manor Farm area, that was planned, (got that somewhere) i.e. the less major roads, school areas shopping areas, etc were there, with housing allowed around it, then as a the individual developers took up their options on their lots, that's when you saw 'bums on seats' housing (still have some of those too) that's the sort of thing you saw when you went to purchase your new houses - however the guys and girls that may have shown you those plans and sold you your house, may not have known anything else about anywhere else - we know this because we tried a few out - and sometimes just repeated what they had been told to say. 

There were changes along the way, in government legislation about density/climate change issues including transport, that many don't seem to understand these days, but  they were and still are, valid in the light of G8? Agenda 21, Biodiversity action, Global pressures and even the EU. Some of the planning was also about crime prevention.  we were not the only town or country takign these issues on board -many countries did better at it than us. 

It wasn't at the time planned to jump Tadpole Lane, but it was fairly obvious they might.

I can understand people being upset by that and I'm sure many are right behind the fight to stop gobbling up Swindon biggest asset - the countryside around it!  But what I can't understand is those that are grumbling about what Redhouse and Oakhurst is like now, after all surely they knew what they were buying into?  When we bought our house, a search had to be done to show what was planned around it, are those searches not done now?  Mind you having said that that was 1984 and it didn't tell us that ND was coming to our back fence! 

I know this is not the right thread but there was public notice in the paper about more development at West Swindon and not one we've discussed here 91 houses. 

I wonder if the mechanisms that were in place to engage us in the planning of ND are no longer there, because one thing is for sure when it get's to the stage of Tadpole Lane - it's too late to do anything about it, except lie in the way of the bulldozers.   

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: the gorgon on July 11, 2012, 10:34:39 AM
The problem is West Swindon was planned without any consideration for the NSD, WSD and NSD were planned without consideration for TF / RF etc. 

For all its flaws the Silver Book basically proposed the WSD + NSD + TF + RF and planned accordingly, with an extensive network of roads. 

Who knows what happened behind closed doors, did developers persuade those in charge to drop the Silver Book (whilst still planning on building all of the houses - which is what it looks like to me) so that they wouldn't have to invest in costly infrastructure?

The Silver Book was never adopted and now Swindon's roads stuggle to cope with traffic they were never designed for - as they say hindsight is a wonderful thing.

As much as I don't like it part of me would rather have the Swindon proposed in the Silver Book than the Swindon we'll have when TF, RF (sorry but I just don't see the developers giving-up), Coate, Wichelstowe are finally finished.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 11, 2012, 11:16:30 AM
I don't think anyone is going to lie down in front of bulldozers, it is not about saving a green and pleasant land. This is more about the roads needed and school etc.  The Silver book from what I understand was about the future planning in the easy going almost utopian days of the 1960s when planners wore pin stripe suits, bowler hats and carried umberellas. Council typing pool girls wore mini skirts, people were backing Britain and an Italian Job meant something completely different. How laid back was that to those that were there?

The song "this is a self preservation society" from the film  could be a better fit today than it was then as it has a more of a ring  of truth about current planning concerns in the NDA than it did then. Is Redhouse Community Centre more of a mirage than it is an Oasis?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on July 11, 2012, 11:56:04 AM
Yes, I remember them well, not so laid back though I think. We had just had an indoor loo installed and I had a choice of two jobs to go to when I left school. Swindon had just gone through massive expansion, in fact practically doubled in size.

I would still study the original plans, or perhaps SBC policy on community centres - as I said before, by then seperate buildings were not being provided, the community centres were planned to go in schools. Apart from the Haydon Centre which was already there, you'll find that none of the ND areas have a seperate building.

As far as I am concened putting Community centres in schools more or less render them pretty useless, but then I've always seen them as very useful community development/engagement tool.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on July 11, 2012, 12:23:32 PM
Likely that our Priory Vale councillors just see their role and a cash cow...£8000 for as little effort as possible...promise the Earth and deliver dog poo...it's the way of seemingly all politicians nowadays.

If Faramarzipan was more like Thatcher or Toby more like Churchill they would have been upfront with what they wanted and tried to lead the community there. Not lie to get elected...

In summary our Priory Vale Councillors are just a bunch of apathetic no-marks just in it for the money and fame, playing at being politicians...
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Terry Reynolds on July 11, 2012, 03:47:02 PM
Have you seen todays adver, there is a story about the current weather situation, and the owner of Pry Farm  is saying that due to the weather etc, the farm is not paying its way, he wouldnt be thinking of selling up and building 3000 houses would he... :wink:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on July 11, 2012, 04:51:01 PM
Ko, old friend,  where have you been?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: the gorgon on July 11, 2012, 05:33:10 PM
Have you seen todays adver, there is a story about the current weather situation, and the owner of Pry Farm  is saying that due to the weather etc, the farm is not paying its way, he wouldnt be thinking of selling up and building 3000 houses would he... :wink:


Where have I heard that name before (clue it's not the adver), ah yes could it be here? http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/west_of_swindon_study_update_summary_leaflet.pdf (http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/west_of_swindon_study_update_summary_leaflet.pdf)

In particular the bit wot says "The study looks at a number of options but recommends a preferred option for the location of the 3000 dwellings on land at Pry Farm, Ridgeway Farm and Moredon Bridge as shown on Map 1."
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on July 11, 2012, 06:28:20 PM
I seem to remember we discussed development at Pry Farm elsewhere on TS, it sticks in my mind 'cause my ancestors farmed there. 
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: ph1lc on July 11, 2012, 06:31:39 PM
@Gorgon

Interesting article, it has been no secret for a while that Wils County have wanted to dump 1000's of homes to the West of Swindon.

Whilst I have no strong feelings against, if the developments are allowed they should be part of Swindon Borough. If not Swindon will end up providing most of the infastructure and Wilts will get the revenue.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 12, 2012, 07:53:57 AM
Was the local dropin chosen on the same day as the big arts day or is it a coincidence?  :fish:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mickraker on July 12, 2012, 10:18:57 AM
The result more houses more cars, more roads, more children, more babies, more medical centres, more jobs to pay for it and  most important of all more community centres.  :wakeup:   
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on July 12, 2012, 03:53:50 PM
The result more houses more cars, more roads, more children, more babies, more medical centres, more jobs to pay for it and  most important of all more community centres.  :wakeup:   

AND MORE PAIN FOR CURRENT SWINDON RESIDENTS

:D :D :D :D      :D :D :D :D      :D :D :D :D     :D :D :D :D
:D                   :D          :D       :D          :D       :D          :D
:D                    :D :D :D :D      :D :D :D :D     :D :D :D :D
:D                    :D      :D          :D          :D     :D             
:D :D :D :D      :D           :D      :D          :D     :D             
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jayjay on July 13, 2012, 09:16:45 AM
I live in Oakhurst - I haven't received the leaflet about the event the conservatives are holding tomorrow.  I'll let you know if and when a copy turns up.

Also I believe the conservatives did another leaflet drop just prior to the planning committee meeting on the 12 June, but I didn't get one of them either.

The last conservative leaflets I did receive were at the end of April, beginning of May, just before the council elections in May.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Steve Wakefield on July 13, 2012, 11:08:54 AM
Out of BI-PARTISAN curiosity have you seen anything of the LIBDEMS?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jayjay on July 13, 2012, 01:10:11 PM
I've checked my pile of paper by the door, and I haven't received anything from the Libdems, in fact I don't remember receiving any election leaflets from them either.

As for Labour, I've received a leaflet regarding Tadpole farm, but it must have been produced post 12 June, but prior to them arranging their meeting on the 17 as that meeting isn't mentioned.

As with the Conservative drop in tomorrow, I learnt of the Labour meeting on the 17 via other routes.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: The Oakhurst Avenger on July 13, 2012, 05:44:12 PM
As yet I have received the leaflet advertising the Labour meeting at Moredon School on 17th July at 7pm. I have as yet not seen any conservative leaflets. Nothing from LibDems but that's no great surprise.

To be quite honest I will not be going to Conservative drop-in at Red Oaks School. What could the Conservative counciillors say to me that would make me feel the exercise was credible? You see all the Councillors at the drop-in said one thing before the May elections and then did the opposite after. If you want to understand why hardly anybody votes anymore and we have such low electoral turnout you need look no further. A friend of mine never votes because he feels it doesn't change anything. I always vote but I'm starting to think he has a point. In this particular case where does one go if you feel you cannot trust your councillors?

In life one has your word, people who keep their word, whatever the consequences of that, have integrity. That is what builds character. If you don't have that you're lost and once trust is broken it is almost impossible to re-capture.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: George Elliot on July 14, 2012, 12:24:51 AM
In life one has your word, people who keep their word, whatever the consequences of that, have integrity. That is what builds character. If you don't have that you're lost and once trust is broken it is almost impossible to re-capture.

The quest for the holy grail would be easier for some than finding a cast iron guarantee or a signed pledge that a politician did not make before the 2010 general election and then broke.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: MrGrumpy on July 15, 2012, 06:50:54 PM
In recent times I have had several leaflets from Labour, most recently another one today about their meeting on Tadpole Farm on Tuesday.

I have not had a Conservative leaflet in months (didn't even receive any in the run up to the May elections).

LibDems have never pushed anything through my door.

I guess the Conservative drop-in yesterday was only advertised to a targetted 'friendly faces only' group to make sure the councillors only heard what they wanted to hear - so it must have been a very very small number of leaflets delivered to make sure the majority of residents that do not agree with them did not turn up.  I have yet to hear from anyone in Oakhurst who had recieved a leaflt about it, although I have seen a copy of the leaflet that was found blowing in the street that was posted on TS.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Zlatan on July 18, 2012, 02:51:14 PM
Sadly Faramarzipan and her bodyguards are now singing their own praises on Twitter about how successful their closed shop was...THE ARROGANCE!! Sadly the majority had better things to do on Saturday than stroke the egos of a few no-mark 3rd rate politicians - those that went and spoke their minds WILL be ignored...

...Oakhurst I hope you have an itchy election trigger finger...does anyone know which Priory Vale councillor is first up in the next election shooting gallery?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on July 18, 2012, 09:04:08 PM
@Zlatan

Politicians would say that wouldn't they.  If officers were at the consultation as the Croft people found out it is very easy to write to them and ask them questions or to FoI them. 

FoIs can be done through www.whatdotheyknow.com (http://www.whatdotheyknow.com) and you can also use the name Zlatan if you want to.  You don't have to give them your personal details.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Geoff Reid on July 20, 2012, 05:05:02 PM
A friend of mine never votes because he feels it doesn't change anything. I always vote but I'm starting to think he has a point. In this particular case where does one go if you feel you cannot trust your councillors?

Where does one go?... here of course, where you share your experiences, voice your opinions and meet, (virtually or otherwise), other like minded residents and voters who have been similarly poor served.

That the supporters of some 'public servants' are busily trying to attack, smear, discredit and bully dissenters into silence shows how worried and angry some of our elected 'finest' are becoming by an increasingly better informed electorate which, quite correctly, won't be fobbed off with bullshit or driven off their own turf with dirty tactics and threats.

The fact that the various tactics and attacks used against resident tax payers are politically motivated should disturb normal, rational people.  That these attacks are being prosecuted by only a couple of people afflicted with a sort of Political Munchausens-by-proxy syndrome should make everyone take a long and hard look at them, their motives and their associations.

Anyone else noticed that Cllr Elliot seems to have gone very quiet?, almost as if his political mentor(s) have told him to stay well clear of Tadpole and not to step in his colleagues droppings.
 
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on July 20, 2012, 07:53:52 PM
A friend of mine never votes because he feels it doesn't change anything. I always vote but I'm starting to think he has a point. In this particular case where does one go if you feel you cannot trust your councillors?

Where does one go?... here of course, where you share your experiences, voice your opinions and meet, (virtually or otherwise), other like minded residents and voters who have been similarly poor served.

That the supporters of some 'public servants' are busily trying to attack, smear, discredit and bully dissenters into silence shows how worried and angry some of our elected 'finest' are becoming by an increasingly better informed electorate which, quite correctly, won't be fobbed off with bullshit or driven off their own turf with dirty tactics and threats.

The fact that the various tactics and attacks used against resident tax payers are politically motivated should disturb normal, rational people.  That these attacks are being prosecuted by only a couple of people afflicted with a sort of Political Munchausens-by-proxy syndrome should make everyone take a long and hard look at them, their motives and their associations.

Anyone else noticed that Cllr Elliot seems to have gone very quiet?, almost as if his political mentor(s) have told him to stay well clear of Tadpole and not to step in his colleagues droppings.

Having been on the receiving end of shabby, bullying and threatening behaviour from several members of this administration and shocking behaviour from the Officer Class when they are presented with evidence and asked to explain themselves  I find that they all tend to run away when asked to prove their statements or accusations.

Fairly text book reactions from bullies.. don't you think?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: The Oakhurst Avenger on July 21, 2012, 03:59:42 AM
Yes Cllr Toby Elliott after sh*tting on his fellow Oakhurst residents from a great height has gone to ground. The silence is deafening - obviously been taking lessons from his mate Justin Tomlinson. Pity the same can't be said for Cllr Faramarzi and her partner Oliver Donachie. Not happy bunnies. Seems that they can't understand why Oakhurst residents might be unhappy with being sold out to advance their political careers. Seems we're supposed to be happy with the Tadpole Farm development and the impact on our community. Well they've had enough of the abuse from residents, especially from the troublesome Oakhurst Residents Association and now are setting up their own 'non-political' (guffaw) residents association to "speak" for all residents of Priory Vale. Ha ha ha. Some unkind people have told me the new association also goes by the name Conservative Party North Swindon 'Control The Pleb Basterds' Society. Anyway I google searched it and the first name that came up on the first page of Google was Oakhurst Residents Association lol. Looks like Cllr-Wannabe Donachie (forgive the rhyme) is going to have to work on SEO for his new 'front' organisation. Expect lots of articles on why Oakhurst Way should become a motorway, or why it is good for your kid to walk miles to school along busy roads (fight against obesity). You have been warned. :spin:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: The Oakhurst Avenger on July 21, 2012, 12:04:23 PM
Re: 'Priory Vale' Residents Association

Am I the only one that thinks it hilarious that Cllr Faramarzi and Cllr Wannabe have re-defined the geographical scope of Priory Vale from Oakhurst, Redhouse and Haydon End (what Priory Vale is) to include Taw Hill where they live.

Cllr Faramarzi enthuses on Twitter "I look forward to working with a positive forward thinking residents association..."

Let's decipher that into laymans speak:

"I've had enough of the existing residents associations in Priory Vale especially ORA who have been so negative in their reaction to my party's decision to approve development at Tadpole Farm despite our election promise to oppose it. They just don't look forward to the reality of increased traffic through the heart of their community and increased competition for school places as easily as I do. Since they refuse to accept this attack on their community I need to ignore them and work with residents who agree with me".
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on July 21, 2012, 03:49:06 PM
Surely a properly constituted association with proper rules, and equal opps policies etc. Like most of us have to have, would  mean that you would all be able to join said Association, in fact if you have that many assocations already, the call and need should be for a Prioiry Vale/North Swindon FORUM and be invited to help set up that org and help write the blessed constitution and standing orders. If you are not, it is not democratic and may become another ward political party meeting.   
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: VoR on July 30, 2012, 09:54:41 PM
Ive spent a lot of time reading this thread, the planning application, the minutes, lots of writeups on the Oakhurst residents website and what councillors have said. From this I can see there appeared to have been 4 options regarding TF planning application:

1. Reject. The comittee rejects the application. Crest would then appeal and win, have more of a say and the development would be bad as they would not have to care about parking spaces, community matters and infrastructure. If they lost they would find out why they lost, change it and get it approved.

2. Defer. Same result as reject.

3. Approve. Build as planned - not a great development and will be bad for neighbouring communities due to lack infrastructure.

4. Approve asking Crest to consult with local councillors and the planning officer can reject after 3 months if he wants. Rejection is unlikely as the planning officer wanted the commitee to approve it anyway. Possibility that the councillors may get Crest to build a better development but unlikely.

Isn't 4. the best for the councillors as they would have got abuse if they rejected or deferred and Crest made the development bad. They would have got abuse if they approved because the infrastructure wasn't in place. But with 4. they would get abuse but can say they tried to do something.

I'm sure there are other things that could have been done. What would have you have done if you controlled the decision?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: I Could Do That on July 30, 2012, 10:02:55 PM
Option 5

Manage "upwards".
Lobby local MPs and the government.
Get some control handed over to council level.

If councillors don't at least attempt option 5, then there is little point in wasting tax payers money to fund such an organisation
(particularly when they donate areas such as Coate to the core strategy)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Geoff Reid on July 30, 2012, 10:03:50 PM
Hello VoR  :wink:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: DarkAuror on July 31, 2012, 09:42:01 AM
Slightly off topic but has anyone heard any news about the Bruce Street Bridges roundabout redevelopments as it seems to have gone quiet?

As the increased number of cars from the TF development will put a strain on this overstretched part of the road network. Has the redevelopment been delayed until the outcome of the TF development has been confirmed?

Also, is it about time SBC put back in to the core plan the Purton-Iffley Road relief road. Maybe this will slow the "inappropriate" developments like this one if the developers have to put a chunk of money to help pay for this much needed piece of infrastructure.

I know it's a bit simplistic but whilst Oakhurst might get an acceptable agreed development plan under the current rules and flood roads like Mead Way and Akers Way with more cars, it would be more forward thinking if all councillors were to look at the bigger picture and the knock on effect of other wards (like Cllr Edwards and Cllr Wakefield eluded to).  :hippy:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: VoR on July 31, 2012, 10:26:46 PM
I havent seen anything to say that the people or councillors from the Akers Way area voiced concern over Tadpole Farm. I do find this surprising as the planners said in the document that increased traffic on this route would be a problem wheras increased traffic on Oakhurst Way wouldnt.

Has there been a proposed route for the Purton Iffley Link Road? I have searched but I have only seen it mentioned, no maps.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Rincewind on August 02, 2012, 10:52:42 PM
Ive spent a lot of time reading this thread, the planning application, the minutes, lots of writeups on the Oakhurst residents website and what councillors have said. From this I can see there appeared to have been 4 options regarding TF planning application:

1. Reject. The comittee rejects the application. Crest would then appeal and win, have more of a say and the development would be bad as they would not have to care about parking spaces, community matters and infrastructure. If they lost they would find out why they lost, change it and get it approved.

2. Defer. Same result as reject.

3. Approve. Build as planned - not a great development and will be bad for neighbouring communities due to lack infrastructure.

4. Approve asking Crest to consult with local councillors and the planning officer can reject after 3 months if he wants. Rejection is unlikely as the planning officer wanted the commitee to approve it anyway. Possibility that the councillors may get Crest to build a better development but unlikely.

Isn't 4. the best for the councillors as they would have got abuse if they rejected or deferred and Crest made the development bad. They would have got abuse if they approved because the infrastructure wasn't in place. But with 4. they would get abuse but can say they tried to do something.

I'm sure there are other things that could have been done. What would have you have done if you controlled the decision?

VoR - does that stand for Voice of Reason or is there another meaning?

What you are saying, even thought it does sound reasonable, sets all kinds of alarm bells ringing if you are involved in this in any way or know anyone who is.

It makes it sound as if the planning decision was made on the basis of factors that weighted it towards a s106 payment or the threat of a cost against the council to pay for an appeal.  If they were in fact the only material facts then the decision appears to be unsound.  The Councillors should make decisions based on the planning application and in this case there were grounds to refuse and if the developer wanted to appeal then that was the developer's choice.  However you have skirted around the fact that the councillors made it clear they were against inappropriate development but at the first opportunity they folded up and pretended that they had no option to do so.

I think, if I was a councillor, I would have made myself very familiar with the Tadpole Farm situation and the planning application and then announced what actions I was going to take - however that requires integrity and honesty.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on August 03, 2012, 07:43:16 AM
Ive spent a lot of time reading this thread, the planning application, the minutes, lots of writeups on the Oakhurst residents website and what councillors have said. From this I can see there appeared to have been 4 options regarding TF planning application:

1. Reject. The comittee rejects the application. Crest would then appeal and win, have more of a say and the development would be bad as they would not have to care about parking spaces, community matters and infrastructure. If they lost they would find out why they lost, change it and get it approved.

2. Defer. Same result as reject.

3. Approve. Build as planned - not a great development and will be bad for neighbouring communities due to lack infrastructure.

4. Approve asking Crest to consult with local councillors and the planning officer can reject after 3 months if he wants. Rejection is unlikely as the planning officer wanted the commitee to approve it anyway. Possibility that the councillors may get Crest to build a better development but unlikely.

Isn't 4. the best for the councillors as they would have got abuse if they rejected or deferred and Crest made the development bad. They would have got abuse if they approved because the infrastructure wasn't in place. But with 4. they would get abuse but can say they tried to do something.

I'm sure there are other things that could have been done. What would have you have done if you controlled the decision?

VoR - does that stand for Voice of Reason or is there another meaning?

What you are saying, even thought it does sound reasonable, sets all kinds of alarm bells ringing if you are involved in this in any way or know anyone who is.

It makes it sound as if the planning decision was made on the basis of factors that weighted it towards a s106 payment or the threat of a cost against the council to pay for an appeal.  If they were in fact the only material facts then the decision appears to be unsound.  The Councillors should make decisions based on the planning application and in this case there were grounds to refuse and if the developer wanted to appeal then that was the developer's choice.  However you have skirted around the fact that the councillors made it clear they were against inappropriate development but at the first opportunity they folded up and pretended that they had no option to do so.

I think, if I was a councillor, I would have made myself very familiar with the Tadpole Farm situation and the planning application and then announced what actions I was going to take - however that requires integrity and honesty.

Do you think the planning committee fully understands what a quasi-judicial process and their responsibilities actually means?

Are they advised that the public will be unlikely to be able to afford to mount legal challenges?

Do fear or money or politics influence decisions?

Does Officer advice hold sway over all?

Integrity and Honesty ... much talked about but seldom seen..
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mickraker on August 03, 2012, 07:57:54 AM
Jennyb, I think that a politician once said if you have a reputation for honesty and integrity some other politicians will go out of their way to use your reputation to cause harm to you. That could be why "Integrity and Honesty ... much talked about but seldom seen.."

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on August 09, 2012, 03:51:27 PM
Letter sent to the local press today...  Also posted on the Croft Thread...

How expert is SBC's expert advice?

I read with astonishment the Adver of August 9th.
http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/local/9862899.__100m_appeal_to_prevent_gridlock/ (http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/local/9862899.__100m_appeal_to_prevent_gridlock/)

'SWINDON Council is to negotiate with the Government for more than £100m to pay for an “essential” extension to Thamesdown Drive to ensure the town’s road network does not grind to a halt ... Now, as the planned Tadpole Farm and Ridgeway Farm developments threaten to put even more cars on Swindon’s roads, the council has passed a motion to start negotiations with the Department for Transport for the shortfall.'
 
I was at the June 12th Planning Committee when  Cllr Wakefield presented his concerns about the Tadpole Farm implications and the need for this upgrade. He was ignored as were the many others who also raised their concerns about viability of access. Tadpole Farm was approved by the Planning Committee on the basis of advice from Officers G Lloyd and C Cornelius who made no mention of the need for such a link and said the area , with a few modifications ,could cope. Officer C Cornelius also stunningly pronounced that people buy cars to put on their drives but don't drive them! Not 1 planning committee member asked her to back this up with evidence.

So isn’t it a bit rich for Cllr Williams ,  as a planning committee member who approved Tadpole Farm, to show concern now? 

Cllr Bluh says there is no scrutiny of planning but isn't that what he is doing? Why does Cllr Bluh now refute the advice of his Officers Lloyd and Cornelius? Has he sought a second opinion from 'independent experts' ?

On advice from Officers Lloyd and C Cornelius ,who stated that the area could cope with 1500 cars/hour and with a few minor tweaks that all would be safe and suitable, the Planning Committee approved the Croft School. These same Officers dismissed the independent expert advice, paid for by residents, which challenged the safety and suitability of access. 

On a quiet morning just after 9am on Wed Aug 8th, when many folks are on holiday as are the playgroup and children's centre, I had to give way 4 times  between Hesketh Crescent and Marlborough Lane (at the Old Driving Test Centre). On 3 occasions I was able to reverse to allow the other cars to pass. 
 
Perhaps Cllr Bluh can ask Officers Lloyd and Cornelius just how they plan that traffic will be able to flow around the Croft on a typical day when everyone is back at work, and all of the facilities including the school are open? What happens when the traffic is backed up in each direction?
 
If Cllr Bluh can't rely on the advice of Highways Officers Lloyd and Cornelius then why should anyone else?
 
On a final note, isn’t Ridgeway Farm still under appeal, or does Cllr Bluh know something different?

Kareen Boyd
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on August 15, 2012, 07:13:24 AM


Went to the Tues  August 14th 2012 Planning Committee and asked....
 
"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.

I admit to being somewhat surprised that these gentleman were unable to answer this question on the night.. written answer awaited
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Weebleman on August 15, 2012, 08:37:41 AM
Sorry this is a bit off topic (but probably not worthy of a topic of its own) but does anyone know what's being built behind the screens recently erected opposite the Vauxhall garage in Mead Way. This verges on Shaw Forest and I was concerned yesterday to see the entrance to the forest blocked off (one of my regular doggie walking territories). Surely they're not going to encroach on the forest even before its saplings have had chance to put down proper roots.
For those of you that don't know the area it's well worth a visit and walking from there over to Molden Hill, which is being developed as a very nice leisure area. Walk it now before the Iffley link gets built (see! I can be a NIMBY too  ;D ).
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on August 15, 2012, 08:43:05 AM
Can't see it would be anything to live in,  Still taking bets on the trees making it past 25 years, let alone having homes on it.  Noxious gases etc.   Is is something to do with the planned playing fields or are they already in?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Steve Wakefield on August 15, 2012, 09:03:59 AM
Visit the SBC planning web site - application number S/12/0027 for details.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Richard Symonds on August 15, 2012, 09:56:29 AM


Went to the Tues  August 14th 2012 Planning Committee and asked....
 
"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.

I admit to being somewhat surprised that these gentleman were unable to answer this question on the night.. written answer awaited

Jenny was the Lead Member for Planning present?

If he was, surely he would have been able to answer your question, that is if he is in charge of his brief?

Just like Wi-fi and the Croft, everything has to be dealt with by Considered Written Answers or in my case not as I am still waiting for answers to two sets of questions to Councillor Perkins asked at full Council a year ago and last March.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Weebleman on August 15, 2012, 10:18:37 AM
Visit the SBC planning web site - application number S/12/0027 for details.

Thanks Steve. Another car showroom  :(
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on August 15, 2012, 01:17:11 PM


Went to the Tues  August 14th 2012 Planning Committee and asked....
 
"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.

I admit to being somewhat surprised that these gentleman were unable to answer this question on the night.. written answer awaited

Jenny was the Lead Member for Planning present?

If he was, surely he would have been able to answer your question, that is if he is in charge of his brief?

Just like Wi-fi and the Croft, everything has to be dealt with by Considered Written Answers or in my case not as I am still waiting for answers to two sets of questions to Councillor Perkins asked at full Council a year ago and last March.

Cllr Heenan Lead Member for Strategic Planning, Member of the Planning Committee and Ward Member was indeed in attendance. He did not interject when the question was asked.

Perhaps he is distracted by his foray into the private business at Redlands?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Richard Symonds on August 15, 2012, 01:59:39 PM
Cllr Heenan Lead Member for Strategic Planning, Member of the Planning Committee and Ward Member was indeed in attendance. He did not interject when the question was asked.

Perhaps he is distracted by his foray into the private business at Redlands?

How interesting, but remember Jenny he will have to go away and consult on his reply anyway and as for his foray into the private business of Redlands that is another matter!

I find Colin Lovell a most interesting Chairman of Planning in that he has never spoken at Council, in my presence at least, and seems to be a very useful shock absorber for anything contentious! 

Just the man to keep the peole at bay.

Was he active in his role as Councillor in Moredon?  Interesting that he chose not to defend his position there!
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on August 15, 2012, 02:30:49 PM
Cllr Heenan Lead Member for Strategic Planning, Member of the Planning Committee and Ward Member was indeed in attendance. He did not interject when the question was asked.

Perhaps he is distracted by his foray into the private business at Redlands?

How interesting, but remember Jenny he will have to go away and consult on his reply anyway and as for his foray into the private business of Redlands that is another matter!

I find Colin Lovell a most interesting Chairman of Planning in that he has never spoken at Council, in my presence at least, and seems to be a very useful shock absorber for anything contentious! 

Just the man to keep the peole at bay.

Was he active in his role as Councillor in Moredon?  Interesting that he chose not to defend his position there!

Richard,

To be honest, the Chair and the Officers were very polite to me... but appeared , in my opinion, quite flummoxed to be asked a question about a proposed £100m infrastructure project.

I was quite surprised that people in these positions did not have the answer at their fingertips.

Maybe there are lots of £100m infrastructure proposals around and it is hard to keep track?

Perhaps discussed in meetings so confidential that they don't know about them or are not allowed to mention?

Anyhow.. it should all become clear in the written answer.... should it not?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jayjay on August 17, 2012, 11:39:57 AM
Visit the SBC planning web site - application number S/12/0027 for details.

Thanks Steve. Another car showroom  :(

I drove past the area yesterday - there is a development on the same side as Skurrys which is advertised as a new car show room, but there is also an area boarded off opposite Skurrys at the entrance to the park.  The planning application number above is unclear which site it refers to, just saying "off Mead Way".  So what is going on at the entrance to the park.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Weebleman on August 17, 2012, 01:39:52 PM
Jayjay: I drove past the area yesterday - there is a development on the same side as Skurrys which is advertised as a new car show room, but there is also an area boarded off opposite Skurrys at the entrance to the park.  The planning application number above is unclear which site it refers to, just saying "off Mead Way".  So what is going on at the entrance to the park.

Yes, it's the one adjacent to the park entrance that concerns me too Jayjay. I'm still not sure if this is part of the car showroom plan as I was unable to download the detailed drawings from the link Steve gave. It would be a pity if the park was allowed to be spoiled by development even before it had chance to get established.
I equally look forward to seeing the proposed route for the iffley link!
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mickraker on September 12, 2012, 08:00:01 AM
Planning permission is to be decided today  :popcorn:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jayjay on September 12, 2012, 10:03:24 AM
Does anybody know what S106 "improvements" have been negotiated? 
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: the gorgon on September 12, 2012, 10:53:20 AM
Planning permission is to be decided today  :popcorn:


I hope the plans are rejected (but I wouldn't be surprised if they get accepted) - I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of the planning committee, especially with all the noise the government has been making about increasing house building.  Basically they're damned if they do and damned if they don't (give planning permission).

Like I said the other day, Swindon is going to get dumped on from a big height with all the planning changes.  If the government are prepared to pee-off the Tory Mayor of London and Tory voters in West London and Berkshire by suggesting a 3rd runway at Heathrow they won't even hesitate to grant planning permission on appeal (should PP be refused by the council) for houses near Swindon.

Let us not forget the millions the government has received from property developers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/hands-off-our-land/8754027/Conservatives-given-millions-by-property-developers.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/hands-off-our-land/8754027/Conservatives-given-millions-by-property-developers.html)

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Rincewind on September 12, 2012, 12:31:51 PM
Decision made yesterday, docs can be found here -

http://194.73.99.13:8080/WAM/showCaseFile.do?appType=Planning&appNumber=S/11/1588 (http://194.73.99.13:8080/WAM/showCaseFile.do?appType=Planning&appNumber=S/11/1588)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Weebleman on September 12, 2012, 07:32:54 PM
Decision made yesterday, docs can be found here -

[url]http://194.73.99.13:8080/WAM/showCaseFile.do?appType=Planning&appNumber=S/11/1588[/url] ([url]http://194.73.99.13:8080/WAM/showCaseFile.do?appType=Planning&appNumber=S/11/1588[/url])


Interesting document. Amongst all the stated conditions I was particularly scratching my head over:

Quote
Badger Setts
20 Prior to the commencement of works within each development phase or sub phase, surveys of the area for the presence of badgers and occupied setts shall have been completed. The result of each survey, together with details any appropriate mitigation measures shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the commencement of any works within the Development Phase or Sub Phase, in accordance with an agreed scheme of mitigation.
Reason: To ensure the protection of a protected species
Relevant Policy: ENV18 Swindon Borough Local Plan 2011 (2006), DMP11 Swindon Borough Core Strategy and Development Management Policies - Revised Proposed Submission Document (2011).


Now, I'm not exactly a campaigning environmentalist however I do have a healthy respect and enjoyment of our wild-life; but could these badgers be the same "protected species" that was mentioned on ITV local news this morning in conjunction with the experimental cull that is about to begin in West Somerset?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mickraker on September 13, 2012, 07:54:34 AM
The Graham Mack BBC radio show had a councillor on saying that Tadpole Farm is nothing to worry about. Councillor Heenan's argument sounded weak and was saying that he thinks no problem exists with schol places.

I wonder if he has read the adver today which has given school places another a splurge. This is another council story that is not flattering it.  :-\

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9925231.Get_applications_in_for_school_places/ (http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9925231.Get_applications_in_for_school_places/)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on September 13, 2012, 08:10:43 AM
The Graham Mack BBC radio show had a councillor on saying that Tadpole Farm is nothing to worry about. Councillor Heenan's argument sounded weak and was saying that he thinks no problem exists with schol places.

I wonder if he has read the adver today which has given school places another a splurge. This is another council story that is not flattering it.  :-\

[url]http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9925231.Get_applications_in_for_school_places/[/url] ([url]http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9925231.Get_applications_in_for_school_places/[/url])


I thought this bit was particularly interesting...

Coun David Renard , Swindon council cabinet member for children’s services, said: “The council has a legal duty to provide school places, and we have an excellent track record in anticipating where those places are needed, and then building new schools to meet the demand if necessary. “In a growing town, this requires careful planning, and the figures speak for themselves – this year, we were the second most successful council in the south west, and the fifth nationally, at meeting the first preferences for secondary school applicants, while 98.8 per cent of primary school applicants had one of their three preferences met.

Yep.. let's identify how many places are needed and where.. ask the government for the money then allocate it elsewhere.

Yep.. let's calculate how many school places are needed for new developments ( Angel Ridge, Royal Mead, Tadpole Farm ) and let the developers rung rings around us.

As for 98.9%.. the numbers don't even add up on this.

Yep.. the figures do speak for themselves, but who is listening?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on September 13, 2012, 08:14:44 AM
The Graham Mack BBC radio show had a councillor on saying that Tadpole Farm is nothing to worry about. Councillor Heenan's argument sounded weak and was saying that he thinks no problem exists with schol places.

I wonder if he has read the adver today which has given school places another a splurge. This is another council story that is not flattering it.  :-\

[url]http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9925231.Get_applications_in_for_school_places/[/url] ([url]http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9925231.Get_applications_in_for_school_places/[/url])


I thought this bit was particularly interesting...

Coun David Renard , Swindon council cabinet member for children’s services, said: “The council has a legal duty to provide school places, and we have an excellent track record in anticipating where those places are needed, and then building new schools to meet the demand if necessary. “In a growing town, this requires careful planning, and the figures speak for themselves – this year, we were the second most successful council in the south west, and the fifth nationally, at meeting the first preferences for secondary school applicants, while 98.8 per cent of primary school applicants had one of their three preferences met.

Yep.. let's identify how many places are needed and where.. ask the government for the money then allocate it elsewhere.

Yep.. let's calculate how many school places are needed for new developments ( Angel Ridge, Royal Mead, Tadpole Farm ) and let the developers rung rings around us.

As for 98.9%.. the numbers don't even add up on this.

Yep.. the figures do speak for themselves, but who is listening?


And on this note.. went to scrutiny last night and asked these questions:

Public Questions Scrutiny Committee 12/09/2012

Despite SBC’s own evidence that the 2012 Primary need was in North and Central Swindon, Cllr Bluh states that there was not a shred of evidence that the Croft was not needed for Old Town. In July 2011 Residents invited Cllr Bluh and Mr Jones to attend a meeting with local residents to convince us of the need for the Croft School because SBC’s own data did not add up. On behalf of SBC Cllr Bluh refused.

SBC data shows that on 20/4/2012 not a single reception place was left in North Swindon’s 8 schools. Old Town/Lawn’s 5 schools were able to offer 48 places out of catchment and on 31/8/2012 still have a further 41 reception spaces available.

Cllr Bluh says the Croft is needed. Cllr Renard does not appear to be too sure. Cllr Renard says the Croft has been delayed because of residents ( who couldn’t even  influence the colour of the roof tiles). Cllr Bluh says that the Croft is on budget and on schedule and was always planned to finish on Dec 24th. .  CllrRenard and Cllr Bluh cannot both be correct.

In January 2012, SBC had the admissions evidence showing that the Croft was surplus. On Feb 2012 SBC broke ground on the Croft. If this was done in the knowledge that the school was not needed then this bears scrutiny. If this was done in ignorance of the fact that the school was not needed then this bears scrutiny.

Does anyone know the overall cost of the Croft School or whether it is value for tax payers money? This bears scrutiny.

SBC can provide no evidence to support the need for or decision to build a school on the Croft for Old Town. This bears scrutiny.

Is Cllr Bluh stating that it was always the plan to open a school on a building site? This bears scrutiny.

SBC has given Old Town the luxury of choice based on government funding given for but denied to North Swindon. This bears scrutiny.

Why have North Swindon families been disadvantaged? This bears scrutiny.

For reference. Tadpole Farm has been approved with no primary provision until 900 homes are built. Where are the children supposed to go?

Question

The evidence does not support Children's Services assertions of +/-1% accurary , Does primary school place planning across Swindon require an urgent review?

Does this Committee agree that an independent, impartial, open and transparent assessment of the full process and actions which delivered the Croft is urgently required?

Will the Scrutiny Committee initiate this?

Otherwise, what is there to prevent a repeat?

Kareen Boyd
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Steve Wakefield on September 13, 2012, 09:19:08 AM
I listened to the radio this morning and Graham Mack is as sharp as ever as he managed to got ino the nub of the Tadpole Farm Development in a handful of questions, with Cllr Dale Heenan. Followed by Stephanie Exell who gave a robust and factual retort to his probing. I particularly welcomed Steph's comments, highlighting the need for Purton Iffley Link Road.   :wink:

I recommend that the S106 agreement is read carefully to elicit all the detail.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on September 13, 2012, 10:26:00 AM
There are lots of residents all over Swindon who are listening to the debate about school places.  That's what I've always liked about Swindon folk, they weigh the facts up and come to their own conclusion.

I'm a believer in facts, they cut through the smoke-filled rooms which the politicians inhabit.  However, the smoke is now generated by the hot air and politic spinning that emanates from less than hygienic parts.  How did the Darwinian process move some politicians mouths to their undercarriage?

It's good to see the residents' association blog in Oakhurst starting with a cracking post-Summer break article about the Tadpole Farm negotiation debacle:

http://www.oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/ (http://www.oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on September 13, 2012, 11:10:58 AM
There are lots of residents all over Swindon who are listening to the debate about school places.  That's what I've always liked about Swindon folk, they weigh the facts up and come to their own conclusion.

I'm a believer in facts, they cut through the smoke-filled rooms which the politicians inhabit.  However, the smoke is now generated by the hot air and politic spinning that emanates from less than hygienic parts.  How did the Darwinian process move some politicians mouths to their undercarriage?

It's good to see the residents' association blog in Oakhurst starting with a cracking post-Summer break article about the Tadpole Farm negotiation debacle:

[url]http://www.oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/[/url] ([url]http://www.oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/[/url])


All of the Cllrs involved in accepting this and Mr Gilbert of Children's Services, should be able to provide a clear plan as to where all of the children from these 1st 565 homes will go to school.

As grant of planning approval has been snuck out.. all of this information must already exist.

Cllr Tomlinson et al will surely have it at their fingertips..or via Cllr Renard?



Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mickraker on September 13, 2012, 12:08:38 PM
All of the Cllrs involved in accepting this and Mr Gilbert of Children's Services, should be able to provide a clear plan as to where all of the children from these 1st 565 homes will go to school.

As grant of planning approval has been snuck out.. all of this information must already exist.

Cllr Tomlinson et al will surely have it at their fingertips..or via Cllr Renard?

Cllr Tomlinson, by that I take it is Vera you mean. I think Vera is the councillor that led the negotiation as Tadpole is in the ward she is elected to represent.  :-\
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Steve Wakefield on September 13, 2012, 01:08:02 PM
Quote
- where were the ward councillors from Priory Vale?

http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/graham-mack-breakfast-show-tadpole-farm.html (http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/graham-mack-breakfast-show-tadpole-farm.html)

- Reading the latest Thursday column perhaps?

 
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on September 13, 2012, 01:35:26 PM
All of the Cllrs involved in accepting this and Mr Gilbert of Children's Services, should be able to provide a clear plan as to where all of the children from these 1st 565 homes will go to school.

As grant of planning approval has been snuck out.. all of this information must already exist.

Cllr Tomlinson et al will surely have it at their fingertips..or via Cllr Renard?

Cllr Tomlinson, by that I take it is Vera you mean. I think Vera is the councillor that led the negotiation as Tadpole is in the ward she is elected to represent.  :-\

If non provision of school places is not a reason to reject or defer a planning application then what is?

Therefore if it wasn't rejected or deferred ..there must be a statement of how the provision of school places is to be managed until 565 TA houses have been built.

Where is the Officers' Report on this, when was it created, where was it presented, who approved it and when?

Should be a simple exercise for SBC to provide the evidence.. should it not?

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mickraker on September 13, 2012, 01:36:05 PM
They could have been reading this lot in the adver  :-\ http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9925625.Residents_angry_as_Tadpole_Farm_homes_plan_gets_go_ahead/ (http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9925625.Residents_angry_as_Tadpole_Farm_homes_plan_gets_go_ahead/)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mart on September 13, 2012, 07:17:36 PM
P'raps they will build a lot of houses in the Croft area to generate enough kids.

A few years ago you would have dismissed this as crackpot, not so sure now though, are we?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jayjay on September 13, 2012, 08:27:19 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19585136 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19585136)

any free childcare in croft?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Tea Boy on September 13, 2012, 09:25:47 PM
There's a very interesting conversation going on on Priory Vale's facebook site.

Some choice statements by a person named.... Oliver Donachie no less, seems as if the normally present North Swindon councillors aren't talking and Oli is doing all the arse covering.

I particularly like...

Quote

I am a genuine futurist and libertarian, I love open and clear debate especially on a forum that so many can take part in and I have tried to gently coax people from "officialdom" into commenting on here and its worked out, but I will just share a concern any person in office has, its sadly common for two problems to occur. 1: Some people act like any comment made on a forum for general perusal is set in stone and will run to the papers with it. 2: If they do try to make capital from it they tend to use very select quotes, partial texts etc to completely remove the original meaning and de-contextualize the point. I find that very sad but I am just saying, I understand why cllr's are reluctant given how they have been treated in the past.


Futurist :2funny: :2funny:

Libertarian  :2funny: :2funny: :2funny:


... and the reason cllrs are reluctant is because they are hypocrites, elected on a promise of controlling development only to exert no control at all. To promise public consultation which happened 'hitchhikers guide to the galaxy ' style....

Quote
But the plans were on display . . ."
 "On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
 "That's the display department."
 "With a torch."
 "Ah, well the lights had probably gone."
 "So had the stairs."
 "But look, you found the notice, didn't you?"
 "Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard."

and...

Quote
There’s no point in acting surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it’s far too late to start making a fuss about it now. … What do you mean you’ve never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh, for heaven’s sake, mankind, it’s only four light years away, you know. I’m sorry, but if you can’t be bothered to take an interest in local affairs, that’s your own lookout. Energize the demolition beams.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on September 14, 2012, 12:10:10 AM
I had a chat with Steph Excell today about her being responsible for Redhouse planning applications.  First of all she thought I was having a laugh with her as she didn't become a councillor in Moredon until 2007.  She was quite chuffed to hear that as a very junior councillor she had eclipsed the power of JT, who was a cabinet member and an Abbey Meads ward councillor for 10 years with a 100% attendance record (whilst he played with his phone - honest guv I was listening to everyone else's opinion!).

She wondered if it was one of those JT fantasies where he lets go of his iron pyrite grip on North Swindon and submits to the will of a middle-aged woman and hands her the responsibility for Tory party planning policy in the northern expansion?

Oh well, there's nothing like a grimm fairy tale before I toddle off to me bed.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Steve Wakefield on September 14, 2012, 09:15:57 AM
Oh well, there's nothing like a grimm fairy tale before I toddle off to me bed.

Not sure about a fairy tale, but if I recall Cllr Justin Tomlinson sat next to me in the Council Chamber during the time that the Priory Vale Masterplan was being drawn up. That would have been late 2001 and the masterplan was agreed by the council in 2002. If I remember correctly during the run up to the 2007 election in the late part 2006 - early part of 2007 a local woman along with Michael Wills MP was giving the developers and the council aggravation over unadopted roads, faulty lights etc. (this was after she had moved into the area from West Swindon) on arriving in Abbey Meads she had hit a particular developer along with Michael WillsMP quite hard. In Freshbrook she had helped her neighbours to see off the plans to build on fields by Lydiard Park in the 1990s.

If I recall in early 2007 the critiscism of  developers by this person and others over the non materialisation of the Redhouse Village Centre, mobilised the developer  into making a "wait until completion before critisicing" statement. A project manger for Crest, attended a public meeting in March 2007 to reassure local people that the Village Centre would be finished.

It was  an active local resident who put a developer under pressure to deliver what was promised in the Litrature and Masterplan, and not to forget displayed in a shiny model of the school and village centre.

If I recall as this local resident was  scrutinising actions of the council, councillors and developers, when a longserving local Abbey meads councillor managed to talk this woman into the Political tent. If I recall she was elected in May 2007. Though long established local councillor for Abbey Meads told councillors after that meeting it was agreed that the pub at the Redhouse Village Centre would be built and opened within 18months. It was not built in the 18 months ( just as this woman had predicted at the time). In July 2012 you may recall that an application was received to build 33 houses on the site of the Redhouse Village Centre, again as predicted by the same woman)

As they say the rest is history and the History of Redhouse was written and forged long before the first meeting of the planning committee in the new municipal year of 2007/08 when anyone elected in May 2007 would have joined it - just sayin -

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Smiler on September 14, 2012, 09:37:35 AM
Since the 11th September there is boiling anger in Priory Vale especially over the fact that nothing new has been gained.  There are rumours circulating about emails from local councillors and JT intimating that residents concerns would be addressed or the application would be turned down. 

#fail#fail residents concerns have not been addressed and the application has been given the green light#fail

This is more than a failure for local elected representatives.  What we now have is evidence of a #omnishambles#

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mickraker on September 14, 2012, 10:00:17 AM
There are rumours circulating about emails from local councillors and JT intimating that residents concerns would be addressed or the application would be turned down. 

Emails what emails  :fish:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on September 14, 2012, 11:30:38 PM
As they say the rest is history and the History of Redhouse was written and forged long before the first meeting of the planning committee in the new municipal year of 2007/08 when anyone elected in May 2007 would have joined it - just sayin -

Spoke to Steph this evening and she told me she remembers it well.  She wanted you to know that she's forgotten about the tent part but I've told her she might want to visualise it like a blue vacuum where the dirt gets stuck up the crevices.  Sorry Steph, my words not yours.

When Cllr Vera Tomlinson was elected in 2008 I remember she latched onto Steph and joined planning committee straight away.  Whilst she was away on holiday in 2009, Cllr Tomlinson missed the opportunity to stop the Haydon 3 renegotiation being approved at Planning Committee.  This oversight led to a large reduction in developer contributions being paid to the Borough and paved the way for a Borough wide spending programme with what appears to be no overarching s.106 strategy for its expenditure.

Cllr Tomlinson had to claw back her own s.106 money from Rod and other south Swindon cabinet members to try and build the Redhouse Community Centre.  Seems like the old trick of deflecting the blame onto someone else might be the only way that the junior and senior T's can salvage a modicum of political pride.
 

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Geoff Reid on September 15, 2012, 12:24:30 AM
There are rumours circulating about emails from local councillors and JT intimating that residents concerns would be addressed or the application would be turned down. 

Emails what emails  :fish:

They are not rumours. :wink:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Geoff Reid on September 15, 2012, 12:28:49 AM

Cllr Tomlinson had to claw back her own s.106 money from Rod and other south Swindon cabinet members to try and build the Redhouse Community Centre.  Seems like the old trick of deflecting the blame onto someone else might be the only way that the junior and senior T's can salvage a modicum of political pride.

There is a topic on TS which dicusses Cllr Tomlinson's (VT) 'finding' £700,000 od section 106 money to spend in 'her' ward - is this the same 106 as mentioned above?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mickraker on September 15, 2012, 12:36:24 AM
If they were all in agreement no infrastructure no houses  what went wrong  :-\

http://www.swindonlink.com/news/all-agreed-no-infrastructure-no-1700-houses-at-tadpole-farm (http://www.swindonlink.com/news/all-agreed-no-infrastructure-no-1700-houses-at-tadpole-farm)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mickraker on September 15, 2012, 12:40:57 AM
There is a topic on TS which dicusses Cllr Tomlinson's (VT) 'finding' £700,000 od section 106 money to spend in 'her' ward - is this the same 106 as mentioned above?



 :fish: http://www.talkswindon.org/index.php?topic=7139.0 (http://www.talkswindon.org/index.php?topic=7139.0)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Geoff Reid on September 15, 2012, 04:10:55 AM

Cllr Tomlinson had to claw back her own s.106 money from Rod and other south Swindon cabinet members to try and build the Redhouse Community Centre.  Seems like the old trick of deflecting the blame onto someone else might be the only way that the junior and senior T's can salvage a modicum of political pride.


There is a topic on TS which dicusses Cllr Tomlinson's (VT) 'finding' £700,000 od section 106 money to spend in 'her' ward - is this the same 106 as mentioned above?


Yes, here it is: Vera Tomlinson Has 'Won' £700,000 of 106 Money to 'Spend' In The North? (http://www.talkswindon.org/index.php/topic,7139.msg53394.html#msg53394)

Click thumbnail to view the leaflet [as stored in the TS leaflet Library in February 2011]:

(http://www.talkswindon.org/politics/leaflets/2011%20leaflets/Abbey_Meads_Conservatives/2011_02_20_abbey_meads_conservatives_700k_106_money_thumb.jpg) (http://www.talkswindon.org/politics/leaflets/2011%20leaflets/Abbey_Meads_Conservatives/2011_02_20_abbey_meads_conservatives_700k_106_money.jpg)

So, after 'winning' £700,000 of 106 contributions, what did Vera spend it on?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Weebleman on September 15, 2012, 07:28:11 AM
£700k seems to be a magic figure in SBC land!

Vera finds an extra £700k
Croft overspend is £700k
Net profits from WiFi £700k


What's next?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Weebleman on September 15, 2012, 07:29:51 AM
So, after 'winning' £700,000 of 106 contributions, what did Vera spend it on?

Shoes?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Muggins on September 15, 2012, 08:31:40 AM
Makes me laugh - it seesm to read £700,000 for the whole Northern Sector and how does she suggest its spent

Community building at Redhouse

Couple fo security lights at Abbey Meads end and grit bins elsewhere!

Goodd share out - that one   :2funny:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Steve Wakefield on September 15, 2012, 09:30:48 AM
If they were all in agreement no infrastructure no houses  what went wrong  :-\

[url]http://www.swindonlink.com/news/all-agreed-no-infrastructure-no-1700-houses-at-tadpole-farm[/url] ([url]http://www.swindonlink.com/news/all-agreed-no-infrastructure-no-1700-houses-at-tadpole-farm[/url])


That was a good meeting and I asked the question about the Purton Iffley Road Link, but was pleased that the Chair of Haydon Wick Parish Council raised it as well.  :clap:

When the MP said
Quote
Justin Tomlinson MP said, “the existing road network in the northern sector is struggling with 10,000 houses. It’s clear that we need concrete plans for additional infrastructure before I can be in favour of adding more housing. The recent consultations have been developer driven and need to be taken with an extremely large pinch of salt. We need an independent and robust consultation procedure before any decisions can be made.”


I thought to myself, at the time and what will he do to get an independent and robust consultation procedure? I consoled myself that it could be a statement that may 
Quote
need to be taken with an extremely large pinch of salt.
Maybe I missed what he did to secure what he said was needed, as I do not recall an independent and robust consultation period being undertaken.

There was a consultation period and much work was done by ORA some 1400 objections were raised over 25% from Rodbourne Cheyney and RCRA also raised objections and attended a meeting in Blunsdon.

I now find myself wondering if or when will Justin Tomlinson MP publically pressure the administration and  Cllrs Dale Heenan and Keith Williams to push the Purton Iffley Link road as a priority? I don't think Robert Buckland MP has come out recently publically either on demanding this road? As a resident of Shaw I can tell him it is not only me that thinks it will be an important election battleground come the general. Residents of Shaw abd Mannington Western are very aware Meadway and the roads around it are increasingly becoming rat runs to avoid the virtual carpark Meadway is becoming for long periods during the day.

I also remember an independent traffic survey being mentioned at the meeting ORA asked the leader about it. I am not sure if that was done, or was it something else I missed? Yes a robust consultation propelled by residents did take place, but Justin Tomlinson MP did not raise a written objection at Planning Committee, which he could do as he could not attend.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mickraker on September 15, 2012, 02:49:28 PM
£700k seems to be a magic figure in SBC land!

Vera finds an extra £700k
Croft overspend is £700k
Net profits from WiFi £700k


What's next?

Money  for Pickhards  small field housing development was that also  £700k  :-\
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Richard Symonds on September 15, 2012, 03:17:11 PM
Net profits from WiFi £700k

sorry Weebleman got to correct that statement -

It was a profit of £700,000 per annum as proudly promoted by our Great Leader!

Meanwhile,

We are still waiting to find out what happened to the £400,000 that was loaned to this disastrous pRoject.

so much for so called profit, but does our Great Leader understand the difference between this and a loss?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mickraker on September 15, 2012, 04:08:25 PM
There are rumours circulating about emails from local councillors and JT intimating that residents concerns would be addressed or the application would be turned down. 

Emails what emails  :fish:

They are not rumours. :wink:

Anyone seen an email yet  :fish:

If ever I have the misfortune to go on a shopping expedition using Meadway if I ever have the misfortune I take along  two flasks and four sandwiches with me as the journey is horrendous. A strong bladder allows the extra flask  :-\
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Weebleman on September 15, 2012, 04:31:41 PM

sorry Weebleman got to correct that statement -

It was a profit of £700,000 per annum as proudly promoted by our Great Leader!

Ah yes, you're right Richard.... cloud cuckoo figures from the start. No wonder it all went very wrong.

As for the £400k I think we both know that the detailed accounts will be hidden from us for a long time yet.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Steve Wakefield on September 15, 2012, 07:03:58 PM
Now that the Tadpole Farm urban extension has been approved it will not be long I think before November 1st the Ridgeway Farm planning appeal decision should be announced.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mr Grumble on September 15, 2012, 07:11:23 PM
I also remember an independent traffic survey being mentioned at the meeting ORA asked the leader about it. I am not sure if that was done, or was it something else I missed? Yes a robust consultation propelled by residents did take place, but Justin Tomlinson MP did not raise a written objection at Planning Committee, which he could do as he could not attend.


Don't you mean that there wasn't a written objection presented in the committee papers from JT.

http://ww5.swindon.gov.uk/moderngov/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=5705&T=10 (http://ww5.swindon.gov.uk/moderngov/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=5705&T=10)

Having read the papers the only local politician who formally objected during the consultation period was you.

As you can see from the papers all the objections are written there.  I think the 1,400 you refer to is objections to the soundness of the draft core strategy.

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jayjay on September 15, 2012, 07:34:06 PM
If they were all in agreement no infrastructure no houses  what went wrong  :-\

[url]http://www.swindonlink.com/news/all-agreed-no-infrastructure-no-1700-houses-at-tadpole-farm[/url] ([url]http://www.swindonlink.com/news/all-agreed-no-infrastructure-no-1700-houses-at-tadpole-farm[/url])


When you look at the people attending this meeting, Cllr Vera Tomlinson, Cllr Peter Heaton-Jones, &  Cllr Peter Stoddard, though they were at the time of the meeting (April 2011) Ward Councillors whose responsibilities covered Oakhurst, by the time the planning meeting took place the boundaries had changed and they were longer representing Oakhurst, also Cllr Vera Tomlinson was no-longer on the planning committee.


Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Steve Wakefield on September 15, 2012, 07:37:47 PM
I also remember an independent traffic survey being mentioned at the meeting ORA asked the leader about it. I am not sure if that was done, or was it something else I missed? Yes a robust consultation propelled by residents did take place, but Justin Tomlinson MP did not raise a written objection at Planning Committee, which he could do as he could not attend.


Don't you mean that there wasn't a written objection presented in the committee papers from JT.

[url]http://ww5.swindon.gov.uk/moderngov/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=5705&T=10[/url] ([url]http://ww5.swindon.gov.uk/moderngov/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=5705&T=10[/url])

Having read the papers the only local politician who formally objected during the consultation period was you.

As you can see from the papers all the objections are written there.  I think the 1,400 you refer to is objections to the soundness of the draft core strategy.


Mr Grumble

Thanks for the contribution. I wrote what I wrote and as some say it is all open to interpretation. That is what I wrote, but it's not what I meant is also another interpretation that can be used. I was at the Planning Committee and the link is to the recorded objections during the official period of objection. You are correct I registered my objection 

Quote
Ward Members
23 Councillor Steve Wakefield (Mannington & Western) has made representations as summarised below:

• Thedevelopmentwillhaveanadverseeffectonexistingpr opertiesand the junctions of Mead Way, Shaw Road, Meads, Westmead and Bridgemead Roundabouts owing to the increases in traffic.

• MoretrafficfromNorthSwindonwill causenoiseandother disturbances to residents in Toothill, Westlea, Mannington, Even Swindon and Rodbourne.

• Trafficwillimpactadverselyonvehiclesusingthesport sfield, residential and business premises which will be hemmed in by restrictions imposed on it due to the increase in traffic using Bridgemead roundabout.

• MeadWayisnotsuitabletocarryitscurrentvolumeoftraf ficandonly a duelling would alleviate some of the problems. The application should not be approved until the ‘Iffley Link’ road is designed and programmed in for construction 


I know JT could not be at the Planning Meeting as he was I believe out of the country. If I do recall the officer referred to a letter being received from an MP. However the officer when they were addressing the Committee tended to précis things and kept looking down when he was speaking. I found it hard to follow what he was saying.

As I say I wrote what I wrote and is open to interpretation.   :wink:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mickraker on September 15, 2012, 08:38:04 PM
If they were all in agreement no infrastructure no houses  what went wrong  :-\

[url]http://www.swindonlink.com/news/all-agreed-no-infrastructure-no-1700-houses-at-tadpole-farm[/url] ([url]http://www.swindonlink.com/news/all-agreed-no-infrastructure-no-1700-houses-at-tadpole-farm[/url])


When you look at the people attending this meeting, Cllr Vera Tomlinson, Cllr Peter Heaton-Jones, &  Cllr Peter Stoddard, though they were at the time of the meeting (April 2011) Ward Councillors whose responsibilities covered Oakhurst, by the time the planning meeting took place the boundaries had changed and they were longer representing Oakhurst, also Cllr Vera Tomlinson was no-longer on the planning committee.


JJ cheers for that info  O0

Off to do a bit of  :smiley6600: and some  :coffee:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mickraker on September 15, 2012, 10:17:00 PM
After a  :smiley6600: and some  :coffee: I think I may now know that

A Councillor Stoddart retired.

A Councillor Heaton Jones is Councillor in St Andrews.

A Councillor Mary Friend is a Councillor in St Andrews and there  was a Councillor Friend in another place.

A Councillor Vera Tomlinson is a Councillor in St Andrews and there was a Friend  Councillor Tomlinson in another place.

Non of the above are on the planning board at SBC.

Tadpole Farm development is contained within the Ward boundaries of StAndrews Ward.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Smiler on September 15, 2012, 10:41:17 PM
Mickraker I wouldn't call that research, you've only scratched the surface  :wink:

Keep digging O0
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Richard Symonds on September 16, 2012, 09:12:45 AM
I now find myself wondering if or when will Justin Tomlinson MP publically pressure the administration and  Cllrs Dale Heenan and Keith Williams to push the Purton Iffley Link road as a priority? I don't think Robert Buckland MP has come out recently publically either on demanding this road? As a resident of Shaw I can tell him it is not only me that thinks it will be an important election battleground come the general. Residents of Shaw abd Mannington Western are very aware Meadway and the roads around it are increasingly becoming rat runs to avoid the virtual carpark Meadway is becoming for long periods during the day.

The Purton iffley Road link is essential and must be treated with the same priority that is applied to the building of the Croft School!

I went into town in the rush hour on Wednesday morning at 8.10am and knowing the chaos that is Mead Way and how it is backed up almost to Moredon I turned left into Shaw Road and thence Cartwright Drive to Roghmoor Way on which there was a continuous stream of traffic rat running away from Mead Way. At the Tewksebury Way Roundabout it was backed up almost to Middleleaze Drive and so I went along Ramleaze which was no better.  There was a long queue to the Whitemoor way roundabout and a hundred yards of queue to Mannington which took six changes of the lights to access because of the congestion on the roundabout backed up by red lights preventing access to Wootton Bassett Road.

The problems at Mannington are exacerbated by the tongue that prevents double queuing to the roundabout compounded by the lights which I still believe are a waste of time and money.  Remove these obstacles and everything will run smoothly.  I spoke to Keith Williams about the tongue and to his credit he actually came back to me to tell me it is full of telephone fibre optic cable and will therefore cost tens of thousands to remove.   I responded by saying as an unnecessary £500,000 had been wasted on Mannington what was wrong with spending a few tens of thousands on the tongue?  After all it is small beer in comparison is it not?

Incidentally what does Labour have to say on these traffic issues, they are noted for their silence if indeed they even have a shadow Transport bod?  Sadly yet another reason why people say to me that whilst the Bluhligans are awful what alternative exists to the Conservative Administration?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Steve Wakefield on September 16, 2012, 09:31:36 AM
The Purton iffley Road link is essential and must be treated with the same priority that is applied to the building of the Croft School!

You might think that I couldn't comment  >:D

what alternative exists to the Conservative Administration?

Spock’s decree that there is always an alternative  >:D
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on September 16, 2012, 11:40:54 AM
The Purton iffley Road link is essential and must be treated with the same priority that is applied to the building of the Croft School!

You might think that I couldn't comment  >:D

what alternative exists to the Conservative Administration?

Spock’s decree that there is always an alternative  >:D

Are Class Solutions going to use the Croft Mitigations as an ad for Civil Engineering ...whatever next?

As to alternatives ... there are always alternatives to ineptitude of any hue..

Swindon deserves better.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mickraker on September 16, 2012, 11:01:49 PM
Mickraker I wouldn't call that research, you've only scratched the surface  :wink:

Keep digging O0

Smiler, yes I will keep at it but I am not a researcher only a simple commando with a keyboard  :2funny:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: I Could Do That on September 16, 2012, 11:19:45 PM
I checked out this thread

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9925625.Residents_angry_as_Tadpole_Farm_homes_plan_gets_go_ahead/ (http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9925625.Residents_angry_as_Tadpole_Farm_homes_plan_gets_go_ahead/)

Of course you all know who Ollie and Emma are.
RichardR1 is often referred to as Robbo

They're "all" in agreement with the following link

www.dialemma.net (http://www.dialemma.net)
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mickraker on September 17, 2012, 12:16:18 AM
Dialemma is not the councillor for St Andrews where Tadpole is located. Nice of her to tidy up for them but odd St Andrews Councillors have not announced anything about the deal in their ward.  :-X
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on September 23, 2012, 09:25:58 AM
It is interesting that Mr O D continues to be used as a mouthpiece for Cllr Bluh etc al...

Anyhow he states in the Adver Comments...

Oliver_Donachie says...
11:22pm Sat 22 Sep 12
 
abbotboy , between the caps locks and general rambles its a little hard to decipher any actual English in your posts but I think you are asking where children around the Tadpole farm area will go, not sure what this has to do with FOI's and the cost to the taxpayer but anyway, for those that keep up to date on these things in a weekly and not seasonal manner:
 
Tadpole:
 
This so-called ‘Section 106’ agreement has now been finalised,
 and amounts to an £11 million pound
 package for the local community.
 
The highlights are:
 
Primary School – £5m secured for a  new primary school at Tadpole Farm which must be built before 565 houses  are occupied.

 Secondary School – £2.7m secured  and ring-fenced for the Northern Sector – in the original agreement this  money could have leaked almost anywhere in the Borough, but northern
 sector councillors have successfully argued for it to be ring-fenced   

East Wichel has had primary 2 schools in 3 years... 2010...  £1m for a 60 pupil temporary facility and £268,000 for a coat of dulux and a relocation... then in 2011 a lot more than £5m for a permanent 420 pupil school .. all for an 838 house estate which is still not built out. Cllr Renard states that there are 150 children in the whole school.

The Croft, whenever it is finished... is about 1000 yards from the East Wichel School.... is costing millions more than the £5m for Tadpole... and will also have capacity for 420 pupils.

So... the elephant in the room is... where are all the children from these 564 occupied homes supposed to go in the meantime? East Wichel or Croft ... whichever is still open? 

As for ring fencing money.. how does that work and who are they trying to protect it from ... Cllr Bluh or Cllr Bawden or Cllr Foley or Cllr Mattock... as they all have previous on redirecting North Swindon money to Old Town?

These said Cllrs also stated that Croft mitigation funds would be ring fenced for 7 years...  can anyone find this ?

And... I wonder who is going to build this primary school... and how are they going to guess when it needs to be ready?

Haven't looked at secondary school place planning as yet... shouldn't be too difficult to work it out..

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mickraker on September 23, 2012, 10:12:17 AM
Money leaked is that how Tory politicians now describe money spent by cabinet on schemes in their own domains :-\
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mart on September 23, 2012, 01:14:34 PM
Thing is that money in this kind of situation doesn't leak.

Some knob has to make a cock up and sign it off.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Tea Boy on September 23, 2012, 07:45:47 PM
I always keep an eye on the Priory Vale website, some of my family live down that way and its been good value for money recently, as our old friend Olive Dognasty has been using it to diseminate the local tory party message.

you know the one, 'yeah, no but, yeah, but no, we didn't, but we did, vote for the tadpole development honest.... blah blah blah'

it's been quite fun recently watching Olive desperately trying to justify his partners actions (really quite like how he makes out he's 'contacted Emma' over issues like recycling.... their diner conversations must just be heaven..) , recent upsurges in backsliding local councillors using it as a mouth piece have resulted in quite a few heated exchanges. to my mind it seems as if even the normally tame facebook route of engagement is now turning out to be too hot for the local tories.

sh1t in your own nest and this is what you get.... wouldn't be at all surprised to see a few changes next election.

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Terry Reynolds on September 23, 2012, 08:27:51 PM
if you goon the adver website, youll see he has said that they are to get a primary by 2015 a secondary later, a business park a play park a nature reserve, in fact the earth......... :wink:
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on September 28, 2012, 08:08:09 AM
Can't find the original post re proposal for another school at Mouldon Hill ( Cllr Renard/Link magazine..).

I have been looking at the figures in more detail... now I am not sure whether this is indeed an extra 60 places for North Swindon for 2014.

Will keep looking..

interestingly if the 60 place Temporary School now at Red Oaks for 2012 had not been placed at the Croft.... this could have provided £1,268,000 (depending on Cllr Bluh's arithmetic around 25-33% or even more ) towards the cost of a permanent 1fe expansion of Red Oaks in 2010.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jayjay on September 28, 2012, 11:54:18 AM
Jennyb

http://www.talkswindon.org/index.php/topic,8888.msg85139.html#new (http://www.talkswindon.org/index.php/topic,8888.msg85139.html#new)

I put the link to the Link article in this discussion.

http://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk//launch.aspx?eid=92475a2a-9540-4413-a114-9468f0ad9fea (http://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk//launch.aspx?eid=92475a2a-9540-4413-a114-9468f0ad9fea)

page 14

Jayjay
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jayjay on September 28, 2012, 12:05:31 PM
Having found the link for Jennyb (I hope it was the link she was looking for), I had another quick look at the article myself.  Considering that consultations are due to be taking place in October, I haven't heard anything about this from my ward councillors.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on September 28, 2012, 12:45:49 PM
Having found the link for Jennyb (I hope it was the link she was looking for), I had another quick look at the article myself.  Considering that consultations are due to be taking place in October, I haven't heard anything about this from my ward councillors.

JJ,

Thanks for this. I now have all of the admissions data for every school across Swindon from 2006 to 2012 as well as the annual PCT data for every area in Swindon from 2006 through to 2016.

I have seen the cabinet requests for funding for extension to some North Swindon Schools but I have not seen the Cabinet Material for an additional school for NS in 2014 ( it might just mean that I have missed it).

I have seen the statements that £5m has been provided for a 420 pupil school in Tadpole Farm which would appear to be based on the Class Solutions protestations of being able to build a school at 2/3 of the cost and 2/3 of the time ( the Croft has already proved this to be a daft declaration).

I have also seen some interesting statistics regarding the  pupils/schools distance in Old Town.

The Process of school place planning deserves scrutiny and Cllr Bluh et al attempting to pull innocent children and their parents and into this to deflect from this is shocking behaviour but sadly not untypical.

If WCs Mattock, Bawden and Foley had done their jobs properly ...perhaps none of this would have come to light..
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on October 18, 2012, 10:47:29 AM
http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/ (http://oakhurstresidents.blogspot.co.uk/)

Interesting refelection on NS WCs... who appear not to have lobbied for school places even though Gov funding had been allocated on the basis of need in their area.

Compare and contrast with the Veteran WCs of Old Town.. who lobbied for a school which SBC's  evidence proves was not needed and funded this by money intended for NS.

Taking candy from babies or were all aware of what was going on?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jayjay on October 19, 2012, 04:29:27 PM
Having found the link for Jennyb (I hope it was the link she was looking for), I had another quick look at the article myself.  Considering that consultations are due to be taking place in October, I haven't heard anything about this from my ward councillors.


JJ,

Thanks for this. I now have all of the admissions data for every school across Swindon from 2006 to 2012 as well as the annual PCT data for every area in Swindon from 2006 through to 2016.

I have seen the cabinet requests for funding for extension to some North Swindon Schools but I have not seen the Cabinet Material for an additional school for NS in 2014 ( it might just mean that I have missed it).

I have seen the statements that £5m has been provided for a 420 pupil school in Tadpole Farm which would appear to be based on the Class Solutions protestations of being able to build a school at 2/3 of the cost and 2/3 of the time ( the Croft has already proved this to be a daft declaration).

I have also seen some interesting statistics regarding the  pupils/schools distance in Old Town.

The Process of school place planning deserves scrutiny and Cllr Bluh et al attempting to pull innocent children and their parents and into this to deflect from this is shocking behaviour but sadly not untypical.

If WCs Mattock, Bawden and Foley had done their jobs properly ...perhaps none of this would have come to light..


Jennyb

I was looking for the report done in 2008/9(?) used to obtain additional government funding, which ended up being used for Croft.  Though I didn't find what I was looking for I did find the following:-

http://ww5.swindon.gov.uk/moderngov/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?AIId=28158 (http://ww5.swindon.gov.uk/moderngov/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?AIId=28158)

http://ww5.swindon.gov.uk/moderngov/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=43692 (http://ww5.swindon.gov.uk/moderngov/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=43692)

http://ww5.swindon.gov.uk/moderngov/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=43693 (http://ww5.swindon.gov.uk/moderngov/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=43693)

Don't know whether you have these or not.

Th interesting thing is that according to the timetable included in the plan, public consultations are suppost to be taking place September/October 2012 with the results being presented in November - Well I haven't seen hide nor hair of a public consultation, so either it is a very selective public consultation or they are already behind schedule.

Anyway back to my orginal comment - do you know of an online version of the report that was used to get additional school funding?
JJ
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on October 19, 2012, 05:33:44 PM
JJ,

The requests for gov funding for schools , in my experience, do not tend to be posted on Swindon.Gov.UK.... we received the information on the Basic Needs Safety Valve and Dedicated Schools Grants by requesting the information through Mr Buckland MP. He had to put in a bit of effort to have SBC's Children's services release the information which showed that the Croft had been funded by money requested on the basis of need for NS and the Town Centre.

If you look at the Cabinet material for this week and look at the £5m funding ( I don't have the report/link to hand) for the 2014 North Swindon Primary school ( suggested for Moulden Hill/Bridge) it looks as though it may be coming from Tadpole Farm. 

I will try to get the links sorted out over the weekend.

Alternatively you could ask Mr Tomlinson MP to get the info for you.

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on October 22, 2012, 03:22:49 PM
JJ,

The requests for gov funding for schools , in my experience, do not tend to be posted on Swindon.Gov.UK.... we received the information on the Basic Needs Safety Valve and Dedicated Schools Grants by requesting the information through Mr Buckland MP. He had to put in a bit of effort to have SBC's Children's services release the information which showed that the Croft had been funded by money requested on the basis of need for NS and the Town Centre.

If you look at the Cabinet material for this week and look at the £5m funding ( I don't have the report/link to hand) for the 2014 North Swindon Primary school ( suggested for Moulden Hill/Bridge) it looks as though it may be coming from Tadpole Farm. 

I will try to get the links sorted out over the weekend.

Alternatively you could ask Mr Tomlinson MP to get the info for you.

Well.. have been back on the Web site for the Oct 17th 2012 cabinet and the link to this material seems to have disappeared.

I have a paper copy and the title is Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan October 2012, pages 72-79 have school plans and sources of funding . It contains some unseen ( at least by me) terminology which warrant further scrutiny.

Perhaps the link might re-appear?

If not.. I can upload the paper copy... but it is a bit of an eye test as  I printed 4 pages/1 sheet.

Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mickraker on October 22, 2012, 08:40:29 PM
There is a spread in the adver today about Tadpole Farm online comments are better than usual I couldn't copy the link for some reason  :-\
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Jean on October 23, 2012, 08:07:47 AM
There is a spread in the adver today about Tadpole Farm online comments are better than usual I couldn't copy the link for some reason  :-\


Here's the link http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9998135.Tadpole_Farm_is_key_in_local_plan/ (http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9998135.Tadpole_Farm_is_key_in_local_plan/)

The comments are good apart from someone writing as Oliver Dummassie who is a lap-dog of Dale Heenan.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: the gorgon on October 23, 2012, 08:23:09 AM
I guess some of the Adver usual suspects must have been banned again or something as you normally get at least one or two "NIBMY" comments.

Chances are that Oliver character is just someone's joke character as opposed to a real SBC lackey (the name is a bit of a give away).
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jayjay on October 25, 2012, 03:18:37 PM
http://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk/Launch.aspx?EID=2b50d792-5b36-4565-aa1f-cd74a1109773 (http://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk/Launch.aspx?EID=2b50d792-5b36-4565-aa1f-cd74a1109773)

page 9 "Redhouse community buiding moves ahead"

Looks like Cllr Tomlinson is getting her community centre and it's going to cost £1.25 million - but I thought a while Cllr T. had "won" £700, 000 for the community centre.  So where is the rest of the money coming from?

Quote "however there is worry that the high price for the site being demanded by Crest Homes could limit what can be delivered" 

Surely when the S106 was being arranged, the land for a community centre was included in the package?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jayjay on February 03, 2013, 09:26:07 AM
Swindon Advertiser - 2nd February 2013 - page 5 - "Help us find way to avoid chaos on roads"

I can't find a link for this article to post.

In the article Cllr Nick Martin talks about the impact of the 1400 cars (2x700 homes) Ridgeway Farm will have on the roads in Peatmoor/West Swindon, and he is right there will be a great impact on the area.

And yet this is the same councillor who waxed lyrically about how wonderful the Tadpole Farm developement was and voted for it to go through, therefore inflicting 3400 cars (2x1700 homes) on the residents of Oakhurst & Redhouse, because let's not fool ourselves the majority of those 3400 cars will use Oakhurst Way.

And once they reach the end of Oakhurst Way they join Thamesdown Drive, and then add to the traffic burden on the Akers Way and Mead Way.

Didn't he realise that when he voted yes to Tadpole Farm, he would inflict additional traffic on his own ward?


Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Rincewind on February 03, 2013, 09:32:12 AM
Hang on - isn't Cllr Nick Martin confused over the issue....

In the lead up to the Tadpole Planning Decision he went to press saying that all the infrastructure in North Swindon was in place and therefore Tadpole Farm was not an issue.

Yesterday he said that, because the necessary infrastructure was never built in North Swindon to cope with the traffic, Ridgeway Farm was terrible.

Which is it?  Is there infrastructure or isn't there?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Brandysnap on February 03, 2013, 10:03:37 AM
Nick Martin is little different to others on the Tory led council say one thing and doing another. If you want to discuss this with him face to face do so here.
Quote
Swinley Drive Traffic Consultation - Feb 16, 11am to 1pm
Meet with your councillors at Roughmoor hall in Swinley drive (next to Kingdom hall) to discuss ideas on how to mitigate traffic problems that will be caused by the Ridgeway farm development


Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Terry Reynolds on February 03, 2013, 10:26:21 AM
is the new houses (around 1600) at the north swindon site, the same ones, or is this ridgeway farm another build, if so then Cllr Martin should take in hand how many cars this 1600 houses will bring to the area and what is he doing about that with regard to save our roads etc,, another nimby in force I fear......
Of course you could also ask him if he voted for both developments!!.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jennyb on February 03, 2013, 11:26:42 AM
Swindon Advertiser - 2nd February 2013 - page 5 - "Help us find way to avoid chaos on roads"

I can't find a link for this article to post.

In the article Cllr Nick Martin talks about the impact of the 1400 cars (2x700 homes) Ridgeway Farm will have on the roads in Peatmoor/West Swindon, and he is right there will be a great impact on the area.

And yet this is the same councillor who waxed lyrically about how wonderful the Tadpole Farm developement was and voted for it to go through, therefore inflicting 3400 cars (2x1700 homes) on the residents of Oakhurst & Redhouse, because let's not fool ourselves the majority of those 3400 cars will use Oakhurst Way.

And once they reach the end of Oakhurst Way they join Thamesdown Drive, and then add to the traffic burden on the Akers Way and Mead Way.

Didn't he realise that when he voted yes to Tadpole Farm, he would inflict additional traffic on his own ward?

I was present at the Tadpole Farm Planning Application and watched in amazement as the Planning Committee members accepted the statements from Highways Officers that people have cars, people put these cars on their drives, but people don't drive these cars. And the Planning Committee swallowed this hook line and sinker.

The Planning Committee did not question how the children from the 1st 565 houses would be educated  and I haven't heard Cllr Renard explain it since.

For Councillors who endorsed Tadpole Farm with it's paucity of provision for education and traffic to come out with these  statements in the Adver is risible. Or is this the Lib Dem approach.. it's ok to let it happen elsewhere so long as it is not in my ward?

When I 1st heard about Ridgeway Farm and the SBC opposition to it I did wonder whether the umbrage was related to the lack of Council Tax and S106 monies.

As to 2 cars per household... now where did they get this figure.. was it from Highways Officers ( the same folks who poo poo'd infrastructure concerns on Tadpole Farm and the Croft and.... )?

Because politicians wouldn't go to press with statements they couldn't substantiate.. would they ?
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Geoff Reid on February 03, 2013, 12:03:47 PM
Because politicians wouldn't go to press with statements they couldn't substantiate.. would they ?

As long as they think they maintain 'plausible deniability', they'll say more or less anything they please  ;D

Of course their 'interpretation' of 'plausible' diverged significantly from mainstream understanding of the term a long time back.  It was rapidly followed by 'accountability', 'transparency' and 'competence'.   'Morals', 'ethics and 'empathy' are in hot pursuit.

Now it looks like they want to abdicate responsibility for the problems their planning decisions will cause us by shunting responsibility for mitigating those problems onto the very same people whose opinions the councillors chose to ignore when they granted planning permission.

Epic. Every day in every way it gets a little bit easier to understand why the Town is in such a shit state.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Mart on February 03, 2013, 03:00:11 PM
As long as they think they maintain 'plausible deniability', they'll say more or less anything they please

I like plausible deniability as a phrase, it's great.

mokroye delo is one I'd like to see employed more though.
Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: jayjay on February 03, 2013, 10:28:29 PM
Found the link - it must have been posted during the day - though with a different title.

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/10202539.Views_sought_on_managing_traffic_from_700_new_homes_in_West_Swindon/ (http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/10202539.Views_sought_on_managing_traffic_from_700_new_homes_in_West_Swindon/)

Quote
“If each household has two cars then Ridgeway Farm will see an extra 1,400 cars which will be using Swindon’s infrastructure.”
Unquote


Title: Re: North Swindon Expands Westwards and North Towards Chapel Farm. Part 2
Post by: Geoff Reid on February 03, 2013, 11:43:11 PM
As long as they think they maintain 'plausible deniability', they'll say more or less anything they please

I like plausible deniability as a phrase, it's great.

mokroye delo is one I'd like to see employed more though.

Hmmm, I think a mis-translation of that is how we ended up with the Pissoir and Bluh's wet patch.  One shudders to think what might vibrantly arrive in the town centre if Stroybat and Sapogi were muttered within earshot of Swindons Politburo  ;D