Deadline looms for views on local plan

Swindon Advertiser: Coun Dale Heenan, cabinet member for strategic planning and sustainability Coun Dale Heenan, cabinet member for strategic planning and sustainability

ONLY a handful of people have so far commented in a public consultation on Swindon Council’s vision for the development of the borough until 2026 – including where to put 22,000 extra homes.

The local plan 2026 will be the new planning document which will guide the decisions of the planning committee and officers.

It sets out a number of general policies, as well as specific locations for residential and employment uses.

The council launched the statutory nine-week public consultation on its final draft on December 21 but only 32 responses have been received so far.

It received about 1,800 comments and objections in the consultation on the previous draft. The deadline is February 21.

Interest in consultations has proved to be generally low this year, with only 17 responses on the Conservative administration’s draft budget proposals, and 30 responses to plans to create a fully commercial bus network.

Coun Dale Heenan, the cabinet member for strategic planning and sustainability, said: “There are just under two weeks left before the deadline for residents to comment on how Swindon should grow over the next 15 years.

“The local plan is one of the most important documents that the council has agreed with full cross-party support, and sets out where new employment land for jobs will be, where housing will be built and all the necessary roads and infrastructure the town needs, along with new rules on protecting green space.

“After seven weeks of consultation, and public meetings across the town, only 32 comments have been sent in so far. “It is human nature to wait until deadlines approach, but I would encourage as many residents as possible send in their views.

“Every submission will be considered, and already there are good points raised from widening the new green buffers to a new 'Swindon Parkway' railway station.”

The final version allocates about 6,000 homes at the Eastern Villages development to the east of the A419. The plan includes 4,064 homes at Wichelstowe – the same number as before – 3,500 as infill in Swindon’s existing urban area, and 640 for the expansion of South Marston.

There are 1,000 homes allocated in Swindon’s central area – mostly in the Union Square development – 1,500 allocated for Rowborough, a possible development on farmland north of the A420, and about 1,650 on farmland west of the A419 at Kingsdown, a new site in this version of the plan.

There is also allocation for 1,695 homes at Tadpole Farm, 890 at Coate, and 589 in the Northern Development Area, which already have planning permission.

And there is provision for a handful of extra homes as either infill or small extensions at Highworth, Wroughton, and other villages.

Blundson Parish Council is holding a public meeting about the proposed Kingsdown development, at Blunsdon Village Hall, in the High Street, on Wednesday, February 13, at 7pm, with the plan available to view from 6pm.

Residents can email views to forwardplanning@swindon.gov.uk or visit www.swindon.gov.uk/ localplan.

Comments (25)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:48pm Mon 11 Feb 13

salt and vinegar says...

Ooh, I wonder why such little interest.

Maybe people realise it's a total waste of time, and the planners (council) wont take a blind bit of notice of peoples views.
Oh, cynical old me!
Ooh, I wonder why such little interest. Maybe people realise it's a total waste of time, and the planners (council) wont take a blind bit of notice of peoples views. Oh, cynical old me! salt and vinegar

12:50pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Blackwell 2 says...

ONLY a handful of people have so far commented in a public consultation on Swindon Council’s vision for the development of the borough until 2026 – including where to put 22,000 extra homes.


That's because the grinning hyena and his cronies won't take the slightest bit of notice of anything the public says
[quote] ONLY a handful of people have so far commented in a public consultation on Swindon Council’s vision for the development of the borough until 2026 – including where to put 22,000 extra homes. [/quote] That's because the grinning hyena and his cronies won't take the slightest bit of notice of anything the public says Blackwell 2

1:19pm Mon 11 Feb 13

itsamess3 says...

Yep--then the cronies will winge on here why its happening.
Yep--then the cronies will winge on here why its happening. itsamess3

2:58pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Melgee says...

DO NOT BUILD ON TADPOLE FARM. I PROTEST !!

There you are... that'll stop them from going ahead!
DO NOT BUILD ON TADPOLE FARM. I PROTEST !! There you are... that'll stop them from going ahead! Melgee

3:15pm Mon 11 Feb 13

JeanSaunders says...

Apart from the reasons given above, the low response rate might be something to do with the fact that the planning department did not want to receive submissions where individuals in a group make the same point about the plan. Instead, the group is invited to subit a representation with a list of names and addresses of people who wished to make the same point. The Jefferies Land Conservation Trust has responded to the draft Coate policy and the submission is supported with a list of 2,115 names and addresses.
Apart from the reasons given above, the low response rate might be something to do with the fact that the planning department did not want to receive submissions where individuals in a group make the same point about the plan. Instead, the group is invited to subit a representation with a list of names and addresses of people who wished to make the same point. The Jefferies Land Conservation Trust has responded to the draft Coate policy and the submission is supported with a list of 2,115 names and addresses. JeanSaunders

3:16pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Eastern Badger says...

Poor coverage in Advertiser. Public meeting in Wanborough had 150 people asking Cllr Dale Heenan questions but getting few answers. Try to find the Local Plan on SBC website? Not easy!
Poor coverage in Advertiser. Public meeting in Wanborough had 150 people asking Cllr Dale Heenan questions but getting few answers. Try to find the Local Plan on SBC website? Not easy! Eastern Badger

3:47pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Davey Gravey says...

Well I object to 22,000 new homes being built on the basis of the town being too big already.
Well I object to 22,000 new homes being built on the basis of the town being too big already. Davey Gravey

4:33pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Al Smith says...

Use it or lose it!

If people want to know what the impact of the goverment's policy of presuming in favour of development I suggest people watch The Planners on BBC2. Councils are no longer rejecting large developments because they know the government will turn around and approve them on appeal.

If you don't agree with something in the draft plan then tell the council, because once an area gets earmarked for development it will be impossible to stop it. They might not listen now but once the plan is adopted it won't even matter if they listen.
Use it or lose it! If people want to know what the impact of the goverment's policy of presuming in favour of development I suggest people watch The Planners on BBC2. Councils are no longer rejecting large developments because they know the government will turn around and approve them on appeal. If you don't agree with something in the draft plan then tell the council, because once an area gets earmarked for development it will be impossible to stop it. They might not listen now but once the plan is adopted it won't even matter if they listen. Al Smith

4:37pm Mon 11 Feb 13

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

Its because the council show nothing but contempt for the electorate and will do whatever they want; or whatever is forced up on them by central government.


I also object to 22,000 new homes since there is no long term sustainable job growth (construction is sustainable) and the infrastructure and facilities are not up to what is required for a town of this size let alone 20% bigger!
Its because the council show nothing but contempt for the electorate and will do whatever they want; or whatever is forced up on them by central government. I also object to 22,000 new homes since there is no long term sustainable job growth (construction is sustainable) and the infrastructure and facilities are not up to what is required for a town of this size let alone 20% bigger! LordAshOfTheBrake

6:16pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Lady Bluns of the downs says...

The Blunsdon Action Group have been going door to door in Blunsdon Village with the representation forms and the offer of help with now to filled these in. The feed-back is that lots of people are intimidated by the legal slant of the form and feel that their thoughts are not important or will be listened too. Well they are IMPORTANT and the SBC will LISTEN! B.A.G are collecting in these filled in forms this week. Time is of the essence and your comments are needed now if we are to stand a chance of stopping inappropriate development for the whole borough. For the Area 5 Kingsdown (Blunsdon) development, Who's going to pay for the 10 million bridge into Groundwell then!? Please come to the meeting in Blunsdon on Wednesday 13/02 at 6pm
The Blunsdon Action Group have been going door to door in Blunsdon Village with the representation forms and the offer of help with now to filled these in. The feed-back is that lots of people are intimidated by the legal slant of the form and feel that their thoughts are not important or will be listened too. Well they are IMPORTANT and the SBC will LISTEN! B.A.G are collecting in these filled in forms this week. Time is of the essence and your comments are needed now if we are to stand a chance of stopping inappropriate development for the whole borough. For the Area 5 Kingsdown (Blunsdon) development, Who's going to pay for the 10 million bridge into Groundwell then!? Please come to the meeting in Blunsdon on Wednesday 13/02 at 6pm Lady Bluns of the downs

11:21pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Eastern Badger says...

If only there was a way perhaps in local media to let people know that you don't have to use the complicated forms to comment? It should be that easy, but meanwhile pictures of councillors smiling fill their pages?

To comment on the local plan by 21/2/13: Email (with your name, address) forwardplanning@swin
don.gov.uk or Write to: Planning Service, FREEPOST SCE5251, Swindon Borough Council, Wat Tyler House, Beckhampton Street, Swindon SN1 2JH
If only there was a way perhaps in local media to let people know that you don't have to use the complicated forms to comment? It should be that easy, but meanwhile pictures of councillors smiling fill their pages? To comment on the local plan by 21/2/13: Email (with your name, address) forwardplanning@swin don.gov.uk or Write to: Planning Service, FREEPOST SCE5251, Swindon Borough Council, Wat Tyler House, Beckhampton Street, Swindon SN1 2JH Eastern Badger

6:35am Tue 12 Feb 13

JeanSaunders says...

If you want to object to the new house-building numbers and employment land allocations (both of which are way too high and do not reflect the current economic situation), you need to quote that you are objecting to draft Local Plan policy SD2(d) and that they are not justified. Remember that the Local Plan runs to 2026. The policy calls for 119.5 hectares (nearly 300 acres!) of land for employment use and 22,000 more houses based on an average of 1,466 new houses a year. In the last 9 months 450 new houses have been built in Swindon Borough.
If you want to object to the new house-building numbers and employment land allocations (both of which are way too high and do not reflect the current economic situation), you need to quote that you are objecting to draft Local Plan policy SD2(d) and that they are not justified. Remember that the Local Plan runs to 2026. The policy calls for 119.5 hectares (nearly 300 acres!) of land for employment use and 22,000 more houses based on an average of 1,466 new houses a year. In the last 9 months 450 new houses have been built in Swindon Borough. JeanSaunders

8:40am Tue 12 Feb 13

Tim Newroman says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Well I object to 22,000 new homes being built on the basis of the town being too big already.
Seconded. 22,000 new homes is insanity. Swindon, as a town, has not progressed, or even kept pace, with the last three major developments - all of which have largely proved to have been misguided, at best, or fairly disastrous. The social problems that are looming for the relatively near future in the Abbey Meads area being a prime example. And the less said about Wichelstowe the better.

There are no jobs in Swindon. There is little chance of significant new private investment in Swindon and there it's already a comparatively non-affluent town.

These 22,000 new homes are simply not needed. Not until the Romanians and Bulgarians realise they'll not all be able to live in London, anyway.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Well I object to 22,000 new homes being built on the basis of the town being too big already.[/p][/quote]Seconded. 22,000 new homes is insanity. Swindon, as a town, has not progressed, or even kept pace, with the last three major developments - all of which have largely proved to have been misguided, at best, or fairly disastrous. The social problems that are looming for the relatively near future in the Abbey Meads area being a prime example. And the less said about Wichelstowe the better. [p] There are no jobs in Swindon. There is little chance of significant new private investment in Swindon and there it's already a comparatively non-affluent town. [p] These 22,000 new homes are simply not needed. Not until the Romanians and Bulgarians realise they'll not all be able to live in London, anyway. Tim Newroman

1:39pm Tue 12 Feb 13

house on the hill says...

"""These 22,000 new homes are simply not needed. Not until the Romanians and Bulgarians realise they'll not all be able to live in London, anyway.”"""

At least we will have an endless supply of horsemeat to go in our burgers though!!! Someone needs to tell the council that Field of Dreams was a fantasy film and not a reality of "if you build it they will come"!

if the town was expanding then all well and good but with so many empty homes and half completed developments its just madness to contemplate those sorts of numbers being suggested with no growth of business on the horizon or even in tha same universe.
"""These 22,000 new homes are simply not needed. Not until the Romanians and Bulgarians realise they'll not all be able to live in London, anyway.”""" At least we will have an endless supply of horsemeat to go in our burgers though!!! Someone needs to tell the council that Field of Dreams was a fantasy film and not a reality of "if you build it they will come"! if the town was expanding then all well and good but with so many empty homes and half completed developments its just madness to contemplate those sorts of numbers being suggested with no growth of business on the horizon or even in tha same universe. house on the hill

4:52pm Tue 12 Feb 13

itsamess3 says...

House
Yes these houses are not needed--at least not until we get a progressive council which tackles the problem of half empty trading estates with overpriced business rates and in the main off of main routes which causes heavy vehicles to use our smaller roads.
Companies do not want delivery trucks constantly held up.
Councils have progressively turned our shopping areas into dead zones-the centre and gorsehill being prime examples.
They have this idea to fill up the town with office space whilst there are still large blocks laying empty.
I am puzzled as to why major business' are allowed to employ 90%+ of immigrant workers as there are 2 on SM t/est that do as carillion does at the hospital.
On top of that we have many folk who travel from as far as wales to work in our factories.
The trains are full of workers coming into work from miles around that have no ties here and certainly do not shop here.
We used to be a vibrant town with little unemployment--now we have families that cannot get work and neither can their children with no chance to buy houses. When will any council realise they are getting the priorities right.
House Yes these houses are not needed--at least not until we get a progressive council which tackles the problem of half empty trading estates with overpriced business rates and in the main off of main routes which causes heavy vehicles to use our smaller roads. Companies do not want delivery trucks constantly held up. Councils have progressively turned our shopping areas into dead zones-the centre and gorsehill being prime examples. They have this idea to fill up the town with office space whilst there are still large blocks laying empty. I am puzzled as to why major business' are allowed to employ 90%+ of immigrant workers as there are 2 on SM t/est that do as carillion does at the hospital. On top of that we have many folk who travel from as far as wales to work in our factories. The trains are full of workers coming into work from miles around that have no ties here and certainly do not shop here. We used to be a vibrant town with little unemployment--now we have families that cannot get work and neither can their children with no chance to buy houses. When will any council realise they are getting the priorities right. itsamess3

6:44pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Tim Newroman says...

itsamess3 wrote:
Yes these houses are not needed

Glad you agree with me.

itsamess3 wrote:
I am puzzled as to why major business' are allowed to employ 90%+ of immigrant workers as there are 2 on SM t/est that do as carillion does at the hospital.

They could legally employ 100% immigrants if they so wish, indeed, under EU law, immigrants from the EU must be considered entirely equal to non-immigrant workers for employment purposes.

itsamess3 wrote:
When will any council realise they are getting the priorities right.

I would imagine they already think they're getting the priorities right.
[quote][b]itsamess3[/b] wrote: Yes these houses are not needed [/quote] Glad you agree with me. [p] [quote][b]itsamess3[/b] wrote: I am puzzled as to why major business' are allowed to employ 90%+ of immigrant workers as there are 2 on SM t/est that do as carillion does at the hospital. [/quote] They could legally employ 100% immigrants if they so wish, indeed, under EU law, immigrants from the EU must be considered entirely equal to non-immigrant workers for employment purposes. [p] [quote][b]itsamess3[/b] wrote: When will any council realise they are getting the priorities right. [/quote] I would imagine they already think they're getting the priorities right. Tim Newroman

6:55pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Always Grumpy says...

Tim Newroman wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Well I object to 22,000 new homes being built on the basis of the town being too big already.
Seconded. 22,000 new homes is insanity. Swindon, as a town, has not progressed, or even kept pace, with the last three major developments - all of which have largely proved to have been misguided, at best, or fairly disastrous. The social problems that are looming for the relatively near future in the Abbey Meads area being a prime example. And the less said about Wichelstowe the better.

There are no jobs in Swindon. There is little chance of significant new private investment in Swindon and there it's already a comparatively non-affluent town.

These 22,000 new homes are simply not needed. Not until the Romanians and Bulgarians realise they'll not all be able to live in London, anyway.
"The social problems that are looming for the relatively near future in the Abbey Meads area being a prime example."

Don't comment on things you know nothing about.
You're arrogant and pompous diatribe about everyone and everything regarding Swindon certainly fools no one - you clearly know very little about Swindon or it's people, as you have demonstrated on many occasions with previous posts.
Try sticking to things you actually know about.
Oh, that will be nothing then!!!
[quote][p][bold]Tim Newroman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Well I object to 22,000 new homes being built on the basis of the town being too big already.[/p][/quote]Seconded. 22,000 new homes is insanity. Swindon, as a town, has not progressed, or even kept pace, with the last three major developments - all of which have largely proved to have been misguided, at best, or fairly disastrous. The social problems that are looming for the relatively near future in the Abbey Meads area being a prime example. And the less said about Wichelstowe the better. [p] There are no jobs in Swindon. There is little chance of significant new private investment in Swindon and there it's already a comparatively non-affluent town. [p] These 22,000 new homes are simply not needed. Not until the Romanians and Bulgarians realise they'll not all be able to live in London, anyway.[/p][/quote]"The social problems that are looming for the relatively near future in the Abbey Meads area being a prime example." Don't comment on things you know nothing about. You're arrogant and pompous diatribe about everyone and everything regarding Swindon certainly fools no one - you clearly know very little about Swindon or it's people, as you have demonstrated on many occasions with previous posts. Try sticking to things you actually know about. Oh, that will be nothing then!!! Always Grumpy

10:21pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Eastern Badger says...

This article was about a perceived lack of interest in the Local Plan. Please comment to SBC online to make a positive contribution. As with any town Swindon is what we make it. At election time you can change the council - in the meantime use this chance to hold them to account and make the plan better.

To comment: Email (with your name, address) to: forwardplanning@swin
don.gov.uk
This article was about a perceived lack of interest in the Local Plan. Please comment to SBC online to make a positive contribution. As with any town Swindon is what we make it. At election time you can change the council - in the meantime use this chance to hold them to account and make the plan better. To comment: Email (with your name, address) to: forwardplanning@swin don.gov.uk Eastern Badger

8:08am Wed 13 Feb 13

Tim Newroman says...

Always Grumpy wrote:
Tim Newroman wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Well I object to 22,000 new homes being built on the basis of the town being too big already.
Seconded. 22,000 new homes is insanity. Swindon, as a town, has not progressed, or even kept pace, with the last three major developments - all of which have largely proved to have been misguided, at best, or fairly disastrous. The social problems that are looming for the relatively near future in the Abbey Meads area being a prime example. And the less said about Wichelstowe the better.

There are no jobs in Swindon. There is little chance of significant new private investment in Swindon and there it's already a comparatively non-affluent town.

These 22,000 new homes are simply not needed. Not until the Romanians and Bulgarians realise they'll not all be able to live in London, anyway.
"The social problems that are looming for the relatively near future in the Abbey Meads area being a prime example."

Don't comment on things you know nothing about.
You're arrogant and pompous diatribe about everyone and everything regarding Swindon certainly fools no one - you clearly know very little about Swindon or it's people, as you have demonstrated on many occasions with previous posts.
Try sticking to things you actually know about.
Oh, that will be nothing then!!!
Just because you may not happen to like the reality of a situation doesn't mean it's not true.

Of course, the real irony about your post is that you yourself have NO idea what I know about anything.

I notice that you simply have a pop at me, presumably because I've touched a nerve, rather than actually challenging anything I've actually said - mainly because you know you can't.

Have a nice day.
[quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tim Newroman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Well I object to 22,000 new homes being built on the basis of the town being too big already.[/p][/quote]Seconded. 22,000 new homes is insanity. Swindon, as a town, has not progressed, or even kept pace, with the last three major developments - all of which have largely proved to have been misguided, at best, or fairly disastrous. The social problems that are looming for the relatively near future in the Abbey Meads area being a prime example. And the less said about Wichelstowe the better. [p] There are no jobs in Swindon. There is little chance of significant new private investment in Swindon and there it's already a comparatively non-affluent town. [p] These 22,000 new homes are simply not needed. Not until the Romanians and Bulgarians realise they'll not all be able to live in London, anyway.[/p][/quote]"The social problems that are looming for the relatively near future in the Abbey Meads area being a prime example." Don't comment on things you know nothing about. You're arrogant and pompous diatribe about everyone and everything regarding Swindon certainly fools no one - you clearly know very little about Swindon or it's people, as you have demonstrated on many occasions with previous posts. Try sticking to things you actually know about. Oh, that will be nothing then!!![/p][/quote]Just because you may not happen to like the reality of a situation doesn't mean it's not true. [p] Of course, the real irony about your post is that you yourself have NO idea what I know about anything. [p] I notice that you simply have a pop at me, presumably because I've touched a nerve, rather than actually challenging anything I've actually said - mainly because you know you can't. [p] Have a nice day. Tim Newroman

9:21am Wed 13 Feb 13

Always Grumpy says...

Tim Newroman wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
Tim Newroman wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Well I object to 22,000 new homes being built on the basis of the town being too big already.
Seconded. 22,000 new homes is insanity. Swindon, as a town, has not progressed, or even kept pace, with the last three major developments - all of which have largely proved to have been misguided, at best, or fairly disastrous. The social problems that are looming for the relatively near future in the Abbey Meads area being a prime example. And the less said about Wichelstowe the better.

There are no jobs in Swindon. There is little chance of significant new private investment in Swindon and there it's already a comparatively non-affluent town.

These 22,000 new homes are simply not needed. Not until the Romanians and Bulgarians realise they'll not all be able to live in London, anyway.
"The social problems that are looming for the relatively near future in the Abbey Meads area being a prime example."

Don't comment on things you know nothing about.
You're arrogant and pompous diatribe about everyone and everything regarding Swindon certainly fools no one - you clearly know very little about Swindon or it's people, as you have demonstrated on many occasions with previous posts.
Try sticking to things you actually know about.
Oh, that will be nothing then!!!
Just because you may not happen to like the reality of a situation doesn't mean it's not true.

Of course, the real irony about your post is that you yourself have NO idea what I know about anything.

I notice that you simply have a pop at me, presumably because I've touched a nerve, rather than actually challenging anything I've actually said - mainly because you know you can't.

Have a nice day.
On the contrary, your local knowledge is often lacking in both depth and detail. You seem to think you can get by with the same old sound bites over and over again. Well, it might fool some on this site (those with very low intelligence), but it certainly doesn't fool me or all the others that criticise you so often for your poorly informed and arrogant posts.
As for touching a nerve, far from it - I just cannot abide arrogant and pompous people such as yourself, who seem to have an opinion about everything based on their own twisted and ill informed views.
My total dislike for you and what you stand for has stayed the same ever since you were Big Mac - it's not likely to change because of anything you might say in response.

Have a nice day.
[quote][p][bold]Tim Newroman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tim Newroman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Well I object to 22,000 new homes being built on the basis of the town being too big already.[/p][/quote]Seconded. 22,000 new homes is insanity. Swindon, as a town, has not progressed, or even kept pace, with the last three major developments - all of which have largely proved to have been misguided, at best, or fairly disastrous. The social problems that are looming for the relatively near future in the Abbey Meads area being a prime example. And the less said about Wichelstowe the better. [p] There are no jobs in Swindon. There is little chance of significant new private investment in Swindon and there it's already a comparatively non-affluent town. [p] These 22,000 new homes are simply not needed. Not until the Romanians and Bulgarians realise they'll not all be able to live in London, anyway.[/p][/quote]"The social problems that are looming for the relatively near future in the Abbey Meads area being a prime example." Don't comment on things you know nothing about. You're arrogant and pompous diatribe about everyone and everything regarding Swindon certainly fools no one - you clearly know very little about Swindon or it's people, as you have demonstrated on many occasions with previous posts. Try sticking to things you actually know about. Oh, that will be nothing then!!![/p][/quote]Just because you may not happen to like the reality of a situation doesn't mean it's not true. [p] Of course, the real irony about your post is that you yourself have NO idea what I know about anything. [p] I notice that you simply have a pop at me, presumably because I've touched a nerve, rather than actually challenging anything I've actually said - mainly because you know you can't. [p] Have a nice day.[/p][/quote]On the contrary, your local knowledge is often lacking in both depth and detail. You seem to think you can get by with the same old sound bites over and over again. Well, it might fool some on this site (those with very low intelligence), but it certainly doesn't fool me or all the others that criticise you so often for your poorly informed and arrogant posts. As for touching a nerve, far from it - I just cannot abide arrogant and pompous people such as yourself, who seem to have an opinion about everything based on their own twisted and ill informed views. My total dislike for you and what you stand for has stayed the same ever since you were Big Mac - it's not likely to change because of anything you might say in response. Have a nice day. Always Grumpy

5:55pm Wed 13 Feb 13

Tim Newroman says...

Still not rebuttal to the actual points I made, then.

You don't like me? Oh, that's a shame... why on earth do you suppose I'd even care?

It is well known, and even accepted at council and MP level, that the new developments between West and North Swindon already have 'issues'. It is you who is ill-informed and unware if you believe otherwise.
Still not rebuttal to the actual points I made, then. [p] You don't like me? Oh, that's a shame... why on earth do you suppose I'd even care? [p] It is well known, and even accepted at council and MP level, that the new developments between West and North Swindon already have 'issues'. It is you who is ill-informed and unware if you believe otherwise. Tim Newroman

6:10pm Wed 13 Feb 13

Always Grumpy says...

Tim Newroman wrote:
Still not rebuttal to the actual points I made, then.

You don't like me? Oh, that's a shame... why on earth do you suppose I'd even care?

It is well known, and even accepted at council and MP level, that the new developments between West and North Swindon already have 'issues'. It is you who is ill-informed and unware if you believe otherwise.
You always quote your opinions or interpretations, never 'facts - there's a big difference in the two, which you don't seem to appreciate or even understand.
If you weren't quite so pompous and arrogant and made comments that were 'in your opinion', I might not have so many issues with you.
Not that I'm at all bothered what you think of me or anything else. I'm just highlighting what a conceited tw@t you really are - like it or lump it, do I care - no!
[quote][p][bold]Tim Newroman[/bold] wrote: Still not rebuttal to the actual points I made, then. [p] You don't like me? Oh, that's a shame... why on earth do you suppose I'd even care? [p] It is well known, and even accepted at council and MP level, that the new developments between West and North Swindon already have 'issues'. It is you who is ill-informed and unware if you believe otherwise.[/p][/quote]You always quote your opinions or interpretations, never 'facts - there's a big difference in the two, which you don't seem to appreciate or even understand. If you weren't quite so pompous and arrogant and made comments that were 'in your opinion', I might not have so many issues with you. Not that I'm at all bothered what you think of me or anything else. I'm just highlighting what a conceited tw@t you really are - like it or lump it, do I care - no! Always Grumpy

8:21pm Wed 13 Feb 13

Tim Newroman says...

Always Grumpy wrote:
Tim Newroman wrote:
Still not rebuttal to the actual points I made, then.

You don't like me? Oh, that's a shame... why on earth do you suppose I'd even care?

It is well known, and even accepted at council and MP level, that the new developments between West and North Swindon already have 'issues'. It is you who is ill-informed and unware if you believe otherwise.
You always quote your opinions or interpretations, never 'facts - there's a big difference in the two, which you don't seem to appreciate or even understand.
If you weren't quite so pompous and arrogant and made comments that were 'in your opinion', I might not have so many issues with you.
Not that I'm at all bothered what you think of me or anything else. I'm just highlighting what a conceited tw@t you really are - like it or lump it, do I care - no!
I notice you didn't start your post with, 'In my opinion...' - just as nobody ever does.

It's the Internet, we don't qualify everything we ever post on it.

In this case, the clue is in the very name of what we're invited to do: 'Have your say'. It does not ask us to 'Only post verifiable scientific fact'.
[quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tim Newroman[/bold] wrote: Still not rebuttal to the actual points I made, then. [p] You don't like me? Oh, that's a shame... why on earth do you suppose I'd even care? [p] It is well known, and even accepted at council and MP level, that the new developments between West and North Swindon already have 'issues'. It is you who is ill-informed and unware if you believe otherwise.[/p][/quote]You always quote your opinions or interpretations, never 'facts - there's a big difference in the two, which you don't seem to appreciate or even understand. If you weren't quite so pompous and arrogant and made comments that were 'in your opinion', I might not have so many issues with you. Not that I'm at all bothered what you think of me or anything else. I'm just highlighting what a conceited tw@t you really are - like it or lump it, do I care - no![/p][/quote]I notice you didn't start your post with, 'In my opinion...' - just as nobody ever does. [p] It's the Internet, we don't qualify everything we ever post on it. [p] In this case, the clue is in the very name of what we're invited to do: 'Have your say'. It does not ask us to 'Only post verifiable scientific fact'. Tim Newroman

10:16pm Wed 13 Feb 13

Big Boss Man says...

You are creating a very poor image for the PVRA and The Conservative Group.

Please do not continue
You are creating a very poor image for the PVRA and The Conservative Group. Please do not continue Big Boss Man

11:44pm Wed 13 Feb 13

Eastern Badger says...

Does anyone believe that the Advertiser reads these posts? Given proper prominence in the Advertiser people would have commented! The local plan is not on Swindon's home page and I challenge you to find out how to comment via the SBC website in less than three clicks? That's democracy and seeking public opinion! In SBC speak they have shown in the submission they will make to the inspector a Statement of Community involvement - presumably not including the public?
Does anyone believe that the Advertiser reads these posts? Given proper prominence in the Advertiser people would have commented! The local plan is not on Swindon's home page and I challenge you to find out how to comment via the SBC website in less than three clicks? That's democracy and seeking public opinion! In SBC speak they have shown in the submission they will make to the inspector a Statement of Community involvement - presumably not including the public? Eastern Badger

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