Councillor defends developers

Swindon Advertiser: Councillor Dale Heenan Councillor Dale Heenan

Coun Dale Heenan (Con, Covingham and Dorcan) has said large-scale housing developments are needed to pay for infrastructure.

Earlier this week Wanborough Parish Council called for major housing projects to be rejected until major infrastructure works first put in place.

Coun Heenan countered this by saying: “This is very much a chicken and egg situation. Housing development needs to be given planning permission in order to pay for the roads and schools. Legal contracts will tie down the developer so that the right infrastructure is built at the right time as a condition of approval.”

The call from the parish council was made following an independent traffic study which found the proposed building of 2,380 homes at Rowborough would leave key roads overloaded but Coun Heenan disputes this.

He said: “All too often we hear someone pop up and cry wolf on these issues to muddle the situation for residents. If the application is not good enough then it will be refused. No business is going to pay for infrastructure, without a decision being made by the cross-party Planning Committee in its favour.”

Comments (16)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:33pm Thu 23 Jan 14

Blackmalkin says...

I call BS. The council always cave in when the developers renege on their infrastructure promises, which they always do. Look at north Swindon, Wichelstowe etc. Heenan just wants Redlands shut down.
I call BS. The council always cave in when the developers renege on their infrastructure promises, which they always do. Look at north Swindon, Wichelstowe etc. Heenan just wants Redlands shut down. Blackmalkin

1:36pm Thu 23 Jan 14

house on the hill says...

""Coun Dale Heenan (Con, Covingham and Dorcan) has said large-scale housing developments are needed to pay for infrastructure.""

I don't think anyone would disagree, its just that it never happens because of their ineptness to make developers pay for it.
""Coun Dale Heenan (Con, Covingham and Dorcan) has said large-scale housing developments are needed to pay for infrastructure."" I don't think anyone would disagree, its just that it never happens because of their ineptness to make developers pay for it. house on the hill

1:59pm Thu 23 Jan 14

beach1e says...

councils need to run efficiently and then they would have more money for infrastructure instead of relying on shoddy developers.There are plenty of buildings within Swindon already for housing but the owners are allowed to let them rot instead of being encouraged to upgrade them to make them habitable again.
councils need to run efficiently and then they would have more money for infrastructure instead of relying on shoddy developers.There are plenty of buildings within Swindon already for housing but the owners are allowed to let them rot instead of being encouraged to upgrade them to make them habitable again. beach1e

2:40pm Thu 23 Jan 14

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

house on the hill wrote:
""Coun Dale Heenan (Con, Covingham and Dorcan) has said large-scale housing developments are needed to pay for infrastructure.""

I don't think anyone would disagree, its just that it never happens because of their ineptness to make developers pay for it.
Actually I do disagree, and I call double BS.

Without the large scale housing developments, we wouldn't need massive spending on infrastructure. The infrastructure issues that we have only occurred since the massive building spree over the last 15-20 years or so. The two go hand in hand and should be done at the same time (not one then the other).

Dale Heenan said: "If the application is not good enough then it will be refused." How do you explain Ridgeway Farm, Tadpole Farm,, Wichelstowe, etc? New developments should strive to achieve a balance of growth, meeting the needs of new residents while also not making the lives of existing residents hell. Most recent developments fall down on both the second and third points.

Dale Heenan said: "No business is going to pay for infrastructure, without a decision being made by the cross-party Planning Committee in its favour". - Well actually you could have stopped at the comma - no business is going to pay for infrastructure. (especially when the council (us as tax payers) bails them out as per Wichelstowe).

How much major infrastructure work has been completed in Swindon in the last 20 years to improve the lives of existing and new residents?
I can think of a couple - Thamesdown Drive (fails due to poor planning of the road), and the roads around Wichelstowe (fails due to not actually being complete and because eventually it will be closed to all traffic except buses!). I'm not including Highways agency "improvements" such as removal of roundabouts on the A419, as they do nothing to improve life for residents - at Turnpike it could be argued they've made life worse for residents while prioritising through traffic to the M4. Anything else that my aged brain can't think of right now?
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: ""Coun Dale Heenan (Con, Covingham and Dorcan) has said large-scale housing developments are needed to pay for infrastructure."" I don't think anyone would disagree, its just that it never happens because of their ineptness to make developers pay for it.[/p][/quote]Actually I do disagree, and I call double BS. Without the large scale housing developments, we wouldn't need massive spending on infrastructure. The infrastructure issues that we have only occurred since the massive building spree over the last 15-20 years or so. The two go hand in hand and should be done at the same time (not one then the other). Dale Heenan said: "If the application is not good enough then it will be refused." How do you explain Ridgeway Farm, Tadpole Farm,, Wichelstowe, etc? New developments should strive to achieve a balance of growth, meeting the needs of new residents while also not making the lives of existing residents hell. Most recent developments fall down on both the second and third points. Dale Heenan said: "No business is going to pay for infrastructure, without a decision being made by the cross-party Planning Committee in its favour". - Well actually you could have stopped at the comma - no business is going to pay for infrastructure. (especially when the council (us as tax payers) bails them out as per Wichelstowe). How much major infrastructure work has been completed in Swindon in the last 20 years to improve the lives of existing and new residents? I can think of a couple - Thamesdown Drive (fails due to poor planning of the road), and the roads around Wichelstowe (fails due to not actually being complete and because eventually it will be closed to all traffic except buses!). I'm not including Highways agency "improvements" such as removal of roundabouts on the A419, as they do nothing to improve life for residents - at Turnpike it could be argued they've made life worse for residents while prioritising through traffic to the M4. Anything else that my aged brain can't think of right now? The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

5:20pm Thu 23 Jan 14

Wildwestener says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
""Coun Dale Heenan (Con, Covingham and Dorcan) has said large-scale housing developments are needed to pay for infrastructure.""

I don't think anyone would disagree, its just that it never happens because of their ineptness to make developers pay for it.
Actually I do disagree, and I call double BS.

Without the large scale housing developments, we wouldn't need massive spending on infrastructure. The infrastructure issues that we have only occurred since the massive building spree over the last 15-20 years or so. The two go hand in hand and should be done at the same time (not one then the other).

Dale Heenan said: "If the application is not good enough then it will be refused." How do you explain Ridgeway Farm, Tadpole Farm,, Wichelstowe, etc? New developments should strive to achieve a balance of growth, meeting the needs of new residents while also not making the lives of existing residents hell. Most recent developments fall down on both the second and third points.

Dale Heenan said: "No business is going to pay for infrastructure, without a decision being made by the cross-party Planning Committee in its favour". - Well actually you could have stopped at the comma - no business is going to pay for infrastructure. (especially when the council (us as tax payers) bails them out as per Wichelstowe).

How much major infrastructure work has been completed in Swindon in the last 20 years to improve the lives of existing and new residents?
I can think of a couple - Thamesdown Drive (fails due to poor planning of the road), and the roads around Wichelstowe (fails due to not actually being complete and because eventually it will be closed to all traffic except buses!). I'm not including Highways agency "improvements" such as removal of roundabouts on the A419, as they do nothing to improve life for residents - at Turnpike it could be argued they've made life worse for residents while prioritising through traffic to the M4. Anything else that my aged brain can't think of right now?
Agree, complete BS. The developers build the houses then the infrastructure never happens. Gridlocked West/North Swindon yet 1000s of houses still being built - no infrastructure built, more gridlock. Looks like the East of Swindon about to suffer the same.
Heenan and cronies at the Council do themselves no favours with this kind of patronising nonsense. People are not stupid, we can see the results of constant development with no infrastructure. If he was right, then all the development we have had in the town would mean the infrastructure was hunky dory. Clearly this is not the case.
[quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: ""Coun Dale Heenan (Con, Covingham and Dorcan) has said large-scale housing developments are needed to pay for infrastructure."" I don't think anyone would disagree, its just that it never happens because of their ineptness to make developers pay for it.[/p][/quote]Actually I do disagree, and I call double BS. Without the large scale housing developments, we wouldn't need massive spending on infrastructure. The infrastructure issues that we have only occurred since the massive building spree over the last 15-20 years or so. The two go hand in hand and should be done at the same time (not one then the other). Dale Heenan said: "If the application is not good enough then it will be refused." How do you explain Ridgeway Farm, Tadpole Farm,, Wichelstowe, etc? New developments should strive to achieve a balance of growth, meeting the needs of new residents while also not making the lives of existing residents hell. Most recent developments fall down on both the second and third points. Dale Heenan said: "No business is going to pay for infrastructure, without a decision being made by the cross-party Planning Committee in its favour". - Well actually you could have stopped at the comma - no business is going to pay for infrastructure. (especially when the council (us as tax payers) bails them out as per Wichelstowe). How much major infrastructure work has been completed in Swindon in the last 20 years to improve the lives of existing and new residents? I can think of a couple - Thamesdown Drive (fails due to poor planning of the road), and the roads around Wichelstowe (fails due to not actually being complete and because eventually it will be closed to all traffic except buses!). I'm not including Highways agency "improvements" such as removal of roundabouts on the A419, as they do nothing to improve life for residents - at Turnpike it could be argued they've made life worse for residents while prioritising through traffic to the M4. Anything else that my aged brain can't think of right now?[/p][/quote]Agree, complete BS. The developers build the houses then the infrastructure never happens. Gridlocked West/North Swindon yet 1000s of houses still being built - no infrastructure built, more gridlock. Looks like the East of Swindon about to suffer the same. Heenan and cronies at the Council do themselves no favours with this kind of patronising nonsense. People are not stupid, we can see the results of constant development with no infrastructure. If he was right, then all the development we have had in the town would mean the infrastructure was hunky dory. Clearly this is not the case. Wildwestener

6:25pm Thu 23 Jan 14

1 2 Could B says...

I hope he puts that cowcrap on his leaflets next time he wants to get elected
I hope he puts that cowcrap on his leaflets next time he wants to get elected 1 2 Could B

7:34pm Thu 23 Jan 14

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

The people of Redhouse are loving the pub and community center that the developers were supposed to build.

Where is that road to carry the construction traffic for the tadpole farm development?

What about those primary schools in North Swindon that are too small to accommodate the children living in the area?

What about the secondary school(s) in North Swindon that are at capacity for its yearly intake?

Yes, I think we can all agree that the infrastructure put in place by developers or using section 106 money is more than adequate and well spent in the right places......!
The people of Redhouse are loving the pub and community center that the developers were supposed to build. Where is that road to carry the construction traffic for the tadpole farm development? What about those primary schools in North Swindon that are too small to accommodate the children living in the area? What about the secondary school(s) in North Swindon that are at capacity for its yearly intake? Yes, I think we can all agree that the infrastructure put in place by developers or using section 106 money is more than adequate and well spent in the right places......! LordAshOfTheBrake

11:08pm Thu 23 Jan 14

Eastern Badger says...

Cllr Heenan knows perfectly well that major parts of the Eastern Villages infrastructure is hoped to come from bids for government 'Growth Point Funding' via the Local Enterprise Partnership for Wiltshire (of which Swindon is a 'part'). It is not guaranteed and much of the funding has already gone to other areas. Cllr Heenan seems able to knock people's genuine concerns with statements that are not correct - to be polite.

Left to him we will have houses and as usual no infrastructure - watch out Oxford Road and Covingham.
Cllr Heenan knows perfectly well that major parts of the Eastern Villages infrastructure is hoped to come from bids for government 'Growth Point Funding' via the Local Enterprise Partnership for Wiltshire (of which Swindon is a 'part'). It is not guaranteed and much of the funding has already gone to other areas. Cllr Heenan seems able to knock people's genuine concerns with statements that are not correct - to be polite. Left to him we will have houses and as usual no infrastructure - watch out Oxford Road and Covingham. Eastern Badger

12:44am Fri 24 Jan 14

Robh says...

They do pay for the infrastructure but the council always spends the money somewhere else.
They do pay for the infrastructure but the council always spends the money somewhere else. Robh

12:49am Fri 24 Jan 14

Robh says...

"Legal contracts will tie down the developer so that the right infrastructure is built at the right time as a condition of approval.”

Just one comment Tadpole Farm North East access supposed to have been started last year still not started.

These councillors are full of false promises but of course they are being misled by others.
"Legal contracts will tie down the developer so that the right infrastructure is built at the right time as a condition of approval.” Just one comment Tadpole Farm North East access supposed to have been started last year still not started. These councillors are full of false promises but of course they are being misled by others. Robh

7:10am Fri 24 Jan 14

house on the hill says...

beach1e wrote:
councils need to run efficiently and then they would have more money for infrastructure instead of relying on shoddy developers.There are plenty of buildings within Swindon already for housing but the owners are allowed to let them rot instead of being encouraged to upgrade them to make them habitable again.
So if you own something the council should be able to tell you what to do with it, really? I bet you wouldn't like them telling you what to do with stuff you have bought and paid for! I don't think so. Since when was it a police state? you have a house you dont need so hand it over? er no.
[quote][p][bold]beach1e[/bold] wrote: councils need to run efficiently and then they would have more money for infrastructure instead of relying on shoddy developers.There are plenty of buildings within Swindon already for housing but the owners are allowed to let them rot instead of being encouraged to upgrade them to make them habitable again.[/p][/quote]So if you own something the council should be able to tell you what to do with it, really? I bet you wouldn't like them telling you what to do with stuff you have bought and paid for! I don't think so. Since when was it a police state? you have a house you dont need so hand it over? er no. house on the hill

9:14am Fri 24 Jan 14

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

Robh wrote:
They do pay for the infrastructure but the council always spends the money somewhere else.
The council can't spend section 106 money on things that it wasn't agreed for.
[quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: They do pay for the infrastructure but the council always spends the money somewhere else.[/p][/quote]The council can't spend section 106 money on things that it wasn't agreed for. LordAshOfTheBrake

10:26am Fri 24 Jan 14

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

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
Robh wrote:
They do pay for the infrastructure but the council always spends the money somewhere else.
The council can't spend section 106 money on things that it wasn't agreed for.
I had a vague memory of them changing the rules so that now it can be spent on pretty much anything in the whole borough.
[quote][p][bold]LordAshOfTheBrake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robh[/bold] wrote: They do pay for the infrastructure but the council always spends the money somewhere else.[/p][/quote]The council can't spend section 106 money on things that it wasn't agreed for.[/p][/quote]I had a vague memory of them changing the rules so that now it can be spent on pretty much anything in the whole borough. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

1:45pm Fri 24 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

1 2 Could B wrote:
I hope he puts that cowcrap on his leaflets next time he wants to get elected
What do you think would happen if ALL developers pulled out of Swindon and made no further investment in the town, Empty Car Park / I Could Do That / I Too / Blackwell 2?
[quote][p][bold]1 2 Could B[/bold] wrote: I hope he puts that cowcrap on his leaflets next time he wants to get elected[/p][/quote]What do you think would happen if ALL developers pulled out of Swindon and made no further investment in the town, Empty Car Park / I Could Do That / I Too / Blackwell 2? ChannelX

4:28pm Fri 24 Jan 14

1 2 Could B says...

Keep digging
Keep digging 1 2 Could B

1:25pm Sat 25 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

Just a very simple and polite question, which makes it odd you're so keen to evade answering it.
Just a very simple and polite question, which makes it odd you're so keen to evade answering it. ChannelX

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