Swindon AdvertiserNo review for Ridgeway Farm development (From Swindon Advertiser)

Get involved! Send photos, video, news & views. Text SWINDON NEWS to 80360 or email us

No review for Ridgeway Farm development

Swindon Advertiser: Residents and councillors are unhappy at plans for homes on Ridgeway Farm. From left, Kevin Fisher, Martyn Parrott, Nick Fisher, Jacqui Lay, Garry Perkins, Roger Ogle and Paula Russell with Otis Residents and councillors are unhappy at plans for homes on Ridgeway Farm. From left, Kevin Fisher, Martyn Parrott, Nick Fisher, Jacqui Lay, Garry Perkins, Roger Ogle and Paula Russell with Otis

A JUDICIAL review will not take place over the Government’s decision to approve the 700-home Ridgeway Farm development.

The estate, near Purton, will rely largely on Swindon’s infrastructure, services and job opportunities and residents have long complained it will add to congestion on roads in West Swindon.

In November, despite opposition by both Swindon and Wiltshire Councils, communities secretary Eric Pickles approved Taylor Wimpey’s outline application in line with the recommendation from planning inspector, Katie Peerless.

Swindon Council investigated the possibility of a judicial review, but found it could not take the action as the development is within the boundaries of Wiltshire Council, which has decided not to pursue a review.

Coun Dale Heenan, Swindon Council cabinet member for strategic planning and sustainability, said: “The Ridgeway Farm planning application was submitted in 2010 before many changes to the planning system like the Localism Act were brought in by this Government.

“The crux of the argument is over whether the 2006 Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) housing figures apply or whether Wiltshire Council’s and Swindon Council’s new local plans which have a 20 per cent reduction apply.

“It is clear from the appeal decision that Wiltshire Council had one hand tied behind their back when the Inspector recommended to the minister that the 2006 housing figures were used. I still think that's a poor decision, but legally changes like the Localism Act can't be applied retrospectively so any grounds for a judicial review are weak.

Swindon Borough Council can't challenge the decision because Wiltshire Council was the local planning authority who received this planning application. “The only winners if Wiltshire pursued further would be the expensive lawyers."

Coun Toby Sturgis, Wiltshire Council’s cabinet member for waste, property, environment and development control services, agreed, saying: “We don’t believe there’s reasonable grounds for a challenge.”

Kevin Fisher, chairman of Shaw Residents’ Association, said: “I would have liked them to have taken it to court but not being legal experts we don’t know whether that would win.

He added that the group would now lobby for the Government to fund the Purton-Iffley Relief Road to mitigate highways issues associated with the development.

Comments (11)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:34am Mon 7 Jan 13

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

Surprise, surprise!

If those councillors that stood for election on the basis of objecting had done their job properly in the first place the position would have been much stronger.

They should be held accountable for not standing by their election pledges.


They should close off the back roads coming into Swindon from those routes and force all the satellite villages to use the main arteries.

No suprise that Wiltshire don't support a review as they get the council tax money whilst Swindonians pick up the bill for supplying the services.
Surprise, surprise! If those councillors that stood for election on the basis of objecting had done their job properly in the first place the position would have been much stronger. They should be held accountable for not standing by their election pledges. They should close off the back roads coming into Swindon from those routes and force all the satellite villages to use the main arteries. No suprise that Wiltshire don't support a review as they get the council tax money whilst Swindonians pick up the bill for supplying the services. LordAshOfTheBrake
  • Score: 0

8:35am Mon 7 Jan 13

PaulD says...

I agree with the point above. Do not allow this development direct access to Swindon's roads.
I agree with the point above. Do not allow this development direct access to Swindon's roads. PaulD
  • Score: 0

11:30am Mon 7 Jan 13

A.Baron-Cohen says...

The UK needs 300,000 new houses/year, we are in the middle of a housing crisis and the longest Economic Depression ever recorded.
As the Coalition is now getting to grips with our over generous Benefits system, we need now to concentrate on building for the future wherever it may be necessary.
There is no longer a place for NIMBYs who frankly have become an obstacle to economic growth and social fairness.
The UK needs 300,000 new houses/year, we are in the middle of a housing crisis and the longest Economic Depression ever recorded. As the Coalition is now getting to grips with our over generous Benefits system, we need now to concentrate on building for the future wherever it may be necessary. There is no longer a place for NIMBYs who frankly have become an obstacle to economic growth and social fairness. A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: 0

12:40pm Mon 7 Jan 13

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

@A. Baron-Cohen

If the infrastructure is put in place to support the development then I don't have an issue.

However the infrastructure isn't in place, and is not funded to be put in place.
@A. Baron-Cohen If the infrastructure is put in place to support the development then I don't have an issue. However the infrastructure isn't in place, and is not funded to be put in place. LordAshOfTheBrake
  • Score: 0

12:54pm Mon 7 Jan 13

A.Baron-Cohen says...

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
@A. Baron-Cohen

If the infrastructure is put in place to support the development then I don't have an issue.

However the infrastructure isn't in place, and is not funded to be put in place.
This is a job for our elected representatives that are on the public payroll and should be working flat out to secure the necessary funding to get things done, built as quickly as possible.
[quote][p][bold]LordAshOfTheBrake[/bold] wrote: @A. Baron-Cohen If the infrastructure is put in place to support the development then I don't have an issue. However the infrastructure isn't in place, and is not funded to be put in place.[/p][/quote]This is a job for our elected representatives that are on the public payroll and should be working flat out to secure the necessary funding to get things done, built as quickly as possible. A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: 0

7:20am Tue 8 Jan 13

peatmoor pirate says...

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
@A. Baron-Cohen

If the infrastructure is put in place to support the development then I don't have an issue.

However the infrastructure isn't in place, and is not funded to be put in place.
That is indeed the issue and is why Wilts CC, Swindon BC, local MPs from Swindon and Wilts, local residents and businesses were all against this. Together with the fact that this flew in the face of the Govts "localism" law meant that all felt Eric Pickles should throw out the application as it stood. Obviously, as we should have realsied, Pickles couldn't give a flying one for any of the above and has given the go ahead regardless. I oppose this development but if proper infrastructure put in place then I would not oppose it. The only person I have an issue in this whole saga is Eric Pickles who clearly cannot be trusted to enact his party's own policies (localism). The Tories have lost my vote for that reason. Trouble is, who the hell can you trust these days?
[quote][p][bold]LordAshOfTheBrake[/bold] wrote: @A. Baron-Cohen If the infrastructure is put in place to support the development then I don't have an issue. However the infrastructure isn't in place, and is not funded to be put in place.[/p][/quote]That is indeed the issue and is why Wilts CC, Swindon BC, local MPs from Swindon and Wilts, local residents and businesses were all against this. Together with the fact that this flew in the face of the Govts "localism" law meant that all felt Eric Pickles should throw out the application as it stood. Obviously, as we should have realsied, Pickles couldn't give a flying one for any of the above and has given the go ahead regardless. I oppose this development but if proper infrastructure put in place then I would not oppose it. The only person I have an issue in this whole saga is Eric Pickles who clearly cannot be trusted to enact his party's own policies (localism). The Tories have lost my vote for that reason. Trouble is, who the hell can you trust these days? peatmoor pirate
  • Score: 0

7:26am Tue 8 Jan 13

peatmoor pirate says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
The UK needs 300,000 new houses/year, we are in the middle of a housing crisis and the longest Economic Depression ever recorded.
As the Coalition is now getting to grips with our over generous Benefits system, we need now to concentrate on building for the future wherever it may be necessary.
There is no longer a place for NIMBYs who frankly have become an obstacle to economic growth and social fairness.
Anyone who has followed this issue knows it was not a NIMBY argument. This wasn't in anyone's plans for the area and will impact on people over the whole of the North and West of Swindon. This was a grown-up issue for grown ups so keep your childish name calling to yourself please.
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: The UK needs 300,000 new houses/year, we are in the middle of a housing crisis and the longest Economic Depression ever recorded. As the Coalition is now getting to grips with our over generous Benefits system, we need now to concentrate on building for the future wherever it may be necessary. There is no longer a place for NIMBYs who frankly have become an obstacle to economic growth and social fairness.[/p][/quote]Anyone who has followed this issue knows it was not a NIMBY argument. This wasn't in anyone's plans for the area and will impact on people over the whole of the North and West of Swindon. This was a grown-up issue for grown ups so keep your childish name calling to yourself please. peatmoor pirate
  • Score: 0

10:12am Tue 8 Jan 13

A.Baron-Cohen says...

peatmoor pirate wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
The UK needs 300,000 new houses/year, we are in the middle of a housing crisis and the longest Economic Depression ever recorded.
As the Coalition is now getting to grips with our over generous Benefits system, we need now to concentrate on building for the future wherever it may be necessary.
There is no longer a place for NIMBYs who frankly have become an obstacle to economic growth and social fairness.
Anyone who has followed this issue knows it was not a NIMBY argument. This wasn't in anyone's plans for the area and will impact on people over the whole of the North and West of Swindon. This was a grown-up issue for grown ups so keep your childish name calling to yourself please.
I wish you could apply this very good growing up theory to yourself.
NIMBYs all over the Town, County and country are blocking, delaying important schemes to tackle national issues: housing shortage, transport congestion.
The UK has one of the least developed countryside in Europe, yet it is poised to become the most populous country in Europe by 2050.
Choice is simple: we build houses now or we concrete cities and towns with tower blocks in 20 years time.
[quote][p][bold]peatmoor pirate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: The UK needs 300,000 new houses/year, we are in the middle of a housing crisis and the longest Economic Depression ever recorded. As the Coalition is now getting to grips with our over generous Benefits system, we need now to concentrate on building for the future wherever it may be necessary. There is no longer a place for NIMBYs who frankly have become an obstacle to economic growth and social fairness.[/p][/quote]Anyone who has followed this issue knows it was not a NIMBY argument. This wasn't in anyone's plans for the area and will impact on people over the whole of the North and West of Swindon. This was a grown-up issue for grown ups so keep your childish name calling to yourself please.[/p][/quote]I wish you could apply this very good growing up theory to yourself. NIMBYs all over the Town, County and country are blocking, delaying important schemes to tackle national issues: housing shortage, transport congestion. The UK has one of the least developed countryside in Europe, yet it is poised to become the most populous country in Europe by 2050. Choice is simple: we build houses now or we concrete cities and towns with tower blocks in 20 years time. A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: 0

10:25am Tue 8 Jan 13

Wibblyp says...

Personally I'd like to keep our countryside undeveloped
Personally I'd like to keep our countryside undeveloped Wibblyp
  • Score: 0

5:13pm Tue 8 Jan 13

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

@A.Baron-Cohen

Quote "The UK has one of the least developed countryside in Europe, yet it is poised to become the most populous country in Europe by 2050"


Can you provide a reference for the first part of the statement (under developed countryside)?
@A.Baron-Cohen Quote "The UK has one of the least developed countryside in Europe, yet it is poised to become the most populous country in Europe by 2050" Can you provide a reference for the first part of the statement (under developed countryside)? LordAshOfTheBrake
  • Score: 0

11:15am Wed 9 Jan 13

A.Baron-Cohen says...

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
@A.Baron-Cohen

Quote "The UK has one of the least developed countryside in Europe, yet it is poised to become the most populous country in Europe by 2050"


Can you provide a reference for the first part of the statement (under developed countryside)?
This was part of a recent investigative program on ITV: Is Britain Overcrowded?
podcast link:
http://www.itv.com/n
ews/2013-01-03/is-br
itain-overcrowded/
[quote][p][bold]LordAshOfTheBrake[/bold] wrote: @A.Baron-Cohen Quote "The UK has one of the least developed countryside in Europe, yet it is poised to become the most populous country in Europe by 2050" Can you provide a reference for the first part of the statement (under developed countryside)?[/p][/quote]This was part of a recent investigative program on ITV: Is Britain Overcrowded? podcast link: http://www.itv.com/n ews/2013-01-03/is-br itain-overcrowded/ A.Baron-Cohen
  • 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