Residents angry as Tadpole Farm homes plan gets go-ahead

This Is Wiltshire: Paul and Steph Excell, of Oakhurst Residents’ Association Paul and Steph Excell, of Oakhurst Residents’ Association

THE MASSIVE Tadpole Farm development has been given outline planning approval after three months of extra negotiations between the council and the developer – but residents say their concerns have still not been addressed.

Crest Nicholson has permission to construct 1,695 homes on the site at Blunsdon St Andrew, plus other facilities, including a community centre, pub and primary school.

In June, despite concerns about congestion, increased flooding and lack of school places, the planning committee agreed they could not refuse or defer the application because they claimed there were not strong enough planning grounds to win an appeal.

Therefore members, after a proposal by Coun Toby Elliott (Con, Priory Vale ), empowered officers to grant final approval in three months, providing Crest Nicholson – through negotiations with officers and ward councillors – could address concerns through agreements and additional financial contributions.

Planning permission was granted on Tuesday, but it has transpired that the legal agreement did not include any extra contributions beyond the £11.2m infrastructure package offered in the draft agreement, and the negotiations were mainly around tightening up and clarifying the legal agreement.

A Swindon Council spokes-man said the concerns of ward councillors and residents were about having clarity through the legal agreement that essential infrastructure would be delivered as early as possible.

“This would absorb the pressures generated by the development, for example improved highway works on Oakhurst Way and Blunsdon Hill, and ensuring that the primary school was delivered at the earliest practicable opportunity.

He said conditions had been amended since the June committee report.

But the conditions simply relate to measures such as the developers adhering to specific construction hours and a construction management plan.

This would ensure that the mix of business in the local centre is balanced, and to require a detailed design code for the residential elements before approving the reserved matters.

But Steph Excell, the secretary of Oakhurst Residents’ Association, said: “It’s exactly what we predicted would be the outcome of this three months: that they’ve done nothing to protect Oakhurst Way.

“And our ward councillors are disgraceful. I would be embarrassed to be a ward councillor if I allowed this situation to happen to an area I represented.

“People are writing to us saying they will move out because they cannot get their kids into school, and they don’t want to put the lives of their own children at risk.”

Coun Vera Tomlinson (Con, St Andrews) said the ward councillors had done their best for residents.

She said: “If we had, on the night of the planning committee, gone down the route of turning the application down, it would have been a very short-lived victory .

“Crest Nicholson made it absolutely clear it would have gone in for appeal. And we would have lost because on planning grounds there was nothing there for us to turn it down on.”

Comments (44)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:42am Thu 13 Sep 12

Melgee says...

Another completely souless housing estate about to be built. A Pub a School and a Community Centre hardly supports the infastructure for any community. These houses will be squashed together for maximum profit to the developer who will have scant regard for the people who will occupy these properties. People will know how to vote come the next local elections!
Another completely souless housing estate about to be built. A Pub a School and a Community Centre hardly supports the infastructure for any community. These houses will be squashed together for maximum profit to the developer who will have scant regard for the people who will occupy these properties. People will know how to vote come the next local elections! Melgee
  • Score: 0

9:10am Thu 13 Sep 12

Al Smith says...

What did they expect? After hearing George Osborne prattle on about kick-starting house building and making development easier it was clear what would happen. Either SBC gave planning permission or the secretary of state would give it.

Think about it, if house building can take place at Coate despite signatures from 50,000 people opposing it then what chance did the residents of North Swindon realistically have?
What did they expect? After hearing George Osborne prattle on about kick-starting house building and making development easier it was clear what would happen. Either SBC gave planning permission or the secretary of state would give it. Think about it, if house building can take place at Coate despite signatures from 50,000 people opposing it then what chance did the residents of North Swindon realistically have? Al Smith
  • Score: 0

9:18am Thu 13 Sep 12

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

"despite concerns about congestion, increased flooding and lack of school places, the planning committee agreed they could not refuse or defer the application because they claimed there were not strong enough planning grounds to win an appeal."

Maybe not, but they could have made improving the existing infrastructure a condition of development...
"despite concerns about congestion, increased flooding and lack of school places, the planning committee agreed they could not refuse or defer the application because they claimed there were not strong enough planning grounds to win an appeal." Maybe not, but they could have made improving the existing infrastructure a condition of development... The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: 0

9:19am Thu 13 Sep 12

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

Al Smith wrote:
What did they expect? After hearing George Osborne prattle on about kick-starting house building and making development easier it was clear what would happen. Either SBC gave planning permission or the secretary of state would give it.

Think about it, if house building can take place at Coate despite signatures from 50,000 people opposing it then what chance did the residents of North Swindon realistically have?
Agreed, but Coate has good infrastructure. North Swindon does not.
[quote][p][bold]Al Smith[/bold] wrote: What did they expect? After hearing George Osborne prattle on about kick-starting house building and making development easier it was clear what would happen. Either SBC gave planning permission or the secretary of state would give it. Think about it, if house building can take place at Coate despite signatures from 50,000 people opposing it then what chance did the residents of North Swindon realistically have?[/p][/quote]Agreed, but Coate has good infrastructure. North Swindon does not. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: 0

9:38am Thu 13 Sep 12

1 2 Could B says...

"despite concerns about congestion, increased flooding and lack of school places, the planning committee agreed they could not refuse or defer the application because they claimed there were not strong enough planning grounds to win an appeal."

If the "planning" committee have no authority, or have no powers to resist developers, they should be disbanded and "control" handed over to central government.

Save us vast amounts of council tax.
"despite concerns about congestion, increased flooding and lack of school places, the planning committee agreed they could not refuse or defer the application because they claimed there were not strong enough planning grounds to win an appeal." If the "planning" committee have no authority, or have no powers to resist developers, they should be disbanded and "control" handed over to central government. Save us vast amounts of council tax. 1 2 Could B
  • Score: 0

9:41am Thu 13 Sep 12

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

1 2 Could B wrote:
"despite concerns about congestion, increased flooding and lack of school places, the planning committee agreed they could not refuse or defer the application because they claimed there were not strong enough planning grounds to win an appeal."

If the "planning" committee have no authority, or have no powers to resist developers, they should be disbanded and "control" handed over to central government.

Save us vast amounts of council tax.
Good point!
[quote][p][bold]1 2 Could B[/bold] wrote: "despite concerns about congestion, increased flooding and lack of school places, the planning committee agreed they could not refuse or defer the application because they claimed there were not strong enough planning grounds to win an appeal." If the "planning" committee have no authority, or have no powers to resist developers, they should be disbanded and "control" handed over to central government. Save us vast amounts of council tax.[/p][/quote]Good point! The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: 0

10:34am Thu 13 Sep 12

RichardR1 says...

There is not an area of the town where proposals are put that isn't objected to by residents who ironically usually live in houses which a few short years ago fields were.

I am sure the residents could raise the £100k or so to object, or is it once again just a small number of people.
There is not an area of the town where proposals are put that isn't objected to by residents who ironically usually live in houses which a few short years ago fields were. I am sure the residents could raise the £100k or so to object, or is it once again just a small number of people. RichardR1
  • Score: 0

10:47am Thu 13 Sep 12

Ardiles says...

A sad day, that all too clearly demonstrates that the needs of local residents are going to come a distant second to the wishes of big business. I'm not really sure what the point of having local representatives/Coun
cillors is, when they appear impotent to represent the wishes of their electorate.

Furthermore, experience has shown that developments planned and built since 1990 are markedly inferior to those built before this time. You only have to take a ride around West Swindon to see how much less cluttered and claustrophobic it feels compared with newer developments.

Tadpole Farm will not enhance Swindon. It will be too far from the centre of town, and its transport infrastructure will be inadequate.

Welcome to the slums of 2040.
A sad day, that all too clearly demonstrates that the needs of local residents are going to come a distant second to the wishes of big business. I'm not really sure what the point of having local representatives/Coun cillors is, when they appear impotent to represent the wishes of their electorate. Furthermore, experience has shown that developments planned and built since 1990 are markedly inferior to those built before this time. You only have to take a ride around West Swindon to see how much less cluttered and claustrophobic it feels compared with newer developments. Tadpole Farm will not enhance Swindon. It will be too far from the centre of town, and its transport infrastructure will be inadequate. Welcome to the slums of 2040. Ardiles
  • Score: 0

11:01am Thu 13 Sep 12

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

RichardR1 wrote:
There is not an area of the town where proposals are put that isn't objected to by residents who ironically usually live in houses which a few short years ago fields were.

I am sure the residents could raise the £100k or so to object, or is it once again just a small number of people.
Bit hypocritical Bob, wasn't it you that was complaining about the proposed EDA a while back because it would negatively affect South Marston?

In contrast, No-one really objects to the Tadpole Farm development out of principle, most just think it's poorly thought out, premature and will cause traffic chaos in North, West and East Swindon because the associated and required infrastructure is not being provided. Added to which, the flood defences are poor (the fields they are proposing to build on are regularly under water after heavy rain), there are no school places in North Swindon (and none currently proposed for Secondary level education!), and there are no mitigation measures proposed or enforced for any of this..

Unfortunately the self appointed Oakhurst Residents Association have made this all about Oakhurst Way presumably because they live there (it's not, it's about the whole of North, West and East Swindon), and made personal attacks on our councillors in the way a child would throw a tantrum. I'm sure that behaviour hasn't helped matters...
[quote][p][bold]RichardR1[/bold] wrote: There is not an area of the town where proposals are put that isn't objected to by residents who ironically usually live in houses which a few short years ago fields were. I am sure the residents could raise the £100k or so to object, or is it once again just a small number of people.[/p][/quote]Bit hypocritical Bob, wasn't it you that was complaining about the proposed EDA a while back because it would negatively affect South Marston? In contrast, No-one really objects to the Tadpole Farm development out of principle, most just think it's poorly thought out, premature and will cause traffic chaos in North, West and East Swindon because the associated and required infrastructure is not being provided. Added to which, the flood defences are poor (the fields they are proposing to build on are regularly under water after heavy rain), there are no school places in North Swindon (and none currently proposed for Secondary level education!), and there are no mitigation measures proposed or enforced for any of this.. Unfortunately the self appointed Oakhurst Residents Association have made this all about Oakhurst Way presumably because they live there (it's not, it's about the whole of North, West and East Swindon), and made personal attacks on our councillors in the way a child would throw a tantrum. I'm sure that behaviour hasn't helped matters... The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: 0

11:31am Thu 13 Sep 12

hellosailor666 says...

Looks like the council members are totally incompetent or have no care at representing their constituents…throw them out at the next election…Oakhurst Way will become very busy despite the council traffic department saying minimum impact….I wonder if we will be able to hold these council offers responsible when they are proved wrong….but no conciliation for the residents in Oakhurst Way who will have an originally designed semi-rural environment which had 20mph speed limits transformed into maybe a 40 mph dual carriage way….Oh lets forget about all the children that cross that road to get to schools…. Strange how the 20 mph limit was raised 2 years ago to 30 mph, makes you wonder what the reasons for this were…
Looks like the council members are totally incompetent or have no care at representing their constituents…throw them out at the next election…Oakhurst Way will become very busy despite the council traffic department saying minimum impact….I wonder if we will be able to hold these council offers responsible when they are proved wrong….but no conciliation for the residents in Oakhurst Way who will have an originally designed semi-rural environment which had 20mph speed limits transformed into maybe a 40 mph dual carriage way….Oh lets forget about all the children that cross that road to get to schools…. Strange how the 20 mph limit was raised 2 years ago to 30 mph, makes you wonder what the reasons for this were… hellosailor666
  • Score: 0

11:36am Thu 13 Sep 12

eucalyptus says...

The approval of this development necessitates a dual carriageway link road between Thamesdown Drive and Great Western Way.
The approval of this development necessitates a dual carriageway link road between Thamesdown Drive and Great Western Way. eucalyptus
  • Score: 0

11:47am Thu 13 Sep 12

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

hellosailor666 wrote:
Looks like the council members are totally incompetent or have no care at representing their constituents…throw them out at the next election…Oakhurst Way will become very busy despite the council traffic department saying minimum impact….I wonder if we will be able to hold these council offers responsible when they are proved wrong….but no conciliation for the residents in Oakhurst Way who will have an originally designed semi-rural environment which had 20mph speed limits transformed into maybe a 40 mph dual carriage way….Oh lets forget about all the children that cross that road to get to schools…. Strange how the 20 mph limit was raised 2 years ago to 30 mph, makes you wonder what the reasons for this were…
Oakhurst Way was only ever a temporary 20mph while there were contractors on site. To be fair even the developers stated that it would eventually revert to a 30mph limit back in 2001 (I think!) when we visited the show homes down there...This was way before Tadpole Farm was ever mentioned in any strategy.

There isn't really room to make Oakhurst Way a dual carriageway - the grass by the side of the road is actually part of the flood defences for the area...

Eucalyptus - yes, it does, but that doesn't form a part of this planning application... (enough said really!)
[quote][p][bold]hellosailor666[/bold] wrote: Looks like the council members are totally incompetent or have no care at representing their constituents…throw them out at the next election…Oakhurst Way will become very busy despite the council traffic department saying minimum impact….I wonder if we will be able to hold these council offers responsible when they are proved wrong….but no conciliation for the residents in Oakhurst Way who will have an originally designed semi-rural environment which had 20mph speed limits transformed into maybe a 40 mph dual carriage way….Oh lets forget about all the children that cross that road to get to schools…. Strange how the 20 mph limit was raised 2 years ago to 30 mph, makes you wonder what the reasons for this were…[/p][/quote]Oakhurst Way was only ever a temporary 20mph while there were contractors on site. To be fair even the developers stated that it would eventually revert to a 30mph limit back in 2001 (I think!) when we visited the show homes down there...This was way before Tadpole Farm was ever mentioned in any strategy. There isn't really room to make Oakhurst Way a dual carriageway - the grass by the side of the road is actually part of the flood defences for the area... Eucalyptus - yes, it does, but that doesn't form a part of this planning application... (enough said really!) The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: 0

11:56am Thu 13 Sep 12

Oak_Parent says...

There are no secondary school places in the area, they will need a new school. Isambard will not have enough places for children that live in the area at present so there is no way this new influx can be accommodated. Anyone moving there needs to be very clear that they will be putting their kids on buses to schools elsewhere in the town!
There are no secondary school places in the area, they will need a new school. Isambard will not have enough places for children that live in the area at present so there is no way this new influx can be accommodated. Anyone moving there needs to be very clear that they will be putting their kids on buses to schools elsewhere in the town! Oak_Parent
  • Score: 0

12:01pm Thu 13 Sep 12

Al Smith says...

eucalyptus wrote:
The approval of this development necessitates a dual carriageway link road between Thamesdown Drive and Great Western Way.
Maybe SBC have been told 'off-record' that if they approve the development the government will cough-up cash for the road, but if they don't they won't see a penny?
[quote][p][bold]eucalyptus[/bold] wrote: The approval of this development necessitates a dual carriageway link road between Thamesdown Drive and Great Western Way.[/p][/quote]Maybe SBC have been told 'off-record' that if they approve the development the government will cough-up cash for the road, but if they don't they won't see a penny? Al Smith
  • Score: 0

12:03pm Thu 13 Sep 12

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

The councillors are an absolute disgrace, but then its what we've come to expect.

Putting simple conditions on to the planning to sort out the infrastructure isn't bloody difficult and many of them would have been common sense to ensure that facilities are built timely to the development being populated. Such as having the school built early on, rather than at the last minute once any children living in the area have already been allocated to existing schools that are over crowded. The road network is another major concern; it doesn't cope well now at certain times of the day, so another 1700 houses worth of traffic isn't going to make things better is it.

All the councillors who stood for election on the basis of objecting to the development should resign in disgrace as they would have known before their election campaign they could not or would not object as was the wish of the majority of residents.
The councillors are an absolute disgrace, but then its what we've come to expect. Putting simple conditions on to the planning to sort out the infrastructure isn't bloody difficult and many of them would have been common sense to ensure that facilities are built timely to the development being populated. Such as having the school built early on, rather than at the last minute once any children living in the area have already been allocated to existing schools that are over crowded. The road network is another major concern; it doesn't cope well now at certain times of the day, so another 1700 houses worth of traffic isn't going to make things better is it. All the councillors who stood for election on the basis of objecting to the development should resign in disgrace as they would have known before their election campaign they could not or would not object as was the wish of the majority of residents. LordAshOfTheBrake
  • Score: 0

12:28pm Thu 13 Sep 12

hellosailor666 says...

20 mph because contractors on site...amazing what were they doing...there were no contractors on site, it was not a site then..Swindon had a policy for 20 mph zones and Goverment backs this...yes these councillors should do the honourable thing and fall on their sword...unlikely because to be in politics generally means you have to be two faced and have flexible principles, that is if you have any principles in the first place
20 mph because contractors on site...amazing what were they doing...there were no contractors on site, it was not a site then..Swindon had a policy for 20 mph zones and Goverment backs this...yes these councillors should do the honourable thing and fall on their sword...unlikely because to be in politics generally means you have to be two faced and have flexible principles, that is if you have any principles in the first place hellosailor666
  • Score: 0

1:10pm Thu 13 Sep 12

timt1964 says...

oakhurst was built on fields,the predicted chaos never happens,get over it.love the folded arms angry resident pose with a bonus of a mirror to look into.more nimbyism im afraid.
oakhurst was built on fields,the predicted chaos never happens,get over it.love the folded arms angry resident pose with a bonus of a mirror to look into.more nimbyism im afraid. timt1964
  • Score: 0

1:25pm Thu 13 Sep 12

AndyJH says...

It’s quite understandable that the residents of the new Oakhurst don’t want the Tadpole development, after all there aren’t many who would want it on their door steps. We didn’t want the Northern expansion either and where I once lived in North Swindon I’m now classed as living in North Central Swindon.

FACT OF LIFE: Whilst people want homes developers will build homes.
Of course people could drastically drop the demand for new house building by reducing the need, just how many of these anti-development campaigners have more than child?

Councillors, who ultimately are ordinary members of our communities, endeavour to do the best with the circumstances that they are presented with.

The question is:
COULD WARD COUNCILLORS HAVE LEGALLY PREVENTED THIS DEVELOPMENT?

From what I have read there was no legal reason and therefore councillors did their best to achieve a compromise with an arm already tied firmly behind their backs.

Given the legal position the developer didn’t actually need to compromise one iota, the law was on their side. So whatever local councillors managed to improve through negotiation, however maniacal some may think it is, it is still an improvement. Ultimately local councillors had no legal leverage to force the developers to do anything.

Developers aren’t stupid and they know that had they needed to go to appeal they would not only get the planning permission they needed but their costs paid for out of Swindon Council Tax Payers pockets.

Personally I would rather not see my council tax wasted on flimsy planning appeals because the advice of the professionals we employ to advise the council on planning law is ignored because a minority is not happy.

I do feel sorry for these campaigners, nobody like to be a loser, but as the saying goes:

Lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
AND WISDOM TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.
It’s quite understandable that the residents of the new Oakhurst don’t want the Tadpole development, after all there aren’t many who would want it on their door steps. We didn’t want the Northern expansion either and where I once lived in North Swindon I’m now classed as living in North Central Swindon. FACT OF LIFE: Whilst people want homes developers will build homes. Of course people could drastically drop the demand for new house building by reducing the need, just how many of these anti-development campaigners have more than child? Councillors, who ultimately are ordinary members of our communities, endeavour to do the best with the circumstances that they are presented with. The question is: COULD WARD COUNCILLORS HAVE LEGALLY PREVENTED THIS DEVELOPMENT? From what I have read there was no legal reason and therefore councillors did their best to achieve a compromise with an arm already tied firmly behind their backs. Given the legal position the developer didn’t actually need to compromise one iota, the law was on their side. So whatever local councillors managed to improve through negotiation, however maniacal some may think it is, it is still an improvement. Ultimately local councillors had no legal leverage to force the developers to do anything. Developers aren’t stupid and they know that had they needed to go to appeal they would not only get the planning permission they needed but their costs paid for out of Swindon Council Tax Payers pockets. Personally I would rather not see my council tax wasted on flimsy planning appeals because the advice of the professionals we employ to advise the council on planning law is ignored because a minority is not happy. I do feel sorry for these campaigners, nobody like to be a loser, but as the saying goes: Lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; AND WISDOM TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE. AndyJH
  • Score: 0

1:36pm Thu 13 Sep 12

Make progress says...

Why not try sorting out the parking in north Swindon that would make life alot easier for everyone else.

North Swindon is full of idiots who feel the need to park in front of there as they can't be bothered to park in there proper parking spaces making life hard for people including buses.

Your house are also built on what used to be fields but thats not your problem is it ?
Why not try sorting out the parking in north Swindon that would make life alot easier for everyone else. North Swindon is full of idiots who feel the need to park in front of there as they can't be bothered to park in there proper parking spaces making life hard for people including buses. Your house are also built on what used to be fields but thats not your problem is it ? Make progress
  • Score: 0

1:41pm Thu 13 Sep 12

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

timt1964 wrote:
oakhurst was built on fields,the predicted chaos never happens,get over it.love the folded arms angry resident pose with a bonus of a mirror to look into.more nimbyism im afraid.
If you truly believe the predicted chaos will never happen, I suggest you try driving down Mead way, or up to junction 15 of the M4 down the A419, or coming off the A419 at Turnpike at peak times.

A few weeks ago a car broken down and pulled off the side of the road on the A419. Because of this minor problem, it took me one and a half hours to travel the length of road from the M4 to Blunsdon.

Similarly, I had to travel to West Swindon to get my car serviced a while back, which also took over an hour. This is normal, and something many of us have to deal with on a regular basis.

The predicted chaos has already happened, this will just make it even worse.
[quote][p][bold]timt1964[/bold] wrote: oakhurst was built on fields,the predicted chaos never happens,get over it.love the folded arms angry resident pose with a bonus of a mirror to look into.more nimbyism im afraid.[/p][/quote]If you truly believe the predicted chaos will never happen, I suggest you try driving down Mead way, or up to junction 15 of the M4 down the A419, or coming off the A419 at Turnpike at peak times. A few weeks ago a car broken down and pulled off the side of the road on the A419. Because of this minor problem, it took me one and a half hours to travel the length of road from the M4 to Blunsdon. Similarly, I had to travel to West Swindon to get my car serviced a while back, which also took over an hour. This is normal, and something many of us have to deal with on a regular basis. The predicted chaos has already happened, this will just make it even worse. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: 0

1:49pm Thu 13 Sep 12

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

AndyJH wrote:
It’s quite understandable that the residents of the new Oakhurst don’t want the Tadpole development, after all there aren’t many who would want it on their door steps. We didn’t want the Northern expansion either and where I once lived in North Swindon I’m now classed as living in North Central Swindon.

FACT OF LIFE: Whilst people want homes developers will build homes.
Of course people could drastically drop the demand for new house building by reducing the need, just how many of these anti-development campaigners have more than child?

Councillors, who ultimately are ordinary members of our communities, endeavour to do the best with the circumstances that they are presented with.

The question is:
COULD WARD COUNCILLORS HAVE LEGALLY PREVENTED THIS DEVELOPMENT?

From what I have read there was no legal reason and therefore councillors did their best to achieve a compromise with an arm already tied firmly behind their backs.

Given the legal position the developer didn’t actually need to compromise one iota, the law was on their side. So whatever local councillors managed to improve through negotiation, however maniacal some may think it is, it is still an improvement. Ultimately local councillors had no legal leverage to force the developers to do anything.

Developers aren’t stupid and they know that had they needed to go to appeal they would not only get the planning permission they needed but their costs paid for out of Swindon Council Tax Payers pockets.

Personally I would rather not see my council tax wasted on flimsy planning appeals because the advice of the professionals we employ to advise the council on planning law is ignored because a minority is not happy.

I do feel sorry for these campaigners, nobody like to be a loser, but as the saying goes:

Lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
AND WISDOM TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.
I completely agree with most of what you say.

However:
1) Most people aren't anti-development, they're just anti-development without associated infrastructure.
2) There's little demand at present for private housing (although there is a huge demand for free/cheap "social" housing for some reason....)
3) Following your line of reasoning, we may as well save even more of your precious council tax money by scrapping the entire planning department. After all, if they are powerless or unwilling to prevent inappropriate development, what's the point in paying their wages?
4) Local councillors have lied to those that elected them all throughout this whole process.
5) Local councillors have not managed to improve ANYTHING through negotiation!
[quote][p][bold]AndyJH[/bold] wrote: It’s quite understandable that the residents of the new Oakhurst don’t want the Tadpole development, after all there aren’t many who would want it on their door steps. We didn’t want the Northern expansion either and where I once lived in North Swindon I’m now classed as living in North Central Swindon. FACT OF LIFE: Whilst people want homes developers will build homes. Of course people could drastically drop the demand for new house building by reducing the need, just how many of these anti-development campaigners have more than child? Councillors, who ultimately are ordinary members of our communities, endeavour to do the best with the circumstances that they are presented with. The question is: COULD WARD COUNCILLORS HAVE LEGALLY PREVENTED THIS DEVELOPMENT? From what I have read there was no legal reason and therefore councillors did their best to achieve a compromise with an arm already tied firmly behind their backs. Given the legal position the developer didn’t actually need to compromise one iota, the law was on their side. So whatever local councillors managed to improve through negotiation, however maniacal some may think it is, it is still an improvement. Ultimately local councillors had no legal leverage to force the developers to do anything. Developers aren’t stupid and they know that had they needed to go to appeal they would not only get the planning permission they needed but their costs paid for out of Swindon Council Tax Payers pockets. Personally I would rather not see my council tax wasted on flimsy planning appeals because the advice of the professionals we employ to advise the council on planning law is ignored because a minority is not happy. I do feel sorry for these campaigners, nobody like to be a loser, but as the saying goes: Lord grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; AND WISDOM TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.[/p][/quote]I completely agree with most of what you say. However: 1) Most people aren't anti-development, they're just anti-development without associated infrastructure. 2) There's little demand at present for private housing (although there is a huge demand for free/cheap "social" housing for some reason....) 3) Following your line of reasoning, we may as well save even more of your precious council tax money by scrapping the entire planning department. After all, if they are powerless or unwilling to prevent inappropriate development, what's the point in paying their wages? 4) Local councillors have lied to those that elected them all throughout this whole process. 5) Local councillors have not managed to improve ANYTHING through negotiation! The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: 0

2:36pm Thu 13 Sep 12

OakhurstRes says...

Is this the same Steph Excell who was a Tory councillor on the planning committee that presided over the other Northern developments, creating parking monstrosities such as Redhouse Way?

She needs to get ger facts straight. The councillors were told by a solicitor they had to approve Tadpole Farm otherwise Crest would appeal, win, and build more monstrosities instead of good developments.

Steph Excell has a political agenda. She quit the Tories to join Labour - turning up on election night with a Labour rosette. She is just attacking the Tory ward councillors (of which only one had a vote), not the Labour councillors who also approved it.

It also should be noted that Steph Excell was elected by people wanting her to represent them and then resigned forcing another election. She has no integrity.

This article should make this clear - it's bad journalism.
Is this the same Steph Excell who was a Tory councillor on the planning committee that presided over the other Northern developments, creating parking monstrosities such as Redhouse Way? She needs to get ger facts straight. The councillors were told by a solicitor they had to approve Tadpole Farm otherwise Crest would appeal, win, and build more monstrosities instead of good developments. Steph Excell has a political agenda. She quit the Tories to join Labour - turning up on election night with a Labour rosette. She is just attacking the Tory ward councillors (of which only one had a vote), not the Labour councillors who also approved it. It also should be noted that Steph Excell was elected by people wanting her to represent them and then resigned forcing another election. She has no integrity. This article should make this clear - it's bad journalism. OakhurstRes
  • Score: 0

3:11pm Thu 13 Sep 12

Even Angrier Monkey says...

Brilliant. I look forward to it taking 1 hour + to travel 5 miles from home to work on a regular basis at some point in the next 5 years. You'd get further in central London during rush hour, not the bloody suburbs of Swindon.
.
As grumpy old man has stated very well above, personally I couldnt give a toss if they build on Tadpole farm or not AS LONG AS THE NECCESSARY INFASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS ARE MADE TO MAKE THE DEVELOPMENT VIABLE IN THE REAL WORLD.
.
It really beggars belief that a situation like this is allowed to develop, where a new estate with 1700 homes will be built in a new-ish area that already does not have enough school places and has poor transport links with no improvement to either on the horizon.
.
As also stated above the Exels have no credibility at all on this issue as they only seem to be bothered about 1 road. They have a fair point regarding Oakhurst way but this is just a small issue that is part of the wider problem with the tadpole farm development.
Brilliant. I look forward to it taking 1 hour + to travel 5 miles from home to work on a regular basis at some point in the next 5 years. You'd get further in central London during rush hour, not the bloody suburbs of Swindon. . As grumpy old man has stated very well above, personally I couldnt give a toss if they build on Tadpole farm or not AS LONG AS THE NECCESSARY INFASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS ARE MADE TO MAKE THE DEVELOPMENT VIABLE IN THE REAL WORLD. . It really beggars belief that a situation like this is allowed to develop, where a new estate with 1700 homes will be built in a new-ish area that already does not have enough school places and has poor transport links with no improvement to either on the horizon. . As also stated above the Exels have no credibility at all on this issue as they only seem to be bothered about 1 road. They have a fair point regarding Oakhurst way but this is just a small issue that is part of the wider problem with the tadpole farm development. Even Angrier Monkey
  • Score: 0

4:27pm Thu 13 Sep 12

Oliver_Donachie says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

Can you please substantiate point 1,2, 4 and 5, with a link to citation please.

I think if someone is going to make such bold accusations they should be able to back it up with hard documented fact.
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says... Can you please substantiate point 1,2, 4 and 5, with a link to citation please. I think if someone is going to make such bold accusations they should be able to back it up with hard documented fact. Oliver_Donachie
  • Score: 0

5:28pm Thu 13 Sep 12

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

I do realise you are not exactly an unbiased observer, but ok....

1) take a look a many comments on here from the last several months for many, many examples. Very few people are completely against development, many have just asked for the associated infrastructure work to be in place so it doesn't make all our lives miserable in the process.
2) Take your pick - number of private cash sales, number of mortgage applications, number of mortgage approvals, number of houses on the market, stagnating house prices etc etc etc (source: Many lending institutions... Yet apparently the waiting list for social houses is in the tens of thousands (source: Adver). All points to low demand for private housing but high demand for social housing.
4) During the local elections, Cllr Vera Tomlinson said to my face that she was against Tadpole Farm and would fight against it. It would have been voted through regardless so she could have put in a symbolic 'No' vote but . she then voted for it without even putting up a protest. Once the three month consultation thing was announced I contacted my local councillors who all told me that there was a long road to go down before anything was approved, and even led me to believe something could still be done around infrastructure. It's now been approved with practically no changes, so it seems I was lied to once again.
5) I'll turn this one around - perhaps you could enlighten me if I am incorrect. Please could you name one substantial concession the developers have made in getting this application approved, and cite the councillor responsible for achieving this concession?
I do realise you are not exactly an unbiased observer, but ok.... 1) take a look a many comments on here from the last several months for many, many examples. Very few people are completely against development, many have just asked for the associated infrastructure work to be in place so it doesn't make all our lives miserable in the process. 2) Take your pick - number of private cash sales, number of mortgage applications, number of mortgage approvals, number of houses on the market, stagnating house prices etc etc etc (source: Many lending institutions... Yet apparently the waiting list for social houses is in the tens of thousands (source: Adver). All points to low demand for private housing but high demand for social housing. 4) During the local elections, Cllr Vera Tomlinson said to my face that she was against Tadpole Farm and would fight against it. It would have been voted through regardless so she could have put in a symbolic 'No' vote but . she then voted for it without even putting up a protest. Once the three month consultation thing was announced I contacted my local councillors who all told me that there was a long road to go down before anything was approved, and even led me to believe something could still be done around infrastructure. It's now been approved with practically no changes, so it seems I was lied to once again. 5) I'll turn this one around - perhaps you could enlighten me if I am incorrect. Please could you name one substantial concession the developers have made in getting this application approved, and cite the councillor responsible for achieving this concession? The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: 0

5:46pm Thu 13 Sep 12

Oliver_Donachie says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

You are correct, I am interested in this as my position of Chair of the PVRA : https://www.facebook
.com/groups/22568616
21/

So..

1: You give some examples of comments on a forum, this does not in my eyes measure as "most" people, perhaps "some" would be less hyperbolic.

2: None of that is citation, you are just saying citation exist if I go and look for it, the onus is not on me to substantiate the point, its on you.

4: I cant prove or disprove what you say in regards to a two way conversation you had. I would like your proof that "practically no changes" have taken place.

5: You are the one making the accusation, you are the person responsible for proving it.

The reason I am asking for this is I believe you are a live example of why so much disinformation and discord occurs around the area of planning and its consent, I HAVE read most of the separate documents around this development that are in the public domain.

The situation is complex enough without making things up.
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says... You are correct, I am interested in this as my position of Chair of the PVRA : https://www.facebook .com/groups/22568616 21/ So.. 1: You give some examples of comments on a forum, this does not in my eyes measure as "most" people, perhaps "some" would be less hyperbolic. 2: None of that is citation, you are just saying citation exist if I go and look for it, the onus is not on me to substantiate the point, its on you. 4: I cant prove or disprove what you say in regards to a two way conversation you had. I would like your proof that "practically no changes" have taken place. 5: You are the one making the accusation, you are the person responsible for proving it. The reason I am asking for this is I believe you are a live example of why so much disinformation and discord occurs around the area of planning and its consent, I HAVE read most of the separate documents around this development that are in the public domain. The situation is complex enough without making things up. Oliver_Donachie
  • Score: 0

5:56pm Thu 13 Sep 12

eucalyptus says...

More houses will always be added to the outskirts of a growing town - after all, 'North-West Swindon' used to be the area around Rodbourne Road.

If a commute from the present day North Swindon is so bad, move. The price of houses across the town is pretty level.
More houses will always be added to the outskirts of a growing town - after all, 'North-West Swindon' used to be the area around Rodbourne Road. If a commute from the present day North Swindon is so bad, move. The price of houses across the town is pretty level. eucalyptus
  • Score: 0

6:05pm Thu 13 Sep 12

Oliver_Donachie says...

One last thing The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man because I think this goes some way to substantiate my point about poor research.

You assert that Cllr Vera Tomlinson "then voted for it without even putting up a protest"

Can you please go and look at the publicly recorded minutes for the meeting or if you are willing to take my word on it you may want to consider this.

Cllr Vera Tomlinson did not and could not vote with regards to the planning application as she is not a member of the planning committee and has not been since May.

As I said above, the situation is complex enough without making things up.
One last thing The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man because I think this goes some way to substantiate my point about poor research. You assert that Cllr Vera Tomlinson "then voted for it without even putting up a protest" Can you please go and look at the publicly recorded minutes for the meeting or if you are willing to take my word on it you may want to consider this. Cllr Vera Tomlinson did not and could not vote with regards to the planning application as she is not a member of the planning committee and has not been since May. As I said above, the situation is complex enough without making things up. Oliver_Donachie
  • Score: 0

8:44pm Thu 13 Sep 12

timt1964 says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
timt1964 wrote:
oakhurst was built on fields,the predicted chaos never happens,get over it.love the folded arms angry resident pose with a bonus of a mirror to look into.more nimbyism im afraid.
If you truly believe the predicted chaos will never happen, I suggest you try driving down Mead way, or up to junction 15 of the M4 down the A419, or coming off the A419 at Turnpike at peak times.

A few weeks ago a car broken down and pulled off the side of the road on the A419. Because of this minor problem, it took me one and a half hours to travel the length of road from the M4 to Blunsdon.

Similarly, I had to travel to West Swindon to get my car serviced a while back, which also took over an hour. This is normal, and something many of us have to deal with on a regular basis.

The predicted chaos has already happened, this will just make it even worse.
its not chaos just normal congestion in a busy town.most of the "chaos" is caused by needless journies and bad driving.if people dont like houses being built why dont they all live somewhere else.
[quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]timt1964[/bold] wrote: oakhurst was built on fields,the predicted chaos never happens,get over it.love the folded arms angry resident pose with a bonus of a mirror to look into.more nimbyism im afraid.[/p][/quote]If you truly believe the predicted chaos will never happen, I suggest you try driving down Mead way, or up to junction 15 of the M4 down the A419, or coming off the A419 at Turnpike at peak times. A few weeks ago a car broken down and pulled off the side of the road on the A419. Because of this minor problem, it took me one and a half hours to travel the length of road from the M4 to Blunsdon. Similarly, I had to travel to West Swindon to get my car serviced a while back, which also took over an hour. This is normal, and something many of us have to deal with on a regular basis. The predicted chaos has already happened, this will just make it even worse.[/p][/quote]its not chaos just normal congestion in a busy town.most of the "chaos" is caused by needless journies and bad driving.if people dont like houses being built why dont they all live somewhere else. timt1964
  • Score: 0

1:36am Fri 14 Sep 12

1 2 Could B says...

If Swindon Borough Council has zero authority and zero influence over developers perhaps it should be disbanded as an expensive yet worthless drain of taxpayers money.

If there is no civic pride or control, no local influence, no offering of resistance to central policies, then it might as well dissolve into central government and save us all a fortune in wasted taxes
If Swindon Borough Council has zero authority and zero influence over developers perhaps it should be disbanded as an expensive yet worthless drain of taxpayers money. If there is no civic pride or control, no local influence, no offering of resistance to central policies, then it might as well dissolve into central government and save us all a fortune in wasted taxes 1 2 Could B
  • Score: 0

8:22am Fri 14 Sep 12

Random Username says...

They way everyone writes above you would have thought that the Planning Committee had made the decision on a whim without any evidence to back up their decision. Has anyone actually read the Planning Officer's report from June for instance and got any idea just how tied the Council's hands were because of recent changes to the Planning system through the National Planning Policy Framework and Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations. And all this rhetoric about "Infrastructure", isn't £11m part of this? The developers are hardly being left without having to dig deep and just remember, the more they are forced to pay, the poorer the quality of the development. You've got to get over this and move on, work with the Council not constantly against them because you'll end up deserving what you get!
They way everyone writes above you would have thought that the Planning Committee had made the decision on a whim without any evidence to back up their decision. Has anyone actually read the Planning Officer's report from June for instance and got any idea just how tied the Council's hands were because of recent changes to the Planning system through the National Planning Policy Framework and Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations. And all this rhetoric about "Infrastructure", isn't £11m part of this? The developers are hardly being left without having to dig deep and just remember, the more they are forced to pay, the poorer the quality of the development. You've got to get over this and move on, work with the Council not constantly against them because you'll end up deserving what you get! Random Username
  • Score: 0

8:50am Fri 14 Sep 12

Oliver_Donachie says...

1 2 Could B,

I am going to use capitals here, not because I am trying to assert my position but because it makes what I am about to say easier to understand.

You ask "If Swindon Borough Council has zero authority and zero influence over developers perhaps it should be disbanded"

Swindon Borough Council is absolutely in authority when the developer DOES NOT APPEAL the decision. If they (the developer) do appeal and win then they essentially have a free hand to do what they want without oversight.

For that reason when SBC received legal council that they WOULD DEFINITELY lose an appeal as they had NO LEGAL GROUNDS to reject it the planning committee considered its FIDUCIARY obligation to not throw our money at something it could not win.

In doing so it has managed to remain in control of the negotiation with the developer and how it spends a not inconsiderable amount of money mitigating the concerns of residence and also delivering facilities to the area.

They made the best STRATEGIC choice available.
1 2 Could B, I am going to use capitals here, not because I am trying to assert my position but because it makes what I am about to say easier to understand. You ask "If Swindon Borough Council has zero authority and zero influence over developers perhaps it should be disbanded" Swindon Borough Council is absolutely in authority when the developer DOES NOT APPEAL the decision. If they (the developer) do appeal and win then they essentially have a free hand to do what they want without oversight. For that reason when SBC received legal council that they WOULD DEFINITELY lose an appeal as they had NO LEGAL GROUNDS to reject it the planning committee considered its FIDUCIARY obligation to not throw our money at something it could not win. In doing so it has managed to remain in control of the negotiation with the developer and how it spends a not inconsiderable amount of money mitigating the concerns of residence and also delivering facilities to the area. They made the best STRATEGIC choice available. Oliver_Donachie
  • Score: 0

9:10am Fri 14 Sep 12

Grimwald says...

This was always going to be a farce, because Crest Nicholson got what they wanted in the first place and did not have to do anything. The die was cast when it was approved subject to nothing!!
As for Planning they are a waste of money, if they did not agree with the development they could have abstained if it were inappropriate to vote against. All these false tears by our politicians just exacerbate the frustration of the people who live here!! Do away with the lot of them for all the use they are to us.
This was always going to be a farce, because Crest Nicholson got what they wanted in the first place and did not have to do anything. The die was cast when it was approved subject to nothing!! As for Planning they are a waste of money, if they did not agree with the development they could have abstained if it were inappropriate to vote against. All these false tears by our politicians just exacerbate the frustration of the people who live here!! Do away with the lot of them for all the use they are to us. Grimwald
  • Score: 0

9:12am Fri 14 Sep 12

Even Angrier Monkey says...

Oliver_Donachie wrote:
1 2 Could B, I am going to use capitals here, not because I am trying to assert my position but because it makes what I am about to say easier to understand. You ask "If Swindon Borough Council has zero authority and zero influence over developers perhaps it should be disbanded" Swindon Borough Council is absolutely in authority when the developer DOES NOT APPEAL the decision. If they (the developer) do appeal and win then they essentially have a free hand to do what they want without oversight. For that reason when SBC received legal council that they WOULD DEFINITELY lose an appeal as they had NO LEGAL GROUNDS to reject it the planning committee considered its FIDUCIARY obligation to not throw our money at something it could not win. In doing so it has managed to remain in control of the negotiation with the developer and how it spends a not inconsiderable amount of money mitigating the concerns of residence and also delivering facilities to the area. They made the best STRATEGIC choice available.
From my point of view this isnt about party politics or SBC bashing.
.
Its huge annoyance that a development that from what I have seen doesnt really make any sense in its current form and will have a significant negative impact on the lives of existing local residents. If thats the fault of the planning system then so be it, but the reason why its happening doesnt change my irritation that it IS happening.
[quote][p][bold]Oliver_Donachie[/bold] wrote: 1 2 Could B, I am going to use capitals here, not because I am trying to assert my position but because it makes what I am about to say easier to understand. You ask "If Swindon Borough Council has zero authority and zero influence over developers perhaps it should be disbanded" Swindon Borough Council is absolutely in authority when the developer DOES NOT APPEAL the decision. If they (the developer) do appeal and win then they essentially have a free hand to do what they want without oversight. For that reason when SBC received legal council that they WOULD DEFINITELY lose an appeal as they had NO LEGAL GROUNDS to reject it the planning committee considered its FIDUCIARY obligation to not throw our money at something it could not win. In doing so it has managed to remain in control of the negotiation with the developer and how it spends a not inconsiderable amount of money mitigating the concerns of residence and also delivering facilities to the area. They made the best STRATEGIC choice available.[/p][/quote]From my point of view this isnt about party politics or SBC bashing. . Its huge annoyance that a development that from what I have seen doesnt really make any sense in its current form and will have a significant negative impact on the lives of existing local residents. If thats the fault of the planning system then so be it, but the reason why its happening doesnt change my irritation that it IS happening. Even Angrier Monkey
  • Score: 0

9:15am Fri 14 Sep 12

Even Angrier Monkey says...

timt1964 wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
timt1964 wrote: oakhurst was built on fields,the predicted chaos never happens,get over it.love the folded arms angry resident pose with a bonus of a mirror to look into.more nimbyism im afraid.
If you truly believe the predicted chaos will never happen, I suggest you try driving down Mead way, or up to junction 15 of the M4 down the A419, or coming off the A419 at Turnpike at peak times. A few weeks ago a car broken down and pulled off the side of the road on the A419. Because of this minor problem, it took me one and a half hours to travel the length of road from the M4 to Blunsdon. Similarly, I had to travel to West Swindon to get my car serviced a while back, which also took over an hour. This is normal, and something many of us have to deal with on a regular basis. The predicted chaos has already happened, this will just make it even worse.
its not chaos just normal congestion in a busy town.most of the "chaos" is caused by needless journies and bad driving.if people dont like houses being built why dont they all live somewhere else.
Total rubbish. People are not making uncesseary local journeys on a dual carrigeway A road. 1.5 hours to travel 5 miles on a dual carrigeway due to 1 broken down car is not "normal congestion for a busy town"
[quote][p][bold]timt1964[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]timt1964[/bold] wrote: oakhurst was built on fields,the predicted chaos never happens,get over it.love the folded arms angry resident pose with a bonus of a mirror to look into.more nimbyism im afraid.[/p][/quote]If you truly believe the predicted chaos will never happen, I suggest you try driving down Mead way, or up to junction 15 of the M4 down the A419, or coming off the A419 at Turnpike at peak times. A few weeks ago a car broken down and pulled off the side of the road on the A419. Because of this minor problem, it took me one and a half hours to travel the length of road from the M4 to Blunsdon. Similarly, I had to travel to West Swindon to get my car serviced a while back, which also took over an hour. This is normal, and something many of us have to deal with on a regular basis. The predicted chaos has already happened, this will just make it even worse.[/p][/quote]its not chaos just normal congestion in a busy town.most of the "chaos" is caused by needless journies and bad driving.if people dont like houses being built why dont they all live somewhere else.[/p][/quote]Total rubbish. People are not making uncesseary local journeys on a dual carrigeway A road. 1.5 hours to travel 5 miles on a dual carrigeway due to 1 broken down car is not "normal congestion for a busy town" Even Angrier Monkey
  • Score: 0

10:23am Fri 14 Sep 12

1 2 Could B says...

Oliver_Donachie wrote:
1 2 Could B,

I am going to use capitals here, not because I am trying to assert my position but because it makes what I am about to say easier to understand.

You ask "If Swindon Borough Council has zero authority and zero influence over developers perhaps it should be disbanded"

Swindon Borough Council is absolutely in authority when the developer DOES NOT APPEAL the decision. If they (the developer) do appeal and win then they essentially have a free hand to do what they want without oversight.

For that reason when SBC received legal council that they WOULD DEFINITELY lose an appeal as they had NO LEGAL GROUNDS to reject it the planning committee considered its FIDUCIARY obligation to not throw our money at something it could not win.

In doing so it has managed to remain in control of the negotiation with the developer and how it spends a not inconsiderable amount of money mitigating the concerns of residence and also delivering facilities to the area.

They made the best STRATEGIC choice available.
Exacty.
Just DISBAND SBC if they cannot offer resstance to developers that have the funds to appeal.

SAVE US VAST AMOUNTS OF COUNCIL TAX

Particularly when they also waste huge sums of our taxes on things like WI-FI
[quote][p][bold]Oliver_Donachie[/bold] wrote: 1 2 Could B, I am going to use capitals here, not because I am trying to assert my position but because it makes what I am about to say easier to understand. You ask "If Swindon Borough Council has zero authority and zero influence over developers perhaps it should be disbanded" Swindon Borough Council is absolutely in authority when the developer DOES NOT APPEAL the decision. If they (the developer) do appeal and win then they essentially have a free hand to do what they want without oversight. For that reason when SBC received legal council that they WOULD DEFINITELY lose an appeal as they had NO LEGAL GROUNDS to reject it the planning committee considered its FIDUCIARY obligation to not throw our money at something it could not win. In doing so it has managed to remain in control of the negotiation with the developer and how it spends a not inconsiderable amount of money mitigating the concerns of residence and also delivering facilities to the area. They made the best STRATEGIC choice available.[/p][/quote]Exacty. Just DISBAND SBC if they cannot offer resstance to developers that have the funds to appeal. SAVE US VAST AMOUNTS OF COUNCIL TAX Particularly when they also waste huge sums of our taxes on things like WI-FI 1 2 Could B
  • Score: 0

11:09am Sat 15 Sep 12

Emma Faramarzi says...

Please see a response on my blog www.dialemma.net
Please see a response on my blog www.dialemma.net Emma Faramarzi
  • Score: 0

1:06pm Sat 15 Sep 12

chelseamats says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
timt1964 wrote:
oakhurst was built on fields,the predicted chaos never happens,get over it.love the folded arms angry resident pose with a bonus of a mirror to look into.more nimbyism im afraid.
If you truly believe the predicted chaos will never happen, I suggest you try driving down Mead way, or up to junction 15 of the M4 down the A419, or coming off the A419 at Turnpike at peak times.

A few weeks ago a car broken down and pulled off the side of the road on the A419. Because of this minor problem, it took me one and a half hours to travel the length of road from the M4 to Blunsdon.

Similarly, I had to travel to West Swindon to get my car serviced a while back, which also took over an hour. This is normal, and something many of us have to deal with on a regular basis.

The predicted chaos has already happened, this will just make it even worse.
timt1964
are you for real, the place is rammed and trying to drive to tesco is a nightmare.
CREST NICHOLSON do not stick to plans, where is the so called pub they was going to build , where the tree lined avenue that was in plans ,
profit before anything else and tomlinson and co only looking after themselves should be disbanded .
schools will be 50 to a class
ward councillors are a disgrace but whilst numpties like the above vote for them , what hope do we have
[quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]timt1964[/bold] wrote: oakhurst was built on fields,the predicted chaos never happens,get over it.love the folded arms angry resident pose with a bonus of a mirror to look into.more nimbyism im afraid.[/p][/quote]If you truly believe the predicted chaos will never happen, I suggest you try driving down Mead way, or up to junction 15 of the M4 down the A419, or coming off the A419 at Turnpike at peak times. A few weeks ago a car broken down and pulled off the side of the road on the A419. Because of this minor problem, it took me one and a half hours to travel the length of road from the M4 to Blunsdon. Similarly, I had to travel to West Swindon to get my car serviced a while back, which also took over an hour. This is normal, and something many of us have to deal with on a regular basis. The predicted chaos has already happened, this will just make it even worse.[/p][/quote]timt1964 are you for real, the place is rammed and trying to drive to tesco is a nightmare. CREST NICHOLSON do not stick to plans, where is the so called pub they was going to build , where the tree lined avenue that was in plans , profit before anything else and tomlinson and co only looking after themselves should be disbanded . schools will be 50 to a class ward councillors are a disgrace but whilst numpties like the above vote for them , what hope do we have chelseamats
  • Score: 0

2:38pm Sat 15 Sep 12

Oliver_Donachie says...

chelseamats, you may want to read the information posted above before making too broad a statement.

www.dialemma.net
chelseamats, you may want to read the information posted above before making too broad a statement. www.dialemma.net Oliver_Donachie
  • Score: 0

3:07pm Sat 15 Sep 12

Grimwald says...

Emma Faramarzi wrote:
Please see a response on my blog www.dialemma.net
Are you connected with Oliver Donachie?
[quote][p][bold]Emma Faramarzi[/bold] wrote: Please see a response on my blog www.dialemma.net[/p][/quote]Are you connected with Oliver Donachie? Grimwald
  • Score: 0

4:41pm Sat 15 Sep 12

RichardR1 says...

It does seem the conditions applied are pretty detailed with penalties for failure to deliver.

Perhaps the Council are learning.
It does seem the conditions applied are pretty detailed with penalties for failure to deliver. Perhaps the Council are learning. RichardR1
  • Score: 0

10:18am Sun 16 Sep 12

1 2 Could B says...

Grimwald wrote:
Emma Faramarzi wrote:
Please see a response on my blog www.dialemma.net
Are you connected with Oliver Donachie?
Yes.
They're married and are councillor and wannabe councillor
[quote][p][bold]Grimwald[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Emma Faramarzi[/bold] wrote: Please see a response on my blog www.dialemma.net[/p][/quote]Are you connected with Oliver Donachie?[/p][/quote]Yes. They're married and are councillor and wannabe councillor 1 2 Could B
  • Score: 0

2:59pm Mon 17 Sep 12

Even Angrier Monkey says...

WOW!
.
£200k for improvements to thamesdown drive!
.
that'll go far
WOW! . £200k for improvements to thamesdown drive! . that'll go far Even Angrier Monkey
  • Score: 0

12:43pm Tue 18 Sep 12

Alan B'stard says...

Oakhurst Residents Association are hypocrites.

As someone already said, these people are living in houses that were only too recently fields.

Rubbish estate anyway. The houses are too close together, about ten houses can look into your back garden and parking is ridiculous.

The lights on Thamesdown Drive are also a pain.
Oakhurst Residents Association are hypocrites. As someone already said, these people are living in houses that were only too recently fields. Rubbish estate anyway. The houses are too close together, about ten houses can look into your back garden and parking is ridiculous. The lights on Thamesdown Drive are also a pain. Alan B'stard
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree