Outrage as land is tipped for housing (From Swindon Advertiser)
Get involved! Send photos, video, news & views. Text SWINDON NEWS to 80360 or email us
Outrage as land is tipped for housing
4:00pm Saturday 9th March 2013 in News
MPs Robert Buckland and James Gray along with local residents including Coun Mollie Groom and David Barnard at Lydiard Park
CAMPAIGNERS are horrified that planning officers have tipped plans to build houses on fields near Lydiard Park for approval.
In 2011, plans for 175 homes on land north of Hook Street were thrown out by the Planning Inspectorate on appeal.
In July 2012, developer Persimmon Homes held a pre-application public consultation on revised plans for 91 houses.
But the outline planning application, which has been recommended for conditional approval at Tuesday’s planning committee, is for a reduced development of 73 homes. The homes occupy less than half the original site – 3.6 hectares compared to 8.8 hectares – and are sited down the hill to avoid encroaching over the ridge, which was a main objection to the first plan.
During the statutory consultation, Swindon Council received about 150 objections, including from the Council for the Protection of Rural England, Friends of Lydiard Park, the Lydiard Fields Action Group, Lydiard Millicent Parish Council, and Lydiard Tregoze Parish Council. There were only two letters of support.
Campaigners say the land is not earmarked for housing in Swindon Council’s local plan, it is in a landscape character area and would be seen from Lydiard House, and it would increase traffic in the narrow Hook Street and connected junctions.
But planning officers say the proposed development should be approved as it has overcome the objections raised by the inspector at appeal, is compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework, provides much-needed housing, and would not have an unacceptable impact on Lydiard Park or the Lydiard Ridge Landscape Character Area.
Lorraine Williams, spokesman for Lydiard Fields Action Group, said: “We are absolutely horrified by the recommendation. Hundreds of letters of objection have been sent by the public, and local politicians have been united in their condemnation of the plans.
“The council and the community have already fought and defeated previous similar plans. It is hard to believe the council now intend to just give up and hand the field over to the developers “What is the point of a local development plan if the council simply give in to threats of litigation from developers hungry for lucrative greenfield sites regardless of the irreparable damage they will do to Swindon’s most beautiful asset?”
Dr Richard Pagett, chairman of Purton’s Ps and Qs community group, said: “We do not find it compliant with the NPPF and its contribution to meeting housing need is flawed.
“It is not sustainable to argue that permissions should be granted just to add to the five-year housing land supply when there are already thousands of permitted houses yet unbuilt, and there is a lack of jobs infrastructure and services.
“In addition, a recent metro count of more than 50,000 vehicles travelling in the Hook 30mph zone indicated that 85 per cent were found to be travelling at more than 40mph.”
Politicians who have objected to the plans include MP Robert Buckland, Swindon councillors for Lydiard and Freshbrook, Michael Dickinson, Mick Bray, and Cindy Matthews, and Wiltshire councillor Mollie Groom (Con, Royal Wootton Bassett East).
Comments(38)
davel4848
says...
6:20pm Sat 9 Mar 13
anotherimigrant
says...
6:41pm Sat 9 Mar 13
Rubbish and lies. Simply not possible in that area due to the councils mess in the road and the silly narrowing which simply impedes the ambulances and fire engines.
It will be the perfect place to build.
Swindon needs more houses, and they could easily fill in that waste and barren area, right up to the garden centre and all the way down the hill.
Natural progression, something Swindon lacks
roberto5
says...
6:57pm Sat 9 Mar 13
anotherimigrant wrote:Do you actually realise how many people visit Lydiard Park every year? do you even live in Swindon? Hook street is used that heavily. I would even say it is used more than those suggested figures say. Due to the park being 100% free the figures on visitors are near pushing onto a million every year. I believe If the park was better managed by the council this might not of happened of encroaching housing being built.
“In addition, a recent metro count of more than 50,000 vehicles travelling in the Hook 30mph zone indicated that 85 per cent were found to be travelling at more than 40mph.”
Rubbish and lies. Simply not possible in that area due to the councils mess in the road and the silly narrowing which simply impedes the ambulances and fire engines.
It will be the perfect place to build.
Swindon needs more houses, and they could easily fill in that waste and barren area, right up to the garden centre and all the way down the hill.
Natural progression, something Swindon lacks
roberto5
says...
7:03pm Sat 9 Mar 13
anotherimigrant wrote:Also how have the council narrowed the road then? Its is just a basic farm road, which back in the day was only used for farm vehicles anyway. It only seems narrow now due to the amount of traffic now uses it! And the main entrance to the park is on that side.
“In addition, a recent metro count of more than 50,000 vehicles travelling in the Hook 30mph zone indicated that 85 per cent were found to be travelling at more than 40mph.”
Rubbish and lies. Simply not possible in that area due to the councils mess in the road and the silly narrowing which simply impedes the ambulances and fire engines.
It will be the perfect place to build.
Swindon needs more houses, and they could easily fill in that waste and barren area, right up to the garden centre and all the way down the hill.
Natural progression, something Swindon lacks
Blackmalkin
says...
7:07pm Sat 9 Mar 13
red manc
says...
7:12pm Sat 9 Mar 13
This is great news for us builders . .
Davey Gravey
says...
7:26pm Sat 9 Mar 13
whaddahey?!
says...
8:07pm Sat 9 Mar 13
Its what's made this town so great and the envy of the nation, eh?
Still, at least there's a short term profit to be made!
So if anyone has any resonable concern about the impact upon where they live, or disagrees with the assumption that we really need another identikit estate encroaching on one of our areas of natural beauty, of course, you're just a NIMBY.
The usual crowd of sock-puppets here know best. Afterall, they and their ilk shaped this town and made it the place of beauty it is.
timt1964
says...
8:41pm Sat 9 Mar 13
Empty Car Park
says...
9:06pm Sat 9 Mar 13
timt1964 wrote:Lydiard Tregoze is mentioned in the Domesday Book and was owned by the Tregoze family from about 1189. In 1259 Henry III gave Robert Tregoze a royal licence to create a deer park in nearby woodland
they should have folded their arms in the picture,that always works!! this is definitely nimbyism,one of the banners says "save our heritage".what heritag e?! youre just protecting what exactly? bet all the homes these people live in was built on a field so get over it.
eucalyptus
says...
9:11pm Sat 9 Mar 13
No, instead we get more housing at the periphery - Hook Street, Ridgeway Farm, Mouldon View, Tadpole Farm, etc.
davel4848
says...
9:31pm Sat 9 Mar 13
Empty Car Park wrote:And ?
timt1964 wrote:Lydiard Tregoze is mentioned in the Domesday Book and was owned by the Tregoze family from about 1189. In 1259 Henry III gave Robert Tregoze a royal licence to create a deer park in nearby woodland
they should have folded their arms in the picture,that always works!! this is definitely nimbyism,one of the banners says "save our heritage".what heritag e?! youre just protecting what exactly? bet all the homes these people live in was built on a field so get over it.
Simples!
says...
10:01pm Sat 9 Mar 13
Eastern Badger
says...
11:21pm Sat 9 Mar 13
Tim Newroman
says...
8:15am Sun 10 Mar 13
Davey Gravey wrote:Well, no, not really. It's actually to be expected.
The irony of the two Tories on the bandwagon beggars belief. Hypocrites
Remember, it was John Prescott - under Labour previous government - who introduced the policy of having local planning refusals overturned by his Planning Inspectorate.
Under Labour, any planning application by developers that meets planning regulations will always be upheld by the Inspectorate, rendering council's completely impotent in terms of stopping those developments.
So, if anything, you'd always expect Tories to sieze the chance of a photo opportunity highlighting yet another disastrous aspect of Labour's abysmal legacy.
It's the left-wing that should be hanging their heads in shame - allowing developers to do as they please.
Empty Car Park
says...
8:33am Sun 10 Mar 13
Davey Gravey wrote:
The irony of the two Tories on the bandwagon beggars belief. Hypocrites
Careful.
If you point out that politicians and councillors have been "less than straight" with the electorate, you'll be called a NIMBY
Empty Car Park
says...
8:36am Sun 10 Mar 13
Tim Newroman
says...
9:10am Sun 10 Mar 13
This example is just textbook developer positioning: apply for too many dwellings, have the application refused, re-submit the application with a vastly reduced number of dwellings (which is actually the number you wanted to build in the first place), claim you've listened to what the planning committee have dictated, and then have the application greenlit.
All that then happens is, some months down the line when the whole thing's in build and forgotten, they simply put in a late application for a few more dwellings - which is then greenlit.
Happens ALL the time.
Lefties like you, Empty Car Park, still don't quite get it, do you? It's John Prescott and Labour's fault that the developers are able to run rings round local planning committees and why they always get their own way as long as their applications meet the legal guidelines.
You seem to be very, very anti-developer and anti-development, well, that being the case, it's a bit pointless knocking local Tory MPs how have absolutely nothing to do with it.
It's the Labour lot that you try and cosey up to over at the local Labour forum who are to blame. Why don't you ever criticise the people who are actually responsible for this kind of thing?
gambon
says...
9:13am Sun 10 Mar 13
Oliver_Donachie
says...
9:23am Sun 10 Mar 13
1.4 car parking spaces per home.
Reduction of road width on new build estates.
This has led to catastrophic problems in traffic flow in the Priory Vale area.
The good news is this shambolic Labour planning law was almost instantly removed when the current government came to power but many still live with the legacy of Labours "cram them in sell them high" policy they devised in collusion with the developers at the time.
Tim Newroman
says...
9:39am Sun 10 Mar 13
You can't get away with blaming the LibDems forever.
RichardR1
says...
9:46am Sun 10 Mar 13
Where should the houses be built, given we don't have a choice as far as the numbers are concerned.
Tim Newroman
says...
10:16am Sun 10 Mar 13
anotherimigrant
says...
11:51am Sun 10 Mar 13
Tim Newroman wrote:Hey, why you try to make trouble for a nice guy like me?
Very true, when you consider the number of immigrants still arriving, year after year after year, into the UK (despite Tory promises to limit them), it's hardly of any surprise that more housing is necessary.
Soon all my mates be here then they make a big troubles for you, limey.
Build more houses now, so we don't have to live in rotten hotels.
LordAshOfTheBrake
says...
12:42pm Sun 10 Mar 13
gambon wrote:What employment are the developers bringing to the town?
This is good news why does the adver never give home builders praise for bring new employment and growth to this town
Construction jobs are short term at best.
whaddahey?!
says...
1:49pm Sun 10 Mar 13
If the answer isn't totally obvious, your knuckles probably have large callouses on them from where they drag.
Or you're employed in the building trade but trusted no further than to bang two stones together.
Or both.
Or maybe you're just another apologist for business interests which try to portray any long-term planned, sustainable and sensitive developments as the desire of NIMBYs?
Nope, lets knacker any area which looks nice with another pop-up estate of cheaply built clone-homes. And doesn't Swindon already look so lovely as a result?
No wonder so many creative, thoughtful, aspiring, community spirited people are clamouring to move here and our town is the envy of The West.
Did you know that despite Swindon being cheap as chips, a rumoured reason many businesses don't come here is that existing workers don't want to move to such an ugly run down town?
Still, an estate of rabbit hutches next to a country house in rolling fields makes loads of sense in changing that perception, and to suggest otherwise is just daft, eh?
Hohohoho. Don't you just love this town?
stu2010
says...
1:54pm Sun 10 Mar 13
roberto5
says...
3:10pm Sun 10 Mar 13
Oliver_Donachie
says...
4:58pm Sun 10 Mar 13
Tim Newroman wrote:Tim, I am not sure what part of my post you consider to be smug, I assure you the hundreds of people in Redhouse and its periphery would put smug well down the list used to describe the feeling they have around it Labours disastrous planning policy of expecting each house owner to only have 1.4 cars.
@Oliver_Donachie: I wouldn't be too smug about it, if I were you, the Tories haven't gone nearly far enough in repealing Prescott and Labour's diastrous planning legislation.
You can't get away with blaming the LibDems forever.
I make absolutely no reference to LibDems and put this squarely at the feet of Labour because they are the ones that passed the laws, thats a recorded fact.
Incidentally I agree that acceleration of repealing many of Labours 3000 laws they introduced would be very welcome and the Conservatives are not doing it quickly enough.
Final irony, as you make note of the local Labour forum you may also want to know its genesis was in opposition to the "No2ID" campaign. A few tens of months later and its creator is trying (and failing disastrously) to be a Labour candidate, clearly a principled man.
snow123
says...
5:42pm Sun 10 Mar 13
davel4848
says...
7:56pm Sun 10 Mar 13
A.Baron-Cohen
says...
9:00am Mon 11 Mar 13
In each application, there should be a section on the quantified / estimated economic benefit(s) for the local community, Town and Local budget.
Tim Newroman
says...
9:03am Mon 11 Mar 13
davel4848 wrote:That's not really a very coherent argument.
What's the problem ? The very people who are complaining are probably living in a house which was built on open land.
Most of us likely feel very fortunate (and, indeed, may only be here) because the Americans dropped a couple of nuclear bombs on cities in Japan to hasten the end of WWII - it doesn't mean we can't object if North Korea decides to drop a couple on London.
Meldrews Dad
says...
9:32am Mon 11 Mar 13
Development plans I saw over 20 years ago clearly showed Great Western Hospital as being in the centre of the town with no green spaces to be seen anywhere.
davel4848
says...
11:05am Mon 11 Mar 13
Tim Newroman wrote:I wasn't saying that they can't (or shouldn't), object. I was merely making a statement about the situation.
davel4848 wrote:That's not really a very coherent argument.
What's the problem ? The very people who are complaining are probably living in a house which was built on open land.
Most of us likely feel very fortunate (and, indeed, may only be here) because the Americans dropped a couple of nuclear bombs on cities in Japan to hasten the end of WWII - it doesn't mean we can't object if North Korea decides to drop a couple on London.
I think your analogy is not really a fitting one.
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
says...
12:26pm Mon 11 Mar 13
Shock horror, it's not like we've seen that before is it?!
Perhaps they could place a planning condition on Hook Street so that the road is upgraded to two lanes which might help, and will also improve access to Lydiard Park?
Tim Newroman
says...
1:05pm Mon 11 Mar 13
davel4848 wrote:You may not, but the reality is that *anyone* who lives in a man-made dwelling lives on land that was, at some point, open space/fields. It doesn't mean it's wrong to eventually come to a conclusion that a given town or city is in danger of becoming grossly over-developed.
Tim Newroman wrote:I wasn't saying that they can't (or shouldn't), object. I was merely making a statement about the situation.
davel4848 wrote:That's not really a very coherent argument.
What's the problem ? The very people who are complaining are probably living in a house which was built on open land.
Most of us likely feel very fortunate (and, indeed, may only be here) because the Americans dropped a couple of nuclear bombs on cities in Japan to hasten the end of WWII - it doesn't mean we can't object if North Korea decides to drop a couple on London.
I think your analogy is not really a fitting one.
As has been mentioned previously, this 'demand' for most housing is entirely avoidable in any case.
stu2010 says...
5:48pm Sat 9 Mar 13