Delight as plan for 175 homes is ditched (From Swindon Advertiser)
Get involved! Send photos, video, news & views. Text SWINDON NEWS to 80360 or email us
Delight as plan for 175 homes is ditched
10:29am Wednesday 18th May 2011 in News
Coun Peter Greenhalgh, front, with fellow councillors and residents, who are delighted the plan for houses near Lydiard Park has been rejected by a Government inspector
RESIDENTS are ecstatic after the final nail was put in the coffin for plans to build nearly 200 homes near Lydiard Park.
An appeal was submitted against Swindon Council’s decision to reject plans to build more than 175 new homes in Hook Street on the country park’s doorstep.
The proposals, by Primegate Properties (Hooknorth) Ltd, were unanimously refused by the council’s planning committee in October after more than 200 residents wrote to object.
The company appealed and a public inquiry was held last month.
The proposal has now been killed off after a Government-appointed planning inspector dismissed the appeal stating the development would not be acceptable.
Geoffrey Hill, the inspector appointed by Eric Pickles, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, said in his report: “Development of the appeal site would not be acceptable.
“At the local scale and under current circumstances it would undesirably spread urban development into the rural hinterland of Swindon and it would also harm the setting of the registered park and garden.
“Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.
The community came together to fight against the proposals from day one and are delighted with the result.
David Barnard, organiser of the Lydiard Fields Action Group (LFAG), said: “It’s great news.
“I think when the community does rally together and identifies a common cause it is a very powerful force and we should do that more often.
“If you just sit back and don’t get involved things happen that you don’t want and suddenly you could have a supermarket behind you.”
Grange Park resident Barrie Brocks, a vocal campaigner since the initial application, said: “I’m chuffed – it was just common sense.
“It just goes to show the effort of the council and the residents of LFAG.”
South Swindon MP, Robert Buckland, attended the inquiry and fought hard alongside residents to keep the development away from one of the town’s biggest assets.
“I am absolutely delighted,” he said.
“I would like to pay tribute to all the residents and councillors who all worked tirelessly and really got behind this campaign. It just shows what a community can do when it gets together and rolls its sleeves up.
“This wasn’t just a local issue it was an all Swindon issue, Lydiard is a jewel in the crown for Swindon which can still be enjoyed by everyone thanks to this decision.
“I hope this will bring an end to speculative applications in the area.”
Councillor Nick Martin (Con, Shaw and Nine Elms), said: “Hopefully it will put an end to development in the rest of West Swindon.
“It’s a shame we have had to go to such a great extent to defend what we know in our own minds.”
Coun Peter Greenhalgh (Con, Freshbrook and Grange Park) and cabinet member for planning, said: “I think Swindon was able to demonstrate the proposed site was not within our local development local plan boundaries.”
Comments(35)
SN3 ZZ
says...
10:59am Wed 18 May 11
Kevin Scrote
says...
11:54am Wed 18 May 11
SN3 ZZ wrote:Not really sure what your point is here - of course they've stood up against something they don't want in their community and well done to them for their achievement. Presumably the people of Penhill, Stratton, Dorcan and other areas, plus their respective Councillors & MPs, would stand up for themselves too if it was in their area?
"We've won". That's how it must feel to those photographed who are just another bunch of NIMBYs who have managed to look after themselves. I'm sure they wouldn't make the stand if the same thing was happening in Penhill, Stratton, Dorcan and other areas of the town. Bearing in mind where the Council do let new houses get built, the developer must be wondering what the Council have against them.
itsamess
says...
12:13pm Wed 18 May 11
The inspector quite rightly described the area as Rural Hinterlands a term having numerous meanings.
The decision does hold out hope for other areas.
Robfm
says...
12:38pm Wed 18 May 11
stfcphil
says...
12:44pm Wed 18 May 11
PaulD
says...
12:52pm Wed 18 May 11
stfcphil wrote:and your house was built on what originally?
I wonder how many of those people who complained, already live ridiculously close to Lydiard Park, on what was once beautiful countryside. Hypocrites, the lot of them !!
I Too
says...
12:52pm Wed 18 May 11
Yet to be defended
Robfm
says...
12:53pm Wed 18 May 11
stfcphil
says...
12:59pm Wed 18 May 11
Not quite sure what point you are making. Irrespective of what my house was built on (Rodbourne), I am not complaining about someone else having the right to live in a very similar location.
mike1414
says...
3:37pm Wed 18 May 11
itsamess
says...
4:57pm Wed 18 May 11
definition of them?
OED defines the origin as from the German 'hinter'=behind and Land= 'land' thus hinterland.
Noun 1= the remote areas of a country away from the coast or the banks of major rivers.
Noun 2= an area lying beyond what is visible or known.
Addendums are--a market town serving its rich agricultural hinterland.
Or the area around or beyond a major town or port.
Therefore our town does have hinterlands by definition on all counts.
A good decision and i suggest helpful to the Coate campaign.
stfcphil
Rodbourne (even Swindon) was built completely on farm land to house the growing number of Rail workers--mainly due to the poor quality of the land and despite being on a major water table. Possibly before planning controls--dont know-ask the historians. Most of Swindon was built on former green areas it seems. The argument is that we are losing all our green spaces in an overcrowded town.
stfcphil
says...
5:02pm Wed 18 May 11
That still doesn't hide the fact that those that now live in their nice houses near Lydiard Park, who are complaining about the prospect of more new houses being built, are still hypocrites. Unless in your own inimitable fashion you can come up with an alternative meaning for the word hypocrite !!
OhThisIsFun
says...
5:24pm Wed 18 May 11
TRS85
says...
6:40pm Wed 18 May 11
In regards to the references to people as the "nimby crew", is it so bad to be a "nimby" if it means protecting your local area?
Lydiard Park is used by people from all parts of Swindon and housing in that field would have set a dangerous precedent for the surrounding area where the developers are already carrying out a scoping exercise.
People may live close to Lydiard now, but that doesn't mean that we could tear up the housing in the area and return it to green land- that is not possible or realistic so there is no hypocrisy in preventing any further development.
I do think "itsamess" made some very good points though and Bob could probably learn a lot from that person.
I Too
says...
6:45pm Wed 18 May 11
stfcphil wrote:Two "wrongs" don't make a "right" ?
itsamess.
That still doesn't hide the fact that those that now live in their nice houses near Lydiard Park, who are complaining about the prospect of more new houses being built, are still hypocrites. Unless in your own inimitable fashion you can come up with an alternative meaning for the word hypocrite !!
The hypocricy here is actually from Peter Greenhalgh.
Posing for saving an area from 175 houses whilst simultaneously earmarking an equally precious area for 900 houses and an industrial "gateway"
Robfm
says...
8:45pm Wed 18 May 11
Punctured bicycle on a hillside
says...
9:08pm Wed 18 May 11
Can't you just accept that other people have opinions that differ from yours without you having to make trite statements of approval/disapproval of everyone else's comments?
Surely practically every poster on here knows what your agenda is by now.
Please grow up and let people post without your unnecessary approbation.
Robfm
says...
9:17pm Wed 18 May 11
Punctured bicycle on a hillside
says...
9:25pm Wed 18 May 11
Let people post without your unnecessary approbation.
itsamess
says...
9:40pm Wed 18 May 11
Perhaps when those houses were built there was a buffer zone. Fortunately authorities are maybe beginning to realise how important Lydiard House and Park are to Swindon as are green areas around town--perhaps as a claimed Rodbourne resident you do not use Mannington park or if you have them want your children to enjoy it before more and more of it is lost. So no i do not believe these folk are as you say hypocrites--they have proved our green spaces should not been given up.
Robfm
says...
8:59am Thu 19 May 11
As for these houses the reality if they are not built there they will go somewhere else. Having watched the housing debate yesterday it is clear that HMG is loosening planning control whilst at the same time pretending to give more power to the people.
They are incentivising LA's with 6 years domestic rates for every house they build.
itsamess
says...
2:29pm Thu 19 May 11
Robfm
says...
6:12pm Thu 19 May 11
itsamess
says...
2:54pm Fri 20 May 11
Swindon these days. The proposals for South Marston village stems from certain groups supporting expansion
of business' in the village which gives the notion they can accept more housing in areas where the infrastructure simply cannot support or sustain building. Other small farms are glad to sell off farmland rather than continue losing money. My view--although biassed due to generations of family ties to S. Marston it should remain the pleasant village it is. I also believe the rural areas planned to be swamped with houses will only serve to turn our town into no more than a dead end town. A place only to commute to other towns and cities along the M4 corridor. We are already creeping up on all the small villages that surround our town.
Robfm
says...
5:57pm Fri 20 May 11
The villagers are content to have places like Crown Timber and Leggits developed for housing, if you like Walter I will show where they are, and smaller clusters, like the land behind the hotel, and perhaps the unsightly brown sites currently occupied by transport and related companies, developed.
The village infrastructure cannot sustain the volume of houses once again proposed by SBC. The Parish is in the order of £25k out of pocket for believing SBC that our proposals would be inclusive of the core strategy. As was said on 105.5 Thursday, and not by me, were we naive enough to believe SBC, yep it seems.
itsamess
says...
7:18pm Fri 20 May 11
The wise man would clearly accept the numerous reasons why ex Crown Timber property has not been developed for housing or business use
On the opposite side of the road there are also problems which are linked. I feel sure many of the businesses would gladly relocate but for the fact there are very few places
some of the businesses could go again
for a variety of reasons. There are numerous things affecting the 420 side as some covenants apply which developers have overlooked as have the Council. Local history can be very helpful. You have no influence over either the Parish Council or SBC. If you had a good knowledge of the village--its history and the surrounding areas you would know why there are very limited areas to build housing. Ah yes the land behind the Hotel--clearly you do not know what was there way back and could lead to demolition of some buildings there. Local knowledge bobby is a valuable resource.
Robfm
says...
9:23am Sat 21 May 11
As for being an outsider, for once you have something right. Mind you there are those who have been in the village for 20 to 30 years who are also considered outsiders, that's the nature of insular small villagers that in the past most people were related. 2/3rds of the village no longer fall into that category. The son of one of the oldest families in the village is or has moved to Devon recently something unheard of even 10 years ago.
The village is changing Walter.
itsamess
says...
3:58pm Sat 21 May 11
which exist. Learn your history.
Robfm
says...
5:30pm Sat 21 May 11
itsamess
says...
5:42pm Sat 21 May 11
Robfm
says...
6:10pm Sat 21 May 11
There is absolutely no way that land management companies would hand over 70% of land value if there were a covenant preventing building.
It's because of this absolutely no one supports anything you say any more.
itsamess
says...
6:26pm Sat 21 May 11
Robfm
says...
6:41pm Sat 21 May 11
So go and engage with someone else, even TS don't want to know you. You see I may not post there any more but I do have friends on there in the know.
itsamess
says...
7:07pm Sat 21 May 11
post a link on this site.
As i have stated many times i am not a member of TS and you were shown to be a liar there--now go away with your pathetic ramblings.
Robfm says...
10:47am Wed 18 May 11
On this basis can we expect SBC to abandon all the greenfield site developments proposed in the Core strategy or is it a case of not in the Conservative Councillors and MP's back gardens.
I'm sure the people of South Marston would be delighted if this were the result.
We have offered brown field sites and other smaller non contentious sites which could handle about 500 house, perhaps SBC indicate they accept our offer.
Just one thing does 'hinterland' have more than one definition I thought it referred to land adjacent to ports, or coastal waters.