Plan goes in for first stages of controversial Coate Water housing development

This Is Wiltshire: The area where the homes are planned The area where the homes are planned

THE first stages of the Coate Water housing development have been submitted to the council by developers.

Outline planning permission was given last year for the controversial development which will eventually see 900 homes built on the site, along with a village centre and primary school.

The opening stages are for two separate developments of 56 houses and 17 houses. A further application to develop landscape and open space has also been put to the council.

The whole development has been put forward as a joint venture between Persimmon Homes and Redrow Homes.

The initial plan was rejected by the council’s planning committee following a 50,000 signature petition against the proposal, arguing that it would damage one of the town’s beauty spots.

However, the developers appealed to the Planning Inspectorate which gave the scheme the go ahead.

The most significant of these first stages will see 56 houses built if it gets the go ahead, of which 22 will be affordable homes.

Of the other 34 houses, there will be 20 three-bedroom houses and 14 four-bedroom houses. Included in this plan are related roads, which will come off Marlborough Road.

The application for a further 17 houses will be located to the west of the development space but will also be accessed by Marlborough Road.

When the final development is completed it will stretch from Junction 15, along the A419, around the hospital grounds and along Marlborough Road.

Coun Mike Bawden (Con, Chiseldon and Lawn) has been working with other councillors, the parish council and the developers to help shape the development in the best way possible.

He said: “The decision to go ahead with the development was made and so there is no point in addressing past issues.

“What we must do now is to work with the developers to get the best possible outcome for the residents and in fairness to them they have listened to what people have said. Redrow have put their proposal to the council and we are waiting for Persimmon Homes.

“I am satisfied that the plans they have put forward are in the spirit of the decision the Inspector made last year.”

Coun Bawden believes the decision will go before the planning committee around February.

Comments (13)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:44am Wed 18 Dec 13

Klinkerhoffen says...

And so the rape of Swindon continues: ever more bloated by new housing on green-field sites and cheapened even further by a lack of infrastructure investment; a creaking road network, a dead town centre, rotting heritage, diminishing culture and ever more ugly buildings built not to provide a legacy, but to turn a quick profit.

Why don't we just cut to the chase: demolish the whole of the town and turn it into the UK's biggest trailer park?

I'm sure the Planning Inspectorate won't have a problem with that proposal.
And so the rape of Swindon continues: ever more bloated by new housing on green-field sites and cheapened even further by a lack of infrastructure investment; a creaking road network, a dead town centre, rotting heritage, diminishing culture and ever more ugly buildings built not to provide a legacy, but to turn a quick profit. Why don't we just cut to the chase: demolish the whole of the town and turn it into the UK's biggest trailer park? I'm sure the Planning Inspectorate won't have a problem with that proposal. Klinkerhoffen

11:54am Wed 18 Dec 13

Tyran66 says...

Rape of Swindon? Seriously you need to stop being over emotional and be more pragmatic and realistic.

The house haves to be built somewhere - central government are pushing it through so why not here? Have you been to Stoke-on-Trent, Sunderland or the welsh valleys lately? That's what happens when no-one is willing to re-invest in a town and it is far worse a fate than Swindon is facing.

The crux of the issue is ensuring that the developers are held to account and do it right - substantial infrastructure & tasteful buildings, light, green areas and space.

Unfortunately it is also something our local government (and MP'S) have a very poor track record of achieving - the pressure should be applied to them. Nevertheless we should be grateful that the town is being invested in.
Rape of Swindon? Seriously you need to stop being over emotional and be more pragmatic and realistic. The house haves to be built somewhere - central government are pushing it through so why not here? Have you been to Stoke-on-Trent, Sunderland or the welsh valleys lately? That's what happens when no-one is willing to re-invest in a town and it is far worse a fate than Swindon is facing. The crux of the issue is ensuring that the developers are held to account and do it right - substantial infrastructure & tasteful buildings, light, green areas and space. Unfortunately it is also something our local government (and MP'S) have a very poor track record of achieving - the pressure should be applied to them. Nevertheless we should be grateful that the town is being invested in. Tyran66

12:27pm Wed 18 Dec 13

A.Baron-Cohen says...

Tyran66 wrote:
Rape of Swindon? Seriously you need to stop being over emotional and be more pragmatic and realistic.

The house haves to be built somewhere - central government are pushing it through so why not here? Have you been to Stoke-on-Trent, Sunderland or the welsh valleys lately? That's what happens when no-one is willing to re-invest in a town and it is far worse a fate than Swindon is facing.

The crux of the issue is ensuring that the developers are held to account and do it right - substantial infrastructure & tasteful buildings, light, green areas and space.

Unfortunately it is also something our local government (and MP'S) have a very poor track record of achieving - the pressure should be applied to them. Nevertheless we should be grateful that the town is being invested in.
furthermore this housing will bring in much needed additional council tax payers, which we desperately need to fill the council budget gap.
[quote][p][bold]Tyran66[/bold] wrote: Rape of Swindon? Seriously you need to stop being over emotional and be more pragmatic and realistic. The house haves to be built somewhere - central government are pushing it through so why not here? Have you been to Stoke-on-Trent, Sunderland or the welsh valleys lately? That's what happens when no-one is willing to re-invest in a town and it is far worse a fate than Swindon is facing. The crux of the issue is ensuring that the developers are held to account and do it right - substantial infrastructure & tasteful buildings, light, green areas and space. Unfortunately it is also something our local government (and MP'S) have a very poor track record of achieving - the pressure should be applied to them. Nevertheless we should be grateful that the town is being invested in.[/p][/quote]furthermore this housing will bring in much needed additional council tax payers, which we desperately need to fill the council budget gap. A.Baron-Cohen

1:13pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Klinkerhoffen says...

Does that make any sense Mr B-C? more revenue from housing through rates to cover the increased demands on council services created by extra housing = no net gain.

As as for this being an 'investment' in Swindon - the development in Coate in particular is right by the M4 for a reason - so people can shop, work and socialise elsewhere.
Does that make any sense Mr B-C? more revenue from housing through rates to cover the increased demands on council services created by extra housing = no net gain. As as for this being an 'investment' in Swindon - the development in Coate in particular is right by the M4 for a reason - so people can shop, work and socialise elsewhere. Klinkerhoffen

1:35pm Wed 18 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

Klinkerhoffen wrote:
Does that make any sense Mr B-C? more revenue from housing through rates to cover the increased demands on council services created by extra housing = no net gain.

As as for this being an 'investment' in Swindon - the development in Coate in particular is right by the M4 for a reason - so people can shop, work and socialise elsewhere.
very good post and also how many will actually be on council tax benefit anyway (and a raft of other benefits too no doubt)?
[quote][p][bold]Klinkerhoffen[/bold] wrote: Does that make any sense Mr B-C? more revenue from housing through rates to cover the increased demands on council services created by extra housing = no net gain. As as for this being an 'investment' in Swindon - the development in Coate in particular is right by the M4 for a reason - so people can shop, work and socialise elsewhere.[/p][/quote]very good post and also how many will actually be on council tax benefit anyway (and a raft of other benefits too no doubt)? house on the hill

2:05pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Tyran66 says...

Klinkerhoffen wrote:
Does that make any sense Mr B-C? more revenue from housing through rates to cover the increased demands on council services created by extra housing = no net gain.

As as for this being an 'investment' in Swindon - the development in Coate in particular is right by the M4 for a reason - so people can shop, work and socialise elsewhere.
People will move where they want to shop, work and socialise irrespective of the proximity of a motorway, to suggest otherwise is folly.

Ultimately Swindon is sandwiched between Oxford, Reading and Bristol all of which "outpunch" Swindon for the things you mention. You know where they don't? House Prices.

And with economies of scale, more houses really are more profitable to a council collecting tax. It takes 1 rubbish truck (and the cost associated with it) to collect from 500 houses the same as it does 5 - if they are all in the same street.
[quote][p][bold]Klinkerhoffen[/bold] wrote: Does that make any sense Mr B-C? more revenue from housing through rates to cover the increased demands on council services created by extra housing = no net gain. As as for this being an 'investment' in Swindon - the development in Coate in particular is right by the M4 for a reason - so people can shop, work and socialise elsewhere.[/p][/quote]People will move where they want to shop, work and socialise irrespective of the proximity of a motorway, to suggest otherwise is folly. Ultimately Swindon is sandwiched between Oxford, Reading and Bristol all of which "outpunch" Swindon for the things you mention. You know where they don't? House Prices. And with economies of scale, more houses really are more profitable to a council collecting tax. It takes 1 rubbish truck (and the cost associated with it) to collect from 500 houses the same as it does 5 - if they are all in the same street. Tyran66

2:59pm Wed 18 Dec 13

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

Tyran66 wrote:
Klinkerhoffen wrote:
Does that make any sense Mr B-C? more revenue from housing through rates to cover the increased demands on council services created by extra housing = no net gain.

As as for this being an 'investment' in Swindon - the development in Coate in particular is right by the M4 for a reason - so people can shop, work and socialise elsewhere.
People will move where they want to shop, work and socialise irrespective of the proximity of a motorway, to suggest otherwise is folly.

Ultimately Swindon is sandwiched between Oxford, Reading and Bristol all of which "outpunch" Swindon for the things you mention. You know where they don't? House Prices.

And with economies of scale, more houses really are more profitable to a council collecting tax. It takes 1 rubbish truck (and the cost associated with it) to collect from 500 houses the same as it does 5 - if they are all in the same street.
So why not just build the houses where the work is then, in Oxford, Reading and Bristol? Building endless amounts of housing in Swindon where there is no work for them forces those that buy them to commute to other towns for work. Why not just build the houses where the jobs are? This would reduce commuter traffic (currently reaching critical mass due to lack of investment in infrastructure), and increase supply to meet demand in these other towns and cities. This should have a welcome side effect of mitigating against further house price rises in those areas of demand.
[quote][p][bold]Tyran66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Klinkerhoffen[/bold] wrote: Does that make any sense Mr B-C? more revenue from housing through rates to cover the increased demands on council services created by extra housing = no net gain. As as for this being an 'investment' in Swindon - the development in Coate in particular is right by the M4 for a reason - so people can shop, work and socialise elsewhere.[/p][/quote]People will move where they want to shop, work and socialise irrespective of the proximity of a motorway, to suggest otherwise is folly. Ultimately Swindon is sandwiched between Oxford, Reading and Bristol all of which "outpunch" Swindon for the things you mention. You know where they don't? House Prices. And with economies of scale, more houses really are more profitable to a council collecting tax. It takes 1 rubbish truck (and the cost associated with it) to collect from 500 houses the same as it does 5 - if they are all in the same street.[/p][/quote]So why not just build the houses where the work is then, in Oxford, Reading and Bristol? Building endless amounts of housing in Swindon where there is no work for them forces those that buy them to commute to other towns for work. Why not just build the houses where the jobs are? This would reduce commuter traffic (currently reaching critical mass due to lack of investment in infrastructure), and increase supply to meet demand in these other towns and cities. This should have a welcome side effect of mitigating against further house price rises in those areas of demand. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

4:45pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Davey Gravey says...

Why is building allowed there when the front garden estate isn't finished?
Looks like a money making excercise and won't benefit a town that has already got too big.
Why is building allowed there when the front garden estate isn't finished? Looks like a money making excercise and won't benefit a town that has already got too big. Davey Gravey

5:24pm Wed 18 Dec 13

The Jockster says...

Where are Saunders Flicks and the rest of the save coate brigade when you need them! Shoulders back lovely boy!
Where are Saunders Flicks and the rest of the save coate brigade when you need them! Shoulders back lovely boy! The Jockster

6:04pm Wed 18 Dec 13

John~R says...

Tyran66 wrote:
Klinkerhoffen wrote:
Does that make any sense Mr B-C? more revenue from housing through rates to cover the increased demands on council services created by extra housing = no net gain.

As as for this being an 'investment' in Swindon - the development in Coate in particular is right by the M4 for a reason - so people can shop, work and socialise elsewhere.
People will move where they want to shop, work and socialise irrespective of the proximity of a motorway, to suggest otherwise is folly.

Ultimately Swindon is sandwiched between Oxford, Reading and Bristol all of which "outpunch" Swindon for the things you mention. You know where they don't? House Prices.

And with economies of scale, more houses really are more profitable to a council collecting tax. It takes 1 rubbish truck (and the cost associated with it) to collect from 500 houses the same as it does 5 - if they are all in the same street.
I agree that the houses need to be built where the employment is increasing (and at the moment that is not Swindon). However, the NIMBYs in those areas seem to be more effective than the NIMBYs around Swindon. Building an ample supply of new homes close to Oxford (for example) would be bad news for the current homeowners who could see a price drop. All the commuting is a waste of people's time and money and has a significant environmental impact.

The problem is that SBC got out-manoeuvred by the developers by agreeing in principle to housing in this area to subsidise a greenfields university campus and didn't shut the door firmly enough when the university plan was dropped. Somehow they need to tie the developer up in red tape until the front garden is finished and we council tax payers have got our money back. Or can we send the bill to the planning inspectorate. Perhaps if they are confronted with the cost of their decisions then they might accrue some benefit from hindsight.
[quote][p][bold]Tyran66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Klinkerhoffen[/bold] wrote: Does that make any sense Mr B-C? more revenue from housing through rates to cover the increased demands on council services created by extra housing = no net gain. As as for this being an 'investment' in Swindon - the development in Coate in particular is right by the M4 for a reason - so people can shop, work and socialise elsewhere.[/p][/quote]People will move where they want to shop, work and socialise irrespective of the proximity of a motorway, to suggest otherwise is folly. Ultimately Swindon is sandwiched between Oxford, Reading and Bristol all of which "outpunch" Swindon for the things you mention. You know where they don't? House Prices. And with economies of scale, more houses really are more profitable to a council collecting tax. It takes 1 rubbish truck (and the cost associated with it) to collect from 500 houses the same as it does 5 - if they are all in the same street.[/p][/quote]I agree that the houses need to be built where the employment is increasing (and at the moment that is not Swindon). However, the NIMBYs in those areas seem to be more effective than the NIMBYs around Swindon. Building an ample supply of new homes close to Oxford (for example) would be bad news for the current homeowners who could see a price drop. All the commuting is a waste of people's time and money and has a significant environmental impact. The problem is that SBC got out-manoeuvred by the developers by agreeing in principle to housing in this area to subsidise a greenfields university campus and didn't shut the door firmly enough when the university plan was dropped. Somehow they need to tie the developer up in red tape until the front garden is finished and we council tax payers have got our money back. Or can we send the bill to the planning inspectorate. Perhaps if they are confronted with the cost of their decisions then they might accrue some benefit from hindsight. John~R

12:46am Thu 19 Dec 13

female resident says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
Tyran66 wrote:
Klinkerhoffen wrote:
Does that make any sense Mr B-C? more revenue from housing through rates to cover the increased demands on council services created by extra housing = no net gain.

As as for this being an 'investment' in Swindon - the development in Coate in particular is right by the M4 for a reason - so people can shop, work and socialise elsewhere.
People will move where they want to shop, work and socialise irrespective of the proximity of a motorway, to suggest otherwise is folly.

Ultimately Swindon is sandwiched between Oxford, Reading and Bristol all of which "outpunch" Swindon for the things you mention. You know where they don't? House Prices.

And with economies of scale, more houses really are more profitable to a council collecting tax. It takes 1 rubbish truck (and the cost associated with it) to collect from 500 houses the same as it does 5 - if they are all in the same street.
So why not just build the houses where the work is then, in Oxford, Reading and Bristol? Building endless amounts of housing in Swindon where there is no work for them forces those that buy them to commute to other towns for work. Why not just build the houses where the jobs are? This would reduce commuter traffic (currently reaching critical mass due to lack of investment in infrastructure), and increase supply to meet demand in these other towns and cities. This should have a welcome side effect of mitigating against further house price rises in those areas of demand.
"So why not just build the houses where the work is then, in Oxford, Reading and Bristol?"


Because house prices in Swindon are comparitively low and it is cheaper to buy a house here and commute than to buy in those places. It's very sad as it means there is little chance of building real communities and that Swindon as a town becomes less and less appealing for work or play because those that have properties here do not spend their money here.
[quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tyran66[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Klinkerhoffen[/bold] wrote: Does that make any sense Mr B-C? more revenue from housing through rates to cover the increased demands on council services created by extra housing = no net gain. As as for this being an 'investment' in Swindon - the development in Coate in particular is right by the M4 for a reason - so people can shop, work and socialise elsewhere.[/p][/quote]People will move where they want to shop, work and socialise irrespective of the proximity of a motorway, to suggest otherwise is folly. Ultimately Swindon is sandwiched between Oxford, Reading and Bristol all of which "outpunch" Swindon for the things you mention. You know where they don't? House Prices. And with economies of scale, more houses really are more profitable to a council collecting tax. It takes 1 rubbish truck (and the cost associated with it) to collect from 500 houses the same as it does 5 - if they are all in the same street.[/p][/quote]So why not just build the houses where the work is then, in Oxford, Reading and Bristol? Building endless amounts of housing in Swindon where there is no work for them forces those that buy them to commute to other towns for work. Why not just build the houses where the jobs are? This would reduce commuter traffic (currently reaching critical mass due to lack of investment in infrastructure), and increase supply to meet demand in these other towns and cities. This should have a welcome side effect of mitigating against further house price rises in those areas of demand.[/p][/quote]"So why not just build the houses where the work is then, in Oxford, Reading and Bristol?" Because house prices in Swindon are comparitively low and it is cheaper to buy a house here and commute than to buy in those places. It's very sad as it means there is little chance of building real communities and that Swindon as a town becomes less and less appealing for work or play because those that have properties here do not spend their money here. female resident

8:22am Thu 19 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

Its freedom of choice, you can either buy a cheaper house here and commute or spend more on the house and live closer to your work, who are we to tell people what they prefer? If the houses sell then clearly they were needed and one would imagine the builders have done their homework and they will.
Its freedom of choice, you can either buy a cheaper house here and commute or spend more on the house and live closer to your work, who are we to tell people what they prefer? If the houses sell then clearly they were needed and one would imagine the builders have done their homework and they will. house on the hill

9:20am Thu 19 Dec 13

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

house on the hill wrote:
Its freedom of choice, you can either buy a cheaper house here and commute or spend more on the house and live closer to your work, who are we to tell people what they prefer? If the houses sell then clearly they were needed and one would imagine the builders have done their homework and they will.
Some choice.
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: Its freedom of choice, you can either buy a cheaper house here and commute or spend more on the house and live closer to your work, who are we to tell people what they prefer? If the houses sell then clearly they were needed and one would imagine the builders have done their homework and they will.[/p][/quote]Some choice. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

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