There was a lot on the agenda for yesterday’s Town Council planning committee meeting, and Councillors were also involved in the WWI commemoration, and so it was decided to postpone the meeting until this evening.
65 Oxford Road was on the agenda twice.
There was letter ‘for information’ from The Vale of White Horse Planning Department addressed to the architect of the developers saying that cutting down the trees without permission could have resulted in a range of penalties. But that the planning department would take no further action this time as there are more serious cases needing their departments limited resources.
Orchard Development Ltd have submitted new plans for two new dwelling on the same plot as an alternative to the other plans. A developer can submit any number of plans for the same plot if they want.
There were also re-submitted plans for 55-59 Stert Street and Abbey Court. The previous plans had been withdrawn because of opposition, and the revised plans are intended to be more in keeping with the area. The proposed frontage no longer looks like ‘the red light district in Amsterdam’ as one Councillor put it. But the Town Council planning committee still recommended refusal on the grounds that the new buildings are overbearing and out of keeping with the area.
There was also the re-submission of altered plans for 159 Houses off the Drayton Road. Again the Town Council committee recommended refusal because of traffic, road safety, and other concerns. Public comments can be made on the Drayton Road plans until 13th August. See P14/V1196/FUL.
The Town Council is a consultee on planning, and actual decisions will be made by the Vale of White Horse District Council at a future planning meeting.
I did advertise this meeting beforehand and members of the public did turn up wanting a say. I should have said this was a Council Meeting and that the public normally need to request to speak beforehand. Fortunately there were not too many of us and it worked out alright thanks to the Chairman.
The planning meeting will be at its usual time of 7pm.
‘…the planning department would take no further action this time as there are more serious cases needing their departments limited resources. …’
Perhaps, had they kept to the knitting and maintained a plan for The Vale the ‘vulture developers’ wouldn’t have slipped by and been able to lodge the proposed Drayton Road development as it would nave been ‘off plan’.
As they are so busy I’m hoping the Vale’s golf courses aren’t in danger of unwanted developments due to lack of time and resources to keep a close eye on them ….
As Backstreeter says, the Town Council is a consultee on these matters, the decision is taken by the Vale District Council and members of the public can – and should – make their views known to them via their website. As with the TC people can attend the meetings, but if they want to speak need to register their intention beforehand.
The Friends of Abingdon have been making representations on these issues for some time now and are commenting on the latest proposals. (By the way, Orchard Developments is another trading name for local developers, Cranborne Holdings.)
I often browse the planning applications and follow their progress by reading the objections and notices on their applications, but full marks to Hester on finding Cranbourne homes operate under a variety of company names. But why would one person submit three different planning applications all under different names? the cost alone must be enormous?
Calling on Hesters knowledge of the system apparently their (Cranbourne Homes) application to build the social housing on the nursery site was refused, given that building these homes were part of their obligation when they obtained the Old Gaol, does that now mean their obligation has been released?
What sort of people have we got in the planning department. If they know a planning order has been wrongly used, shall we say, surely it is imperative that action is taken
I think my earlier comment may have been a tad ironic for some tastes. However, Hester seems to have found a link between the guys who ripped down the trees on the ‘Oxford Road development’ and those who tore-out the willow tree at the Old Goal/Bridge. Well done Hester! I’m amazed that The Vale planners don’t know this and aren’t taking a firm line with serial offenders …
Does anyone else know anything about unusual relationships in the planning and development of property in the Town? I feel we should all know …
I wouldn’t let these vandals anywhere near my trees … or my, neighborhood, had I a choice.
It occurs to me that The Vale and Mike Badcock might be ignorant that they they are awarding development contracts to friends they might be unaware are operating under different business identities. In which case they should sharpen-up.
I hope not as it would be so shaming.
Might this be passed over to Private Eye to get a ‘clean bill of health’?
I’m sure all parties would open their books.
@ Silentone – I have checked the Vale website and the decision on the Harcourt Way planning application hasn’t been taken yet although it was due at the end of June. I don’t know how refusal would impact on the obligations under the Old Gaol agreement – I guess it might depend whether the reasons for rejection were generic or specific to the proposal I.e if it was on grounds that housing (social or otherwise) shouldn’t be built there (as some have suggested) the obligation might be discharged, but if it was based on the proposed design they might be expected to try again.
By the way I can’t claim personal credit for knowing about this – the Friends of Abingdon have a small team who are very vigilant on all of this – not just me!
Well that’s hat’s off to Hester and Co then, it’s heartwarming to know that builders and planners are being kept an eye on.
I’m still confused as to why, when there are clear breaches of planning conditions, the powers that be do nothing about it? And if the planners themselves seem indifferent why doesn’t the local Councillor do something about it? after all they are supposed to be acting on behalf of the community that elects them, or is there a hidden agenda somewhere?
silentstone; I was at Tueaday’s meeting and asked similar questions myself. According to the TC, they said that it simply isn’t in the councils interest (That is teh Planning department) (ie, in ‘our’ interest) as there are frankly better things to spend our money on. Why would the council spend (say) £5k dragging a developer through the courts to tell them they have a £500 penalty to pay to replant trees?
I suggested (innocently) because, common sense would dictate that if that were the case, the court would tell said developer that they have £5500 to pay – the fine plus costs!
I was told in no uncertain terms, that this is not how things work…
It woud appear that “big business” can shirk the rules and regualtions…whislt we are all told we can’t build a conservatory or what have you as there are rules to play by…Lucky old big Business!
Remember – the Planning rules are there to help developers, and hinder you and I.
The TC are going to try and get a TPO (Tree protection Order) on the Lime trees along the Drayton Rd development – as they are all being marked up for destruction by Wimpy. As i said in the meeting on Tuesday – how farcical…get your TPOs in place…and the developer will ignore it, with no penalty – knowing that the planning rules that apply to me and you, seemingly don’t apply to them! Perhaps there, as here, the Vale Planning team will tell Wimpy how very disappointed about it all they are that they cut the trees down…and don’t do it again else we’ll wag our fingers at you frustradedly.
Personally, i am in the middle of writing to the Vale Planning team to ask exactly what are their top 5-10 issues that constitue a BETTER spend of public money to enforce planning regualtions, that superceed this enforcement of the ruls.
I’ll let you know if I get an answer. Let me know if you want details of who to write to, too!?
Why doesn’t the (your/our) Local Counciller do anything?…because they are powerless. The councillors themselves hold no sway over such things – it is the unelected council OFFICERS who hold the power.
AND
More often than not, those unelected officers spend OUR council tax money on unaccountable consultants to give their opinions…which may or may not be any good….
Don’t know if this consitutes a “hidden agenda”….but the Councillor is merely the ‘face’ of what goes on, it’s the tail that really wags the dog….
Daniel and Hester, this is terrible, in short the councilor who approved this is as culplorable and complicite in the breach of condition as the builders themselves? How can this be? This begs the question is he or she “on the inside ?” Time to call foul?
This is getting interesting.
I’ve followed the issue from the beginning and couldn’t understand why planning permission could not be withdrawn once the conditions were breached.
“Too busy on other, more important things” is very worrying. This must encourage people to break the rules with pretty good odds that they will get away with it.
Wish I’d known this when I obeyed the rules for my porch extension.
What are we paying a “Planning Enforcement Office and their various staff/officers for exactly?! If they are powerless to do anything then get rid of and spend the money on something worthwhile! I am sick of hearing that the TC cannot do this, The Vale cannot do that, it is down to Highways…etc. ect. ect. If they are all so useless and cannot organise the proverbial P*** UP in a brewery between them, then it’s time for a complete change, and bring in someone who is prepared to put their head above the parapet and do something!
When there is a blatant disregard and flagrant breach of planning conditions, why cannot these “Planning Enforcement” officers retract the planning approval with no course of appeal?! You do the crime you, you do the time! MAYBE these big-shot developers, once they start losing money, will think twice before doing exactly what they want then! With the massive influx of developments we are about to have forced upon us, if the powers that be don’t start clamping down now, then it will be a free for all with them doing what they want ,purely because they can! COME ON TC / VALE AND WHOEVER ELSE IS INVOLVED…SORT IT OUT!!! Otherwise the residents of Abingdon will be entitled to think that someone has got something to gain by allowing these things to go unpunished!
Is there anything called a vote of no confidence that can be brought forward? Either officially or openly demonstrated in the media ? Why have the rules? Why pay council tax? Are there greater priorites than to pursue me for that? Please let me know so I can save a few quid.
On the issues being talked about here, individual Councillors have tried very hard: for 65 Oxford Road the local Councillors have been pressing as hard as anyone for answers and for Drayton Road not only the individual Councillors (all parties) but the whole Council – and officers – fought the case as far as they could first time round and will hopefully do so again.
On the question of enforcement Daniel is right in that Councillors don’t necessarily play any part in detailed decisions – many are delegated to paid officers. While those who feel strongly might want to let their local councillor know of their concerns and ask for their help in pursuing them, the people who might be able to make a difference are surely those directing those officers I.e the Chairman of the Vale Planning Committee (elected) or the Strategic Director responsible for planning (paid) – names and contact details are on the Vale website.
Hi everyone and thank you for your views, I’m still struggling to make sense of all of this but as I see it from reading this thread it’s something like this?
A large scale builder submits a set of plans, those plans are approved in principle by the planning officer, but with conditions, those plans and conditions are then approved by the chair of the planning committee (the one daniel attended) Councilor Badcock. Before work can start the plans must be approved by Cllr Badcocks committee, The builder chooses to ignore the conditions, conditions founded on law and legislation, the cllr admits at the meeting he is fully aware of this breach (in the public domain) but chooses not to act accordingly, if this is the situation then it is absurd.
Next we’ll see TVP deciding not to prosecute a rapist on the grounds that if proven guilty the purportrator may go to appeal and they, TVP cannot afford to contest that appeal?
That now begs the question as to why is there a planning committee if they chose to be lame ducks? why do we bother to elect someone who clearly does not act in the best interests of democracy?
What’s the point of this Cllr making an issue about a few trees along the drayton rd, when on the other hand he is clearly not acting with the publics interest at heart?
Just to help clarify as there is a degree of confusion between the role of the two councils in the above stream.
The vale council is the body responsible for making planning decisions. The decision making body is the planning committee chaired by cllr robert sharp.
The town council has no decision making powers in relation to planning, but does have a right to comment. It has a planning committee, chaired by cllr mike badcock, which reviews planning applications and submits comments to the vale on behalf of the town council.
I hope this clarify where the responsibilities lie. I know it is confusing, and if it is any consolation this system of three layered local government is set by central government 40 years ago. i have yet to find a local councillor of any political persuassion who is against moving to a two tier system. Unfortunately there is no central government appetite to change this at present.
And each one blames the other for any failings, and so it goes on and on and on and on……….
SOMEONE TAKE RESPONSIBILITY AND DO SOMETHING!
Silentone – I am not one to “stick up for the council”, but do feel I may have confused things slightly, for which I apologise.
As already mentioned by Iain, and to clarify…the meeting i went to was for the TC…who may well have a view or opinion on planning, but it is The Vale who are the decision makers. Cllr Badcock was giving his opinion I think, rather than a hard and fast explanation of The Vales planning departments decision. Apologies, I did not mean to suggest this was the TC or any TC Cllr decision.
Taking him at face value, I bowed down to his greater experience with such matters. – for good or Ill.
The jist of what you say however is correct, in that it seems rules and regulations are in place….but some companies can ride rough shod over them at will.
FFor info, the Head of Planning at The Vale is Adrian Duffield and that is who I will be writing to for further explanation on this.
I feel a comedy sketch evolving from this, no wonder Yes Minister was such a success !
The muddy puddle is clearing somewhat, we have a Town Council that has a planning committee that meets regularly, chaired by Cllr Badcock, but that committee has no powere and no-one takes any notice of it because it takes no notice or breaches of pre-conditions because they rely on another council to approve and police planning issues, So what is the purpose of a Town Council planning committee?
But more mysterious is that according to the two councils web sites, Cllr Badcocks boss, and leader of the Town Council , a Mr Sandy lovatt is a member of the other councils (the one with teeth) planning committee, so why hasn’t he intervened in this circus?
Welcome to Abingdon!
Was it not Sandy Lovatt that us via radio Oxford that £7mil was paid for the Old Gaol when the real figure is around £2mil ?
A figure that is still secret to this day.
A real trustworthy person there NOT!!
Well this gets more bizare by the hour ! I’ve just spent the last hour or so Googling the Old Gaol and I can find no mention of the actual price paid anywhere (am I missing something?) I’vw just trawled the VWHDC web site and came across their accounts which has among the umpteen colums an item refered to as an asset, with a valuation of a couple of million pounds but has been transfered from being an asset to a long term debt, would that be the Old Gaol?
65 Oxford Road Is in my ward. I can’t believe the enforcement officers are letting Cranbourne Homes get away with this. I have repeatedly made representations to them about the need to make CH replace the planting and was led to believe this would happen. They may be overworked but they are going to get a whole lot more overworked when developers see that they can get away with riding roughshod over the planning conditions they have been required to meet.
Sadly I couldn’t make Tuesdays Town Council’s Planning meeting, but it wouldn’t have made any difference if I had.
Sounds to me as though it’s time those councilors on the various planning committees grew a spine and stood up to the paid employees.