Swindon AdvertiserDiggers move in at Coate (From Swindon Advertiser)

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

Diggers move in at Coate

Swindon Advertiser: Diggers move in at Coate Diggers move in at Coate

The diggers have moved in on land next to Coate Water – signalling the start of a development campaigners have spent 30 years fighting to stop.

The planning committee last month approved plans for the site north of Day House Lane, named Badbury Park by housebuilder Redrow Homes.

The Save Coate Campaign had gathered around 52,000 signatures in a bid to stop any development of land around the treasured Coate Water Country Park, for fear over the loss of its wildlife habitats, archaelogical curiosities and social history.

Redrow Homes says it is carrying out archaelogical surveys, which should be completed by the end of this month, and the first people could move in in just nine months.

The plan was initially rejected by Swindon Council but a Government-appointed inspector approved it on appeal. Following that decision, a working group was set up comprising representatives from Redrow, Chiseldon Parish Council, Liddington Parish Council and the ward councillors.

Coun Mike Bawden has been the chairman of a group, which has been working with the developers to design the house layout in a way which best suits residents. He said: “As it happens we have been able to negotiate and get a good deal out of it. I want to thank the developers for entering into those talks with a constructive attitude.”

Janet Flanagan, of Marlborough Road, who has been researching the history of the Wilts and Berks Canal, said: “It is sad to see diggers on the site. And things are happening fairly quickly.

“Coate Water needs a large hinterland – it has deer, badgers and foxes and where are they going to go? Also, the stone circles have not been fully investigated and it all could end up going under boring housing.”

An event organised by Swindon Civic Voice attracted about 40 people this weekend, answering the call to enjoy the park while you can. Chairman Martha Parry said: “The landscape in and around Coate is rich in history and archaeology but, tragically, this will change very soon. We might as well enjoy it now while we have the chance.”

Keith Annis, planning director for Redrow (South West) said: “The works that are in progress at Badbury Park are sequential archaeological digs across a wide section of the site. This is a customary, controlled archaeological investigation, recording the location of any finds.

“We anticipate that the site will be fully documented by the end of April, when preparations for the building works will commence. In line with our current schedule, the first occupations will be moving in from January 2015.”

Comments (45)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:23am Wed 9 Apr 14

Felix A says...

Evidently, more archaeology has been revealed and ploughed up by the diggers. The entire matter is shameful.
Evidently, more archaeology has been revealed and ploughed up by the diggers. The entire matter is shameful. Felix A
  • Score: 22

8:30am Wed 9 Apr 14

house on the hill says...

Archaeology is a thing of the past!
Archaeology is a thing of the past! house on the hill
  • Score: -15

9:18am Wed 9 Apr 14

Hmmmf says...

The past is where we came from, and if we don't learn from it, it's where we'll end up going.

This developer's view seems to be 'We'll document where we find any stuff and then build on it anyway.' It's not just shameful, it's intellectually and morally bankrupt. But then, what else do we expect from developers?
The past is where we came from, and if we don't learn from it, it's where we'll end up going. This developer's view seems to be 'We'll document where we find any stuff and then build on it anyway.' It's not just shameful, it's intellectually and morally bankrupt. But then, what else do we expect from developers? Hmmmf
  • Score: 23

9:32am Wed 9 Apr 14

Old Town Comment says...

Developing implies moving forward. I would not want to live in a world of no change.....BUT
HoH your opinion above may be sardonic or witty, it is regrettable in extreme. We must keep, change and repurpose the things which make our town and country great. We can create features of some of our past. We should be proud of what was here 4000yrs ago as well as 100yers ago and as well as the future.
Your attitude - if applied in the spirit comes across - is why the town I was born into, no longer shows, the beautiful Victorian shops, a canal as per Reading, any trace of Roman or Saxon life, .... we were lucky to keep the outlet as symbol of our industrial past. We seem close to losing the Mechanics Institute and possibly the Corn Exchange and the Technical College.
This stuff can be re-purposed or incorporated - try the many old buildings that Hotel du Vin inhabit, or visit a european town like Padova who continually reuse their past.
The David Murray John building should be an example of how planners and councillors often get it wrong in the short termism of 'making their mark. We had a lot to be proud of.....do we lose even more?
Developing implies moving forward. I would not want to live in a world of no change.....BUT HoH your opinion above may be sardonic or witty, it is regrettable in extreme. We must keep, change and repurpose the things which make our town and country great. We can create features of some of our past. We should be proud of what was here 4000yrs ago as well as 100yers ago and as well as the future. Your attitude - if applied in the spirit comes across - is why the town I was born into, no longer shows, the beautiful Victorian shops, a canal as per Reading, any trace of Roman or Saxon life, .... we were lucky to keep the outlet as symbol of our industrial past. We seem close to losing the Mechanics Institute and possibly the Corn Exchange and the Technical College. This stuff can be re-purposed or incorporated - try the many old buildings that Hotel du Vin inhabit, or visit a european town like Padova who continually reuse their past. The David Murray John building should be an example of how planners and councillors often get it wrong in the short termism of 'making their mark. We had a lot to be proud of.....do we lose even more? Old Town Comment
  • Score: 16

9:36am Wed 9 Apr 14

Davey Gravey says...

Another shameful blot on the councils record. Is nothing worth protecting anymore?
The town is too big already and the infrastructure isn't there to keep expanding
Another shameful blot on the councils record. Is nothing worth protecting anymore? The town is too big already and the infrastructure isn't there to keep expanding Davey Gravey
  • Score: 22

10:02am Wed 9 Apr 14

Ollie Dognacky says...

I like seeing new houses.
It's inspiring 😳
I like seeing new houses. It's inspiring 😳 Ollie Dognacky
  • Score: -24

10:15am Wed 9 Apr 14

John~R says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Another shameful blot on the councils record. Is nothing worth protecting anymore?
The town is too big already and the infrastructure isn't there to keep expanding
The council refused this application but were over-ruled by some government bureaucrats.

It's not as if Swindon is in current need of another housing development.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Another shameful blot on the councils record. Is nothing worth protecting anymore? The town is too big already and the infrastructure isn't there to keep expanding[/p][/quote]The council refused this application but were over-ruled by some government bureaucrats. It's not as if Swindon is in current need of another housing development. John~R
  • Score: 12

10:42am Wed 9 Apr 14

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

Davey Gravey wrote:
Another shameful blot on the councils record. Is nothing worth protecting anymore?
The town is too big already and the infrastructure isn't there to keep expanding
To be fair, the council had no choice in this development, they rejected it and then had that rejection overturned (as was always going to happen). So your jibe at the council is in this case rather unfair.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Another shameful blot on the councils record. Is nothing worth protecting anymore? The town is too big already and the infrastructure isn't there to keep expanding[/p][/quote]To be fair, the council had no choice in this development, they rejected it and then had that rejection overturned (as was always going to happen). So your jibe at the council is in this case rather unfair. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: 14

10:53am Wed 9 Apr 14

Jason4 says...

Shameful.

So much for the Tories Big Society manifesto in which people were supposed to have a say in how their area was managed. It was all a huge CON and once again the electorate fell for it. Can we never learn?

This is the same outcome to pretty much all the developer applications in and around Swindon.

The Tories are all a bunch of liars, as are pretty much all MPs.

I am ashamed of the greedy culture that dominates this country.
Shameful. So much for the Tories Big Society manifesto in which people were supposed to have a say in how their area was managed. It was all a huge CON and once again the electorate fell for it. Can we never learn? This is the same outcome to pretty much all the developer applications in and around Swindon. The Tories are all a bunch of liars, as are pretty much all MPs. I am ashamed of the greedy culture that dominates this country. Jason4
  • Score: 9

11:00am Wed 9 Apr 14

Jason4 says...

By the way, I no longer visit Lydiard Park because it is overlooked by unsightly development. It won't be long before there housing 360 degrees around this park. (As I have not visited for so long this may have already happened). Watch now for Stanton Park then Highworth will be physically joined to Swindon. It won't be long.
By the way, I no longer visit Lydiard Park because it is overlooked by unsightly development. It won't be long before there housing 360 degrees around this park. (As I have not visited for so long this may have already happened). Watch now for Stanton Park then Highworth will be physically joined to Swindon. It won't be long. Jason4
  • Score: 1

11:18am Wed 9 Apr 14

Lips1964 says...

Jason4 wrote:
By the way, I no longer visit Lydiard Park because it is overlooked by unsightly development. It won't be long before there housing 360 degrees around this park. (As I have not visited for so long this may have already happened). Watch now for Stanton Park then Highworth will be physically joined to Swindon. It won't be long.
How is Lydiard Park "overlooked by unsightly decvelopment" ?
Yep can tell you haven't visited it in a long time, it is a great outdoor space used by hundreds and thousands, especially when the sun is shining.

It is not "overlooked" by anything
[quote][p][bold]Jason4[/bold] wrote: By the way, I no longer visit Lydiard Park because it is overlooked by unsightly development. It won't be long before there housing 360 degrees around this park. (As I have not visited for so long this may have already happened). Watch now for Stanton Park then Highworth will be physically joined to Swindon. It won't be long.[/p][/quote]How is Lydiard Park "overlooked by unsightly decvelopment" ? Yep can tell you haven't visited it in a long time, it is a great outdoor space used by hundreds and thousands, especially when the sun is shining. It is not "overlooked" by anything Lips1964
  • Score: 17

11:42am Wed 9 Apr 14

trustnopolitician says...

This was a decision by a heartless uncaring government - there were plenty of brown field sites in Swindon Centre - why not develop there instead of building an increasinly redundant town centre shopping facilities.
This was a decision by a heartless uncaring government - there were plenty of brown field sites in Swindon Centre - why not develop there instead of building an increasinly redundant town centre shopping facilities. trustnopolitician
  • Score: 13

12:09pm Wed 9 Apr 14

jamie brewer 2010 says...

MORE HOUSING FOR THE FOREIGN COME OVER TO UK AND GET BENEFITS HOUSING YOU NAME IT THEY GET IT AND ENGLISH PEOPLE GOT PAY FOR NOT RIGHT AT ALL SWINDON COUNCIL ARE ****!!!!!
MORE HOUSING FOR THE FOREIGN COME OVER TO UK AND GET BENEFITS HOUSING YOU NAME IT THEY GET IT AND ENGLISH PEOPLE GOT PAY FOR NOT RIGHT AT ALL SWINDON COUNCIL ARE ****!!!!! jamie brewer 2010
  • Score: -8

12:23pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Always Grumpy says...

trustnopolitician wrote:
This was a decision by a heartless uncaring government - there were plenty of brown field sites in Swindon Centre - why not develop there instead of building an increasinly redundant town centre shopping facilities.
There were not any brownfield sites in the town centre suitable for a housing development. Perhaps you can show us exactly where?
Anyway, who wants to live in a new development in the middle of a town?
[quote][p][bold]trustnopolitician[/bold] wrote: This was a decision by a heartless uncaring government - there were plenty of brown field sites in Swindon Centre - why not develop there instead of building an increasinly redundant town centre shopping facilities.[/p][/quote]There were not any brownfield sites in the town centre suitable for a housing development. Perhaps you can show us exactly where? Anyway, who wants to live in a new development in the middle of a town? Always Grumpy
  • Score: -5

12:31pm Wed 9 Apr 14

jayrory says...

Ollie Dognacky wrote:
I like seeing new houses.
It's inspiring 😳
well said
[quote][p][bold]Ollie Dognacky[/bold] wrote: I like seeing new houses. It's inspiring 😳[/p][/quote]well said jayrory
  • Score: -9

12:33pm Wed 9 Apr 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

The houses should be great to live in, should add great value and would be wonderful for families, more schemes like this please.
The houses should be great to live in, should add great value and would be wonderful for families, more schemes like this please. A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: -18

1:06pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Davey Gravey says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Another shameful blot on the councils record. Is nothing worth protecting anymore?
The town is too big already and the infrastructure isn't there to keep expanding
To be fair, the council had no choice in this development, they rejected it and then had that rejection overturned (as was always going to happen). So your jibe at the council is in this case rather unfair.
They didn't put much of a fight up did they?
Rolled over and had their bellys tickled more like.
[quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Another shameful blot on the councils record. Is nothing worth protecting anymore? The town is too big already and the infrastructure isn't there to keep expanding[/p][/quote]To be fair, the council had no choice in this development, they rejected it and then had that rejection overturned (as was always going to happen). So your jibe at the council is in this case rather unfair.[/p][/quote]They didn't put much of a fight up did they? Rolled over and had their bellys tickled more like. Davey Gravey
  • Score: 3

1:13pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Chrisg46 says...

Jason4 wrote:
By the way, I no longer visit Lydiard Park because it is overlooked by unsightly development. It won't be long before there housing 360 degrees around this park. (As I have not visited for so long this may have already happened). Watch now for Stanton Park then Highworth will be physically joined to Swindon. It won't be long.
I too am racking my brains to think where the overlooking unsightly development is? There is Lydiard Millicent several hundred metres away on one side, a school on the other and Grange Park hidden behind loads of trees. And Hook on another edge. What have i missed?!?!
[quote][p][bold]Jason4[/bold] wrote: By the way, I no longer visit Lydiard Park because it is overlooked by unsightly development. It won't be long before there housing 360 degrees around this park. (As I have not visited for so long this may have already happened). Watch now for Stanton Park then Highworth will be physically joined to Swindon. It won't be long.[/p][/quote]I too am racking my brains to think where the overlooking unsightly development is? There is Lydiard Millicent several hundred metres away on one side, a school on the other and Grange Park hidden behind loads of trees. And Hook on another edge. What have i missed?!?! Chrisg46
  • Score: 1

1:20pm Wed 9 Apr 14

house on the hill says...

jamie brewer 2010 wrote:
MORE HOUSING FOR THE FOREIGN COME OVER TO UK AND GET BENEFITS HOUSING YOU NAME IT THEY GET IT AND ENGLISH PEOPLE GOT PAY FOR NOT RIGHT AT ALL SWINDON COUNCIL ARE ****!!!!!
So who exactly are you getting at, the Council or the immigrants? The Council dont make Govt policy so you cant blame them for simply doing as they are told or the immigrants for coming to a country that allows them to claim benefits despite have never contributed anything.

As for the housing, clearly there is a demand there or they wouldn't be building them, no one builds empty houses that never get bought! But I do agree with the poster who said we now live in a greedy culture and is probably why so many other cultures understandably despise us.
[quote][p][bold]jamie brewer 2010[/bold] wrote: MORE HOUSING FOR THE FOREIGN COME OVER TO UK AND GET BENEFITS HOUSING YOU NAME IT THEY GET IT AND ENGLISH PEOPLE GOT PAY FOR NOT RIGHT AT ALL SWINDON COUNCIL ARE ****!!!!![/p][/quote]So who exactly are you getting at, the Council or the immigrants? The Council dont make Govt policy so you cant blame them for simply doing as they are told or the immigrants for coming to a country that allows them to claim benefits despite have never contributed anything. As for the housing, clearly there is a demand there or they wouldn't be building them, no one builds empty houses that never get bought! But I do agree with the poster who said we now live in a greedy culture and is probably why so many other cultures understandably despise us. house on the hill
  • Score: 5

1:32pm Wed 9 Apr 14

BCDR99 says...

Always Grumpy wrote:
trustnopolitician wrote:
This was a decision by a heartless uncaring government - there were plenty of brown field sites in Swindon Centre - why not develop there instead of building an increasinly redundant town centre shopping facilities.
There were not any brownfield sites in the town centre suitable for a housing development. Perhaps you can show us exactly where?
Anyway, who wants to live in a new development in the middle of a town?
What about the site of the former Woolworths warehouse?

It does interest me how if an individual wants to purchase a small field next to their house and turn it in to a garden or put a house on a 3-acre site attached to a village that is currently a small agricultural plot they are declined this on the basis that they are on the edge of the village/town and would therefore be beyond the development line. But a huge developer turns up with a wedge of cash and some empty promises about infrastructure provision and all rules and regulations are chucked out of the window.
[quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]trustnopolitician[/bold] wrote: This was a decision by a heartless uncaring government - there were plenty of brown field sites in Swindon Centre - why not develop there instead of building an increasinly redundant town centre shopping facilities.[/p][/quote]There were not any brownfield sites in the town centre suitable for a housing development. Perhaps you can show us exactly where? Anyway, who wants to live in a new development in the middle of a town?[/p][/quote]What about the site of the former Woolworths warehouse? It does interest me how if an individual wants to purchase a small field next to their house and turn it in to a garden or put a house on a 3-acre site attached to a village that is currently a small agricultural plot they are declined this on the basis that they are on the edge of the village/town and would therefore be beyond the development line. But a huge developer turns up with a wedge of cash and some empty promises about infrastructure provision and all rules and regulations are chucked out of the window. BCDR99
  • Score: 11

2:12pm Wed 9 Apr 14

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

Davey Gravey wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Another shameful blot on the councils record. Is nothing worth protecting anymore?
The town is too big already and the infrastructure isn't there to keep expanding
To be fair, the council had no choice in this development, they rejected it and then had that rejection overturned (as was always going to happen). So your jibe at the council is in this case rather unfair.
They didn't put much of a fight up did they?
Rolled over and had their bellys tickled more like.
So what is it you think they should have done that they didn't?
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Another shameful blot on the councils record. Is nothing worth protecting anymore? The town is too big already and the infrastructure isn't there to keep expanding[/p][/quote]To be fair, the council had no choice in this development, they rejected it and then had that rejection overturned (as was always going to happen). So your jibe at the council is in this case rather unfair.[/p][/quote]They didn't put much of a fight up did they? Rolled over and had their bellys tickled more like.[/p][/quote]So what is it you think they should have done that they didn't? The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: 3

2:25pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Always Grumpy says...

BCDR99 wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
trustnopolitician wrote:
This was a decision by a heartless uncaring government - there were plenty of brown field sites in Swindon Centre - why not develop there instead of building an increasinly redundant town centre shopping facilities.
There were not any brownfield sites in the town centre suitable for a housing development. Perhaps you can show us exactly where?
Anyway, who wants to live in a new development in the middle of a town?
What about the site of the former Woolworths warehouse?

It does interest me how if an individual wants to purchase a small field next to their house and turn it in to a garden or put a house on a 3-acre site attached to a village that is currently a small agricultural plot they are declined this on the basis that they are on the edge of the village/town and would therefore be beyond the development line. But a huge developer turns up with a wedge of cash and some empty promises about infrastructure provision and all rules and regulations are chucked out of the window.
Since when has the Woolworths warehouse been in the town centre?
Have another read of my post in response to trustnopolitician?
[quote][p][bold]BCDR99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]trustnopolitician[/bold] wrote: This was a decision by a heartless uncaring government - there were plenty of brown field sites in Swindon Centre - why not develop there instead of building an increasinly redundant town centre shopping facilities.[/p][/quote]There were not any brownfield sites in the town centre suitable for a housing development. Perhaps you can show us exactly where? Anyway, who wants to live in a new development in the middle of a town?[/p][/quote]What about the site of the former Woolworths warehouse? It does interest me how if an individual wants to purchase a small field next to their house and turn it in to a garden or put a house on a 3-acre site attached to a village that is currently a small agricultural plot they are declined this on the basis that they are on the edge of the village/town and would therefore be beyond the development line. But a huge developer turns up with a wedge of cash and some empty promises about infrastructure provision and all rules and regulations are chucked out of the window.[/p][/quote]Since when has the Woolworths warehouse been in the town centre? Have another read of my post in response to trustnopolitician? Always Grumpy
  • Score: 2

2:30pm Wed 9 Apr 14

toyota777 says...

I'm appalled that this should go ahead after all the opposition to it .
I'm appalled that this should go ahead after all the opposition to it . toyota777
  • Score: 8

2:42pm Wed 9 Apr 14

NorthernWarrior says...

The problem is, these are unlikely to be tastefully designed, well spaced out semis and detached houses in quiet cul de sacs, (as adjoin Lydiard) but North Swindon style high density Colditz lego blocks with no gardens and three/four storey apartments towering over everything.
The problem is, these are unlikely to be tastefully designed, well spaced out semis and detached houses in quiet cul de sacs, (as adjoin Lydiard) but North Swindon style high density Colditz lego blocks with no gardens and three/four storey apartments towering over everything. NorthernWarrior
  • Score: 2

2:45pm Wed 9 Apr 14

CoateResident says...

The council's stand against the development was rejected on appeal because their OWN policies as adopted in the overall local plan for the town said it should go ahead. The council either always intended there to be a development at Coate but at the last minute paid lip service to public opinion, or are simply so wildly incompetent they didn't know what was in their own plan. EIther way this is firmly the council's fault

PS The diggers have been there for weeks, Adver.
The council's stand against the development was rejected on appeal because their OWN policies as adopted in the overall local plan for the town said it should go ahead. The council either always intended there to be a development at Coate but at the last minute paid lip service to public opinion, or are simply so wildly incompetent they didn't know what was in their own plan. EIther way this is firmly the council's fault PS The diggers have been there for weeks, Adver. CoateResident
  • Score: 4

2:53pm Wed 9 Apr 14

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

CoateResident wrote:
The council's stand against the development was rejected on appeal because their OWN policies as adopted in the overall local plan for the town said it should go ahead. The council either always intended there to be a development at Coate but at the last minute paid lip service to public opinion, or are simply so wildly incompetent they didn't know what was in their own plan. EIther way this is firmly the council's fault

PS The diggers have been there for weeks, Adver.
Regardless, it would have gone ahead whatever because there is no legal basis for rejecting it. Badgers, deer and foxes are not reasons sadly.

And in any case I suspect you are right, the council always intended there to be housing at Coate from the day they approved the hospital being built there, probably even before that.
[quote][p][bold]CoateResident[/bold] wrote: The council's stand against the development was rejected on appeal because their OWN policies as adopted in the overall local plan for the town said it should go ahead. The council either always intended there to be a development at Coate but at the last minute paid lip service to public opinion, or are simply so wildly incompetent they didn't know what was in their own plan. EIther way this is firmly the council's fault PS The diggers have been there for weeks, Adver.[/p][/quote]Regardless, it would have gone ahead whatever because there is no legal basis for rejecting it. Badgers, deer and foxes are not reasons sadly. And in any case I suspect you are right, the council always intended there to be housing at Coate from the day they approved the hospital being built there, probably even before that. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: 3

4:06pm Wed 9 Apr 14

BCDR99 says...

Always Grumpy wrote:
BCDR99 wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
trustnopolitician wrote:
This was a decision by a heartless uncaring government - there were plenty of brown field sites in Swindon Centre - why not develop there instead of building an increasinly redundant town centre shopping facilities.
There were not any brownfield sites in the town centre suitable for a housing development. Perhaps you can show us exactly where?
Anyway, who wants to live in a new development in the middle of a town?
What about the site of the former Woolworths warehouse?

It does interest me how if an individual wants to purchase a small field next to their house and turn it in to a garden or put a house on a 3-acre site attached to a village that is currently a small agricultural plot they are declined this on the basis that they are on the edge of the village/town and would therefore be beyond the development line. But a huge developer turns up with a wedge of cash and some empty promises about infrastructure provision and all rules and regulations are chucked out of the window.
Since when has the Woolworths warehouse been in the town centre?
Have another read of my post in response to trustnopolitician?
Stop being pedantic to the extreme. It's a brown field site within the current town boundaries next to an established residential area. There is a supermarket just over the road and a road network that would have no problem supporting this area.

I've no beef about the Coate development. What annoys me is that it has been widely accepted knowledge for quite some time that if you keep building on the outskirts of towns, you end up with a doughnut - i.e. nothing in the middle, everything around the outside. Yet, Swindon continues to do this. The existing town is being neglected while bits keep getting added on to the outskirts. It doesn't take a genius to see that we will end up with a doughnut.
[quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BCDR99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]trustnopolitician[/bold] wrote: This was a decision by a heartless uncaring government - there were plenty of brown field sites in Swindon Centre - why not develop there instead of building an increasinly redundant town centre shopping facilities.[/p][/quote]There were not any brownfield sites in the town centre suitable for a housing development. Perhaps you can show us exactly where? Anyway, who wants to live in a new development in the middle of a town?[/p][/quote]What about the site of the former Woolworths warehouse? It does interest me how if an individual wants to purchase a small field next to their house and turn it in to a garden or put a house on a 3-acre site attached to a village that is currently a small agricultural plot they are declined this on the basis that they are on the edge of the village/town and would therefore be beyond the development line. But a huge developer turns up with a wedge of cash and some empty promises about infrastructure provision and all rules and regulations are chucked out of the window.[/p][/quote]Since when has the Woolworths warehouse been in the town centre? Have another read of my post in response to trustnopolitician?[/p][/quote]Stop being pedantic to the extreme. It's a brown field site within the current town boundaries next to an established residential area. There is a supermarket just over the road and a road network that would have no problem supporting this area. I've no beef about the Coate development. What annoys me is that it has been widely accepted knowledge for quite some time that if you keep building on the outskirts of towns, you end up with a doughnut - i.e. nothing in the middle, everything around the outside. Yet, Swindon continues to do this. The existing town is being neglected while bits keep getting added on to the outskirts. It doesn't take a genius to see that we will end up with a doughnut. BCDR99
  • Score: 4

4:18pm Wed 9 Apr 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

BCDR99 wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
BCDR99 wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
trustnopolitician wrote:
This was a decision by a heartless uncaring government - there were plenty of brown field sites in Swindon Centre - why not develop there instead of building an increasinly redundant town centre shopping facilities.
There were not any brownfield sites in the town centre suitable for a housing development. Perhaps you can show us exactly where?
Anyway, who wants to live in a new development in the middle of a town?
What about the site of the former Woolworths warehouse?

It does interest me how if an individual wants to purchase a small field next to their house and turn it in to a garden or put a house on a 3-acre site attached to a village that is currently a small agricultural plot they are declined this on the basis that they are on the edge of the village/town and would therefore be beyond the development line. But a huge developer turns up with a wedge of cash and some empty promises about infrastructure provision and all rules and regulations are chucked out of the window.
Since when has the Woolworths warehouse been in the town centre?
Have another read of my post in response to trustnopolitician?
Stop being pedantic to the extreme. It's a brown field site within the current town boundaries next to an established residential area. There is a supermarket just over the road and a road network that would have no problem supporting this area.

I've no beef about the Coate development. What annoys me is that it has been widely accepted knowledge for quite some time that if you keep building on the outskirts of towns, you end up with a doughnut - i.e. nothing in the middle, everything around the outside. Yet, Swindon continues to do this. The existing town is being neglected while bits keep getting added on to the outskirts. It doesn't take a genius to see that we will end up with a doughnut.
Maybe a genius like yourself could understand the difficulties and extra costs of demolishing, transporting and building in a town centre?!?
[quote][p][bold]BCDR99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BCDR99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]trustnopolitician[/bold] wrote: This was a decision by a heartless uncaring government - there were plenty of brown field sites in Swindon Centre - why not develop there instead of building an increasinly redundant town centre shopping facilities.[/p][/quote]There were not any brownfield sites in the town centre suitable for a housing development. Perhaps you can show us exactly where? Anyway, who wants to live in a new development in the middle of a town?[/p][/quote]What about the site of the former Woolworths warehouse? It does interest me how if an individual wants to purchase a small field next to their house and turn it in to a garden or put a house on a 3-acre site attached to a village that is currently a small agricultural plot they are declined this on the basis that they are on the edge of the village/town and would therefore be beyond the development line. But a huge developer turns up with a wedge of cash and some empty promises about infrastructure provision and all rules and regulations are chucked out of the window.[/p][/quote]Since when has the Woolworths warehouse been in the town centre? Have another read of my post in response to trustnopolitician?[/p][/quote]Stop being pedantic to the extreme. It's a brown field site within the current town boundaries next to an established residential area. There is a supermarket just over the road and a road network that would have no problem supporting this area. I've no beef about the Coate development. What annoys me is that it has been widely accepted knowledge for quite some time that if you keep building on the outskirts of towns, you end up with a doughnut - i.e. nothing in the middle, everything around the outside. Yet, Swindon continues to do this. The existing town is being neglected while bits keep getting added on to the outskirts. It doesn't take a genius to see that we will end up with a doughnut.[/p][/quote]Maybe a genius like yourself could understand the difficulties and extra costs of demolishing, transporting and building in a town centre?!? A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: -6

4:23pm Wed 9 Apr 14

BCDR99 says...

It's not all about what it costs TODAY. The whole point of town planning is that they look beyond today and have a longer-term vision for the benefit of the whole area for years and potentially generations to come.

However, I suspect you have highlighted the reason why these "in-town" developments don't happen. The developer doesn't want to do them so they throw their toys out of the pram and the council caves in because they need the s106 cash.
It's not all about what it costs TODAY. The whole point of town planning is that they look beyond today and have a longer-term vision for the benefit of the whole area for years and potentially generations to come. However, I suspect you have highlighted the reason why these "in-town" developments don't happen. The developer doesn't want to do them so they throw their toys out of the pram and the council caves in because they need the s106 cash. BCDR99
  • Score: 0

4:30pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Always Grumpy says...

BCDR99 wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
BCDR99 wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
trustnopolitician wrote:
This was a decision by a heartless uncaring government - there were plenty of brown field sites in Swindon Centre - why not develop there instead of building an increasinly redundant town centre shopping facilities.
There were not any brownfield sites in the town centre suitable for a housing development. Perhaps you can show us exactly where?
Anyway, who wants to live in a new development in the middle of a town?
What about the site of the former Woolworths warehouse?

It does interest me how if an individual wants to purchase a small field next to their house and turn it in to a garden or put a house on a 3-acre site attached to a village that is currently a small agricultural plot they are declined this on the basis that they are on the edge of the village/town and would therefore be beyond the development line. But a huge developer turns up with a wedge of cash and some empty promises about infrastructure provision and all rules and regulations are chucked out of the window.
Since when has the Woolworths warehouse been in the town centre?
Have another read of my post in response to trustnopolitician?
Stop being pedantic to the extreme. It's a brown field site within the current town boundaries next to an established residential area. There is a supermarket just over the road and a road network that would have no problem supporting this area.

I've no beef about the Coate development. What annoys me is that it has been widely accepted knowledge for quite some time that if you keep building on the outskirts of towns, you end up with a doughnut - i.e. nothing in the middle, everything around the outside. Yet, Swindon continues to do this. The existing town is being neglected while bits keep getting added on to the outskirts. It doesn't take a genius to see that we will end up with a doughnut.
Not being pedantic at all.
If you can't understand the difference between the town centre and a warehouse right on the outskirts of the town, then that's your problem. The two are worlds apart, which is why I commented on trustnopolitician's comment.
You seem to be getting on your high horse for nothing other than your inability to understand what has been written. Get abusive if you like, but it doesn't worry me one iota.
[quote][p][bold]BCDR99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BCDR99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]trustnopolitician[/bold] wrote: This was a decision by a heartless uncaring government - there were plenty of brown field sites in Swindon Centre - why not develop there instead of building an increasinly redundant town centre shopping facilities.[/p][/quote]There were not any brownfield sites in the town centre suitable for a housing development. Perhaps you can show us exactly where? Anyway, who wants to live in a new development in the middle of a town?[/p][/quote]What about the site of the former Woolworths warehouse? It does interest me how if an individual wants to purchase a small field next to their house and turn it in to a garden or put a house on a 3-acre site attached to a village that is currently a small agricultural plot they are declined this on the basis that they are on the edge of the village/town and would therefore be beyond the development line. But a huge developer turns up with a wedge of cash and some empty promises about infrastructure provision and all rules and regulations are chucked out of the window.[/p][/quote]Since when has the Woolworths warehouse been in the town centre? Have another read of my post in response to trustnopolitician?[/p][/quote]Stop being pedantic to the extreme. It's a brown field site within the current town boundaries next to an established residential area. There is a supermarket just over the road and a road network that would have no problem supporting this area. I've no beef about the Coate development. What annoys me is that it has been widely accepted knowledge for quite some time that if you keep building on the outskirts of towns, you end up with a doughnut - i.e. nothing in the middle, everything around the outside. Yet, Swindon continues to do this. The existing town is being neglected while bits keep getting added on to the outskirts. It doesn't take a genius to see that we will end up with a doughnut.[/p][/quote]Not being pedantic at all. If you can't understand the difference between the town centre and a warehouse right on the outskirts of the town, then that's your problem. The two are worlds apart, which is why I commented on trustnopolitician's comment. You seem to be getting on your high horse for nothing other than your inability to understand what has been written. Get abusive if you like, but it doesn't worry me one iota. Always Grumpy
  • Score: -1

4:58pm Wed 9 Apr 14

house on the hill says...

BCDR99 wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
BCDR99 wrote:
Always Grumpy wrote:
trustnopolitician wrote:
This was a decision by a heartless uncaring government - there were plenty of brown field sites in Swindon Centre - why not develop there instead of building an increasinly redundant town centre shopping facilities.
There were not any brownfield sites in the town centre suitable for a housing development. Perhaps you can show us exactly where?
Anyway, who wants to live in a new development in the middle of a town?
What about the site of the former Woolworths warehouse?

It does interest me how if an individual wants to purchase a small field next to their house and turn it in to a garden or put a house on a 3-acre site attached to a village that is currently a small agricultural plot they are declined this on the basis that they are on the edge of the village/town and would therefore be beyond the development line. But a huge developer turns up with a wedge of cash and some empty promises about infrastructure provision and all rules and regulations are chucked out of the window.
Since when has the Woolworths warehouse been in the town centre?
Have another read of my post in response to trustnopolitician?
Stop being pedantic to the extreme. It's a brown field site within the current town boundaries next to an established residential area. There is a supermarket just over the road and a road network that would have no problem supporting this area.

I've no beef about the Coate development. What annoys me is that it has been widely accepted knowledge for quite some time that if you keep building on the outskirts of towns, you end up with a doughnut - i.e. nothing in the middle, everything around the outside. Yet, Swindon continues to do this. The existing town is being neglected while bits keep getting added on to the outskirts. It doesn't take a genius to see that we will end up with a doughnut.
We have had doughnuts running this town for years so what's new!
[quote][p][bold]BCDR99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BCDR99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Always Grumpy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]trustnopolitician[/bold] wrote: This was a decision by a heartless uncaring government - there were plenty of brown field sites in Swindon Centre - why not develop there instead of building an increasinly redundant town centre shopping facilities.[/p][/quote]There were not any brownfield sites in the town centre suitable for a housing development. Perhaps you can show us exactly where? Anyway, who wants to live in a new development in the middle of a town?[/p][/quote]What about the site of the former Woolworths warehouse? It does interest me how if an individual wants to purchase a small field next to their house and turn it in to a garden or put a house on a 3-acre site attached to a village that is currently a small agricultural plot they are declined this on the basis that they are on the edge of the village/town and would therefore be beyond the development line. But a huge developer turns up with a wedge of cash and some empty promises about infrastructure provision and all rules and regulations are chucked out of the window.[/p][/quote]Since when has the Woolworths warehouse been in the town centre? Have another read of my post in response to trustnopolitician?[/p][/quote]Stop being pedantic to the extreme. It's a brown field site within the current town boundaries next to an established residential area. There is a supermarket just over the road and a road network that would have no problem supporting this area. I've no beef about the Coate development. What annoys me is that it has been widely accepted knowledge for quite some time that if you keep building on the outskirts of towns, you end up with a doughnut - i.e. nothing in the middle, everything around the outside. Yet, Swindon continues to do this. The existing town is being neglected while bits keep getting added on to the outskirts. It doesn't take a genius to see that we will end up with a doughnut.[/p][/quote]We have had doughnuts running this town for years so what's new! house on the hill
  • Score: 0

6:13pm Wed 9 Apr 14

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

BCDR99 wrote:
It's not all about what it costs TODAY. The whole point of town planning is that they look beyond today and have a longer-term vision for the benefit of the whole area for years and potentially generations to come.

However, I suspect you have highlighted the reason why these "in-town" developments don't happen. The developer doesn't want to do them so they throw their toys out of the pram and the council caves in because they need the s106 cash.
And there lies the real problem, the planners are not looking at the long term, the infrastructure is woefully inadequate for the 25,000 houses being built over the next 10 to 15 years and with no real plans to improve it.

Most brown field land is simply banked waiting for the days when they have to use it, the value goes up and there is no penalty for not using it.
[quote][p][bold]BCDR99[/bold] wrote: It's not all about what it costs TODAY. The whole point of town planning is that they look beyond today and have a longer-term vision for the benefit of the whole area for years and potentially generations to come. However, I suspect you have highlighted the reason why these "in-town" developments don't happen. The developer doesn't want to do them so they throw their toys out of the pram and the council caves in because they need the s106 cash.[/p][/quote]And there lies the real problem, the planners are not looking at the long term, the infrastructure is woefully inadequate for the 25,000 houses being built over the next 10 to 15 years and with no real plans to improve it. Most brown field land is simply banked waiting for the days when they have to use it, the value goes up and there is no penalty for not using it. LordAshOfTheBrake
  • Score: 0

6:18pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Save Coate Water says...

I am absolutely saddened by the article stating that diggers have moved in next to Coate Water to build homes after 52,000 signatures were gathered against any bids for the land. It states in the article that plans were initially rejected by the Swindon Council but a working group was set up. So this is a case of going in the back door against the wishes of the Swindon people.
I could give in quietly but would rather stand up and fight for Coate water and will be putting this article on facebook so more local people can fight for Coate Water. I have lived in Swindon for over 40 years and watched my children grow up and part of mine and their memories include Coate Water, the lake, wild life and country walks and also the train ride. I think selling off the site will do little to promote Swindon which has improved over the last few years with the addition of the Outlet Village. I don't think we should loose Coate water and the land that has been provided for the wildlife and birds that migrate by the same council. What will happen to them and where will they go? Following the floods, Swindon faired quite well and we have an abundance of wildlife that probably came in-land which we need to preserve and nurture. Also it is a site with great history and archaeology. I think there should be a 'party in the park' at Coate Water to promote that the Swindon people want to keep this sight and are not willing to let it go. Please leave your comments and share on facebook asking people to come onto the evening advertiser news website and add their comments and tick those they agree with. We will not let Coate Water go quietly.
I am absolutely saddened by the article stating that diggers have moved in next to Coate Water to build homes after 52,000 signatures were gathered against any bids for the land. It states in the article that plans were initially rejected by the Swindon Council but a working group was set up. So this is a case of going in the back door against the wishes of the Swindon people. I could give in quietly but would rather stand up and fight for Coate water and will be putting this article on facebook so more local people can fight for Coate Water. I have lived in Swindon for over 40 years and watched my children grow up and part of mine and their memories include Coate Water, the lake, wild life and country walks and also the train ride. I think selling off the site will do little to promote Swindon which has improved over the last few years with the addition of the Outlet Village. I don't think we should loose Coate water and the land that has been provided for the wildlife and birds that migrate by the same council. What will happen to them and where will they go? Following the floods, Swindon faired quite well and we have an abundance of wildlife that probably came in-land which we need to preserve and nurture. Also it is a site with great history and archaeology. I think there should be a 'party in the park' at Coate Water to promote that the Swindon people want to keep this sight and are not willing to let it go. Please leave your comments and share on facebook asking people to come onto the evening advertiser news website and add their comments and tick those they agree with. We will not let Coate Water go quietly. Save Coate Water
  • Score: -2

7:30pm Wed 9 Apr 14

easternsideoftown says...

'Diggers move in at Coate'. I know this will upset some of you, but 'diggers move in to the land NEXT to Coate Water' would be a more appropriate headline, it's not 'actually' Coate Water, but land owned by private individuals, and possibly seen by visitors to Coate between the trees. And Adver, this should have been reported before today, old news.
'Diggers move in at Coate'. I know this will upset some of you, but 'diggers move in to the land NEXT to Coate Water' would be a more appropriate headline, it's not 'actually' Coate Water, but land owned by private individuals, and possibly seen by visitors to Coate between the trees. And Adver, this should have been reported before today, old news. easternsideoftown
  • Score: 3

7:47pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Save Coate Water says...

easternsideoftown wrote:
'Diggers move in at Coate'. I know this will upset some of you, but 'diggers move in to the land NEXT to Coate Water' would be a more appropriate headline, it's not 'actually' Coate Water, but land owned by private individuals, and possibly seen by visitors to Coate between the trees. And Adver, this should have been reported before today, old news.
The land NEXT to quote water is used by wild life and walkers etc alike. Local support will show that we wish to keep it. Please read the whole article.
[quote][p][bold]easternsideoftown[/bold] wrote: 'Diggers move in at Coate'. I know this will upset some of you, but 'diggers move in to the land NEXT to Coate Water' would be a more appropriate headline, it's not 'actually' Coate Water, but land owned by private individuals, and possibly seen by visitors to Coate between the trees. And Adver, this should have been reported before today, old news.[/p][/quote]The land NEXT to quote water is used by wild life and walkers etc alike. Local support will show that we wish to keep it. Please read the whole article. Save Coate Water
  • Score: 0

7:58pm Wed 9 Apr 14

CoateResident says...

easternsideoftown wrote:
'Diggers move in at Coate'. I know this will upset some of you, but 'diggers move in to the land NEXT to Coate Water' would be a more appropriate headline, it's not 'actually' Coate Water, but land owned by private individuals, and possibly seen by visitors to Coate between the trees. And Adver, this should have been reported before today, old news.
The article does NOT say Coate Water it says Coate. Which is precisely where these diggers are - I live in Coate (not Coate Water) and they're about 100 yards from my front window.
[quote][p][bold]easternsideoftown[/bold] wrote: 'Diggers move in at Coate'. I know this will upset some of you, but 'diggers move in to the land NEXT to Coate Water' would be a more appropriate headline, it's not 'actually' Coate Water, but land owned by private individuals, and possibly seen by visitors to Coate between the trees. And Adver, this should have been reported before today, old news.[/p][/quote]The article does NOT say Coate Water it says Coate. Which is precisely where these diggers are - I live in Coate (not Coate Water) and they're about 100 yards from my front window. CoateResident
  • Score: 1

9:09pm Wed 9 Apr 14

timt1964 says...

Chrisg46 wrote:
Jason4 wrote:
By the way, I no longer visit Lydiard Park because it is overlooked by unsightly development. It won't be long before there housing 360 degrees around this park. (As I have not visited for so long this may have already happened). Watch now for Stanton Park then Highworth will be physically joined to Swindon. It won't be long.
I too am racking my brains to think where the overlooking unsightly development is? There is Lydiard Millicent several hundred metres away on one side, a school on the other and Grange Park hidden behind loads of trees. And Hook on another edge. What have i missed?!?!
these days if someones house is possibly maybe overlooked by a new housing development they appear in the adver arms folded along with the other 5 "angry residents".lydiard is overlooked by trees as far as i can tell or have they sneakily built a new estate overnight?! they are not building on coate water but on land around it so it will still be there for the millions that apparently cant live without it.
[quote][p][bold]Chrisg46[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jason4[/bold] wrote: By the way, I no longer visit Lydiard Park because it is overlooked by unsightly development. It won't be long before there housing 360 degrees around this park. (As I have not visited for so long this may have already happened). Watch now for Stanton Park then Highworth will be physically joined to Swindon. It won't be long.[/p][/quote]I too am racking my brains to think where the overlooking unsightly development is? There is Lydiard Millicent several hundred metres away on one side, a school on the other and Grange Park hidden behind loads of trees. And Hook on another edge. What have i missed?!?![/p][/quote]these days if someones house is possibly maybe overlooked by a new housing development they appear in the adver arms folded along with the other 5 "angry residents".lydiard is overlooked by trees as far as i can tell or have they sneakily built a new estate overnight?! they are not building on coate water but on land around it so it will still be there for the millions that apparently cant live without it. timt1964
  • Score: -3

10:20pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Save Coate Water says...

CoateResident wrote:
easternsideoftown wrote:
'Diggers move in at Coate'. I know this will upset some of you, but 'diggers move in to the land NEXT to Coate Water' would be a more appropriate headline, it's not 'actually' Coate Water, but land owned by private individuals, and possibly seen by visitors to Coate between the trees. And Adver, this should have been reported before today, old news.
The article does NOT say Coate Water it says Coate. Which is precisely where these diggers are - I live in Coate (not Coate Water) and they're about 100 yards from my front window.
The article definitely says in the evening advertiser paper in front of me that diggers have moved in on the land next to Coate Water. If this is not the case have the advertiser got this wrong? It states the save 'Coate' campaign gathered 52,000 signatures. Is this because it is on the green belt that surrounds Coate Water or is the article incorrect? I will try and find out from the council offices.
[quote][p][bold]CoateResident[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]easternsideoftown[/bold] wrote: 'Diggers move in at Coate'. I know this will upset some of you, but 'diggers move in to the land NEXT to Coate Water' would be a more appropriate headline, it's not 'actually' Coate Water, but land owned by private individuals, and possibly seen by visitors to Coate between the trees. And Adver, this should have been reported before today, old news.[/p][/quote]The article does NOT say Coate Water it says Coate. Which is precisely where these diggers are - I live in Coate (not Coate Water) and they're about 100 yards from my front window.[/p][/quote]The article definitely says in the evening advertiser paper in front of me that diggers have moved in on the land next to Coate Water. If this is not the case have the advertiser got this wrong? It states the save 'Coate' campaign gathered 52,000 signatures. Is this because it is on the green belt that surrounds Coate Water or is the article incorrect? I will try and find out from the council offices. Save Coate Water
  • Score: -3

10:25pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Save Coate Water says...

Save Coate Water wrote:
CoateResident wrote:
easternsideoftown wrote:
'Diggers move in at Coate'. I know this will upset some of you, but 'diggers move in to the land NEXT to Coate Water' would be a more appropriate headline, it's not 'actually' Coate Water, but land owned by private individuals, and possibly seen by visitors to Coate between the trees. And Adver, this should have been reported before today, old news.
The article does NOT say Coate Water it says Coate. Which is precisely where these diggers are - I live in Coate (not Coate Water) and they're about 100 yards from my front window.
The article definitely says in the evening advertiser paper in front of me that diggers have moved in on the land next to Coate Water. If this is not the case have the advertiser got this wrong? It states the save 'Coate' campaign gathered 52,000 signatures. Is this because it is on the green belt that surrounds Coate Water or is the article incorrect? I will try and find out from the council offices.
The photograph says Coate, the article in page 2. of the adver say land next to Coate Water. It mentions land near Day House Lane, so I will investigate more.
[quote][p][bold]Save Coate Water[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CoateResident[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]easternsideoftown[/bold] wrote: 'Diggers move in at Coate'. I know this will upset some of you, but 'diggers move in to the land NEXT to Coate Water' would be a more appropriate headline, it's not 'actually' Coate Water, but land owned by private individuals, and possibly seen by visitors to Coate between the trees. And Adver, this should have been reported before today, old news.[/p][/quote]The article does NOT say Coate Water it says Coate. Which is precisely where these diggers are - I live in Coate (not Coate Water) and they're about 100 yards from my front window.[/p][/quote]The article definitely says in the evening advertiser paper in front of me that diggers have moved in on the land next to Coate Water. If this is not the case have the advertiser got this wrong? It states the save 'Coate' campaign gathered 52,000 signatures. Is this because it is on the green belt that surrounds Coate Water or is the article incorrect? I will try and find out from the council offices.[/p][/quote]The photograph says Coate, the article in page 2. of the adver say land next to Coate Water. It mentions land near Day House Lane, so I will investigate more. Save Coate Water
  • Score: -3

7:10am Thu 10 Apr 14

house on the hill says...

For all the criticism of North Swindon, clearly a lot of people bought houses there so they must like it there! I know there is a lot of social housing too but a lot have chosen to live there, so if the demand is there, then builders will build!
For all the criticism of North Swindon, clearly a lot of people bought houses there so they must like it there! I know there is a lot of social housing too but a lot have chosen to live there, so if the demand is there, then builders will build! house on the hill
  • Score: -1

8:25am Thu 10 Apr 14

Davethered says...

So 52.000 signatures , twenty years of protesting , and the development still gets the go ahead against peoples wishes. This is supposed to be a democratic country. Just seems like we'll do what we want to do and sod what the majority want. Just can't wait to see what junction 15 looks like in a few years, bad enough now.
So 52.000 signatures , twenty years of protesting , and the development still gets the go ahead against peoples wishes. This is supposed to be a democratic country. Just seems like we'll do what we want to do and sod what the majority want. Just can't wait to see what junction 15 looks like in a few years, bad enough now. Davethered
  • Score: 0

10:28am Thu 10 Apr 14

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

When they built all the new houses in North Swindon near me they displaced foxes, badgers, owls, deer amongst other things, and of course very nearly built over a Roman archaeological site.

Wherever you build on greenfield sites (and even some brownfield sites) you will be displacing wildlife. The area surrounding Coate Water is no different in that regard.
When they built all the new houses in North Swindon near me they displaced foxes, badgers, owls, deer amongst other things, and of course very nearly built over a Roman archaeological site. Wherever you build on greenfield sites (and even some brownfield sites) you will be displacing wildlife. The area surrounding Coate Water is no different in that regard. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: 0

6:14pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Bobby Bee says...

Typical of Mike Bawden to get his fingers sullied. Can,t stop, can he?
Typical of Mike Bawden to get his fingers sullied. Can,t stop, can he? Bobby Bee
  • Score: 1

8:04pm Thu 10 Apr 14

The Jockster says...

Where's Saunders and her cronies when you need them ah yes what fun and games we had on here with the ludicrous 52 petition. Not forgetting those two well known Swindonians who signed it now then what were they called ah yes! Ant & Dec - what a joke!
Can Save Coate Water tell me what loose Coate Water is? Coate Water doesn't need saving it's still going to be there ffs! The development is at Coate so the country park and it's attractions like the defunct rusting diving board eyesore will still be there for people to "enjoy".
Where's Saunders and her cronies when you need them ah yes what fun and games we had on here with the ludicrous 52 petition. Not forgetting those two well known Swindonians who signed it now then what were they called ah yes! Ant & Dec - what a joke! Can Save Coate Water tell me what loose Coate Water is? Coate Water doesn't need saving it's still going to be there ffs! The development is at Coate so the country park and it's attractions like the defunct rusting diving board eyesore will still be there for people to "enjoy". The Jockster
  • Score: 1

8:41pm Sat 12 Apr 14

Bobby Bee says...

Thanks Mike.
Thanks Mike. Bobby Bee
  • Score: 1

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