If the decision by the Oxfordshire County Council Cabinet Member for Environment at 10:30 on 9th October is to allow the replacement of one badly sited Pelican Crossing with two badly sited Pelican Crossings, on Marcham Road and Ock Street, then 159 houses will be allowed to be built on the field off Drayton Road, and that could be the end of the 2 year battle between the developers and local people.
If he decides against the pelican crossings there is likely to be another legal challenge by the developers and the battle will go on.
At the first hearing to decide these Pelican Crossings, there were 11 speakers against –
4 residents,
2 Abingdon Town Councillors,
3 Vale District Councillors,
2 Oxfordshire County Councillors.
They argued that the issue was one of safety of school children and air quality for all. The decision went their way but Oxfordshire County Council failed to present enough evidence for their decision and so it has gone for a re-hearing.
This time there will be 12 speakers against:
5 residents (one also being a Town Councillor),
2 Abingdon Town Councillors,
2 Vale District Councillors,
3 Oxfordshire County Councillors.
and 1 speaker for – an expert witness for the developer wanting to build the 159 houses.
At the last minute, and too late to go in the Officers Report, the developers have presented a raft of new evidence, including legal opinions, and safety audits etc. Presumably this is ammunition so that if the decision does goes against them they will have grounds to appeal again.
P.S The Cabinet Member for Environment was minded to allow the pedestrian lights. The developers were delighted. Local people felt let down again by another decision that ignored what local people wanted.
If residents cannot submit late details, why should the developers? And why are the developers so shy about producing their evidence in time, so that others can assess it in giving counter evidence? Something smells…
it says their late items will not count… this time.
Good luck to the 12 speaking against this today.
Let’s hope common sense prevails.
If he decides against the pelican crossings there is likely to be another legal challenge by the developers and the battle will go on.
How many challenges do they get? How much more tax payers money is to be spent on this? Anyone who has tried to access South Abingdon in the morning can see this development can’t go ahead. It’s just crazy!
As far as the developer is concerned, evidence that is too late is a good thing. It means they have something for next time they appeal – get to fight another day.
The point being, for the developer, it is in their interest to spend money on appeals. And more money on further appeals. And money again on yet further appeals.
Ultimately; perhaps after this time if it gets thrown out, the council can not afford to counter such appeals – it is our money they are spending. And so, the developer just grinds the council down until they allow it.
Good luck with this fight. And the next, and even the next and the next. Ultimately…the developer will throw more money at it and win.
Personally, I would look to my council to nip this in the bud – either by changing how this whole process works and stopping it work against the towns folk…or allow the development on condition.
The condition being that the developer pays for temporary traffic calming measures. And upon proof (independant, verrifisble, publicaly known, measurable criteria), prove that their measures work and remedy the traffic woes first.
Hopefully, they can’t prove that. Of course, they’d wangle it so they could!
The developer has its own money to burn on this, and have spent tio much to back out now. The council doesn’t have such funds.
Dissapointingly, I think Nicola B and Layla M are very quiet on this whole matter…. The one who stops this development is the one who would likely win their seat in May…. Perhaps that would galvanise them in to action….?
of course if we were in France, Belgium, Holland or Germany this complete farce would not have arisen.
1, the local council would not have failed its community by allowing the draft plan to expire.
2, even without this project it still ignores the fact that the junction, as far as pedestrians are concerned, (the overwhelming majority of whom are children) is a dreadful place to cross, it needs an underpass or pedestrian bridge?
If places like Josca’s school at Fyfield and the Euro school at Culham have the resources to have a road bridge for their school children to cross then, why can’t OCC provide one for our state school childrens safety?
Agree with all the comments, but the tabloid-type picture accompanying this post is not the sort of thing we have been used to on the respected Abingdon blog.
So much for Cameron’s local plan ,How is it the people making these decisions about Abingdon have no connection what so ever?
Que the silence from blackwood
I am very sorry to report that Cllr Nimmo-Smith said yes to the proposal to move the crossing this morning.
There were a number of very strong points made by the various speakers, particularly about the safety of school children, and I also pointed out some of the major flaws in the report by the council officers.
But there were gasps of amazement when Cllr Nimmo-Smith described how he had come to Abingdon to observe the site – on a Saturday!
He was also very concerned that the County Council lawyer should set out the potential legal consequences of him going the other way.
This is an appalling decision and we will now be looking at any further routes we have open to us to fight it.
I don’t suppose Neil anyone made mention of the fact that Abingdons best known builder ha planning permission to redevelop the site directly fronting the new layouts crossing in Marcham Rd?
This will be the same Nimmo-Smith that lives in Henley! God forbid that they would decide to put anything like this, plus the other 1000 homes for North Abingdon, in their own backyard!
What gives HIM the right to put Abingdon’s children at risk!
…and what were those legal consequences?
I am as frustrated by this as the next person. But it was innevitable.
Still looking forward to Nicola and Layla’s response to this. Now the decision has been made I am sure that they can get very angry about it on our behalf.
Still…think of all the affordable housing the development will deliver. And don’t forget, each new household will get £150 towards new bicycles!
And I’m sure they’ll have flower beds, which will look lovely, Daniel.
Did our MP note even bother to show up then? Just when the town could do with some help…..
Well done for trying to those that spoke and wrote in, I am afraid its hard to fight once a few councilors have been put under pressure by the developers. They run scared when they see a QC – hence why the developers use them.
Anyway I hope these 169 bikes will be packed into this narrow combined cycle lane/pathway along the busy Drayton Road as per the ‘experts’ predictions, along with all these pedestrians making the 30 minute+ hike to school or the town centre.
Thankfully Steve…Abingdon’s best known builders can also get away with whatever they want.
Never let it be said that the wants, desires, and aspirations of the local people have got in the way; when there’s a tidy profit to be made.
Julian…I am sure they will. And when everyone is sitting in traffic they will have ample opportunity to think so too!
From Cllr Nimmo-Smith’s Oxon CC web page:
“He is an environmental campaigner and believes in local democracy.”
I’d welcome his comment on his decision.
What fools we mortals be! Isn’t it obvious that new pedestrian crossings will only exacerbate the Ock Street/Marcham Road traffic nightmare? But once the new houses are occupied, their added vehicles will ensure an improvement in safety, at least for pedestrians – the traffic will be so constipated that walking across the street will be no problem, even for twimmits visiting from Henley on a Saturday.
What a travesty of democracy – ending in the judgement today – but it is a pattern repeated up and down the country – as we were warned by 2 of the many speakers at the first big public meeting 18 months ago. Local governments, starved of resources by central government, are in such a weakened position that it seems impossible for them to make a successful stand against developers who sniff out an outside chance and have money and lawyers to pursue RELENTLESSLY that outside chance – as Taylor Wimpey have done . What a sad day for local democracy and Abingdon.
Nay nay Anne & Peter, Cllr Nimmo-Smith is far from starved, look at some of his declarations on his portfolio.
“Non-Statutory Interests – Note – these are not disclosable pecunary interests
Member or co-opted member
Spouse, civil partner or equivalent
Hospitality: Dinner provided by First Great Western at Malmaison, Oxford on 21st August 2013 as a meeting to introduce the Cabinet Member for Environment (estimated cost £80.00)
None
Hospitality: Bus trip and dinner provided by Oxford Bus Company at the National Transport Awards in London on 17th October 2013. We were shortlisted but did not pick up any awards.”
All in the best possible cause of course !
Steve – I wasn`t making a personal comment about Cllr Nimmo Smith. I was trying to contrast the limited amounts of public money `our money` available in local government coffers to match the deep pockets of developers like Taylor Wimpey who , had the judgement today gone against them, wuld have gone on and on with appeals, judicial reviews . . they could afford to do so. Too much potential profit is already invested in the buying of the field to let them give up until they had won.
Steve
Regardless of the existence or non-existence of any local plan, if we were in France the natives would have blockaded the area long before now ! If the local politicians were not at the head of that blockade, their effigies would soon be on a bonfire somewhere.
The sad thing is, that as a Councillor made the “yes” decision, the Council will forever be held responsible for what ever carnage results. The builder, on the other hand, builds the houses, sells them at a huge profit for its shareholders and just walks away without a care for how it impacts on anyone, not even the poor people who are going to have to live there. Trapped with only one way in and one way out, no facilities within a mile and certainly no way to reach them by car……and have you ever tried to cycle down the Drayton Road when it’s busy?
Whilst this won’t bring any solace to ALL the people affected & those with houses overlooking the field, anyone with children in the over subscribed schools, anyone who needs medical attention, etc….there is one small slither of hope to everyone else….
As the traffic at the double roundabouts not only affects Drayton Rd and surrounds, it also affects St Helens, and High St, and Ock St, and therefore back round Stert Street and Vineyard, as well as of course up Bath St….and past McDs up to the A34…etc…
Well, to play devils advocate and all that….in the 7 years I have lived off Drayton Rd (and 10 years in Abingdon), the double roundabouts has been a severe traffic issue the whole time. In all of that time ALL the councils, of both yellow and blue teams, have all singlehandedly monumentally failed to address the issue – or at least not so residents might be aware of.
I will remember that come election time.
At least the developer is in some way shape or form looking to address the issue, even if for its own neferrious ends. It might…just might help the traffic situation….which is more than any politician, from what I am aware of, has done in 10 years.
We may yet drive freely through Abingdon, thanks to Taylor Wimpey…
Just a thought.
Just a pie in the sky thought…and would/could never happen…but wouldn’t it be fantastic if NO-ONE bought any of Taylor-Wimpey houses off the Drayton Rd, and the people of Abingdon had their own black-listing of them, creating Abingdon’s very own ghost town! It would certainly make the other developers in North Abingdon think twice! (It could even be a tourist attraction!)
Daniel, nice through, but it wont happen. Most likely outcome is ——– no change ot the traffic at all.
If it DOES work, then all that will happen is on a “car for car” basis the traffic will back up down Ock St.
The bottle neck is further up with only a single carriage way to the tesco roundabout, where there needs to be two , at least from the police station if not further back to Drayton Rd. There WAS room for two until development was permitted on the fringes. Cost now to demolish would be high due to short term views on planning.
Diddling around with the double roundabout will do nothing.
Hi Anne & Pete, yes I know that, it was a bit of a tongue in cheek snipe at a councilor who jumped ship at the throw of a hat.
Spike, you’re absolutely bang on, as I’ve said before what Abingdon needs is a visionary dictator, what we’ve got are a load of mutual preening, self preserving, egotistical bods who purport to represent you and me !
Unfortunately Abingdon only has one “proper” councilor, one who has the courage of their convictions and is brave enough to leave a party and go independent,
Nicola tweeted this afternoon that is was the Wrong decision
by OCC to approve Marcham Rd crossing and is calling on Matthew Barber to get legal advice on judicial review.
Matthew had earlier tweeted that he was Hugely disappointed with the decision
This truly is a sad day for the town of abingdon. The extra crossing on Ock St will only make matters worse on the drayton Rd. The extra 200 houses in drayton in the next few years,a good % of Cars from these houses will head North. 160 on the drayton Rd , 1000 in North abingdon, yes we may get a full diamond interchange but only after the houses are complete. How can we expect to attract shops & businesses into a town that’s gridlocked.
Another thought, how can 1 man be responsible for making a decision that has such far reaching consequences !!!!
Its called democracy Trevor, you vote a person in because you have faith in him and his mandate, Once in he acts with total complacency on the basis that you trusted him to make the right decisions, and he believes he has, they may not be what you wanted, but that’s irrelevant to him, he will say you voted for him to govern and that’s what he’s done.
Remember Blair and the Iraq war ?
No Steve , from school I remember democarcy is for by the people by the people. This is neither of these .
Simply put …….. This stinks!!! “……..this is not good for Abingdon……this is purely a profiteering pirate making his quick buck and disappearing…….shame on the decision makers whether elected nor not…….So…what happens regarding the oncoming gridlock???..who will solve that??…who is accountable to pick up the pieces???
Power to the peeps Trevor ! but not in this town,
Example 1, the Vale announces they want input from the “people” to decide what should happen with the Abbey Meadows, brilliant, but they didn’t ask the peeps for their/our opinion on closing all the public loo’s in town, including the ones in the Meadows!
Example 2, the town council goes ahead with trying to put a cinema in the Guildhall, they say they did some market research on it and the public were in favour, in reality they asked some shoppers at tesco and some in the precinct, 300 in total, which is less than 1% of the towns population, so they’ve gone ahead, in march they stated they’d spent £65k on consultants and plans, a short while ago council (behind closed doors) approved another £25k for the project, that’s getting on for £100k and still nothing, They wouldn’t get away with that even in China !
If the previous administration had done the right thing this would not have been an issue. You are in government, you have to take the responsibility for decisions now.
Who’s the clever stick blogging as Steve King – with a capital K?
Backstreeter, IF someone is putting comments on here purporting to be someone (another commenter), can i suggest that you publish their email address so that we can all let them know what we think of this practise, and also know who is doing it? After all, if this is allowed to continue, who knows which comments are genuine and which are from trolls?!
Why would moving the crossing to Ock St help ease the traffic on Drayton Road? Surely someone has to be using the crossing to stop the flow of traffic on Ock St …… which will be how often? School time (if the children can be bothered) ……… and how about weekends? Should we employ someone to stand there and press the button every 10 mins to enable Drayton Rd plus 159 extra houses worth of cars to move?
It’ll be no different to how it is now …. only worse.
Yes Drayton Road is bad…but so is Spring Rd. Sometimes getting out of Spring Road is so bad I get my daughter out of the car to go and press the crossing light on Marcham Rd. a new crossing on Ock St will make getting out of Spring Rd almost impossible as cars will stop on the roundabout!
Whoever posted comment 33 using my name is the biggest Idiot, see what I mean about democracy Trevor ? this bunch of morons are not even brave enough to use their own name !
Backstreeter, may I ask you to check the URL of the person who posted 33 purporting to be me please? My solicitor is waiting for it.
Money Rules, ok? Unfortunately, neither
Government nor Councils has any, so that just leaves ‘Big Business!’ Will they be standing at the next General Election or will UKIP be the only competition?
Devastating news indeed. A very sad, bad day for Abingdon. Let us hope they are at least prevented from illegally removing some of the trees.
33 comment removed for now so current 33 is not one at fault – so will follow up
Cathy Parker; the lime trees are already marked up for removal….but regardless, the Vale Planning department have a provable track record on tree preservation orders. I still await their officer to get back to me detailing why they allowed the developer to ignore their order at 65 Oxford Rd. They had, and I quote “overwhelming evidence” against the developer…but still allowed them to ride rough shod over the planning rules and regulations that us towns folk cower down to.
Do not hold your breath….the council is powerless.
Just a general question. Can anyone cite one, just ONE planning decision that has gone in “our favour”, in say… the last 5 years?
We all signed petitions…but the Gaol development is still pretty exclusive (except on the third minute from noon on the first second weekday of the month beginning with a vowel – or whatever). So no benefit there to the Abingdon community.
65 Oxford Rd had a tree preservation order imposed, but the developer pulled up the trees. The Council was so infuriated by this…they let them off (that is Adrian Dufield, as the Head of Planned at the Vale who let that through)
Everyone who knows the area agrees that the whole of South Abingdon, and knock on to the whole Science Vale is/can be effected by the Abingdon traffic – but Cllr Nimmo-Smith has ridden rough shod over that community concern.
The whole planning policy of the nation is being pi##ed all over by developers, looking to make money – and s@d the rest of us….and allowed to do so by poorly equipped and inept councils – here’s an idea, why don’t councils turn up to appeal hearings with their own QCs….I’d rather my council tax was spent on that than away days in fancy hotels outside the Vale !
The Gaol complex was supposed to incorporate ” affordable housing”, how exactly is that panning out for everyone I wonder? But hey, we will get 6ft of extra river frontage to enjoy when they open the gates on Tuesday afternoons between this time and that….
North Abingdon is about to get the go ahead for 1000 houses (after a pointless consultation)…and our MP has, at best, got to speak to the Chancellor about the A34 in general ,(rather than Abingdon specifically).
bt
Remind me…as a dispondent yet eager voter, engaged in local politics….what exactly am I voting for?
Since the last time I voted, I can honestly say that absolutely NOTHING has changed from my point of view regarding the infrastructure of Abingdon.
The last lot….got it to where it is, and the current lot have kept it there.
I will gladly vote…but I can’t fathom why I’d bother.
Having said all that….the flowers have really looked lovely in Abingdon this year.
Daniel ….. I also seem to remember the yatching basin for all to enjoy at the Abingdon Marina (or something like that) when it was built ….. and wasn’t there talk of a restaurant or something once? Long time ago, but am sure I remember something like this. Seems all this is private property apart from one small area on the South Quay.
Nothing escapes you, Houdini! Likely before my time I’m afraid. I am a relative new comer to these here parts….
I am quite certain however that the collective memory of the residents will be able to recall numerous occasions where ‘wr’ have come out of it badly.
No worries. There’s an election round the corner, so we can choose between having things as bad as they were….or keep things as bad as they are.
I have had my ‘blue’ flyer about all this come through the door this morning. If frowns were taken into account…then Nicola has certainly done her bit.
It’s only a suggestion, and no doubt too late for this farce…but the next time we have a developer go to appeal; may I suggest the council has its own QC turn up?
Of all the ex-sperts that our councils spend our cash on all willy nilly…a QC (or whatever) seems like a worthwhile one.
Backstreeter I am disappointed to see you have been bullied into removing the original comment no 33 ‘ for now’ ? I did not write it and do not know who did . Probably someone from ‘generation rent ‘ under the age of 40 ? However why was it removed?
Is this Mr kings ( small k ) personal blog or is it yours ?
Is it against the rules to question , or with plenty of justification ridicule Mr king’s motives ? As it seems to me Mr Steve king (small K ) and his Abingdon First Associates have hijacked your blog .
Or is Sir Steve king already our ”visionary dictator” ?
2. Comment no 24 from Mr king ( small k) ”As I’ve said before what Abingdon needs is a visionary dictator, what we’ve got are a load of mutual preening, self preserving, egotistical bods who purport to represent you and me !” ……..Mr king As you are so clever , wealthy and have plenty of time on your hands then why don’t you get yourself elected next year ?
Comment 33 said it was written by Steve King and he said it was not so I removed it on those grounds.
Sorry pseudocream, but Steve king (small k) has no association with AbingdonFirst. A growing number of people are concerned about Abingdon. Steve king (small k) may be one. We are a fair few more…and there are many others.
We haven’t posted on this thread previously; so not sure what you mean about taking it over.
I was one of those who spoke at the meeting. there was quite a gasp went round the room when the portfolio holder announced his decision. Given that most of us had emphasised the fact that this was the route for many schoolchildren we found it quite bizarre that he had based his decision on a twenty minute visit on a Saturday lunchtime. Given that this is totally inadequate I have asked the County councillors who were present to ask the scrutiny committee to call this in. I wonder if scrutiny will do so.
Angela, that is really interesting and I for one look forward to any updates (can you let us know how we might be kept informed)? Who is asking the questions? What are they asking? And of who?
Also, for us lay persons…
– what is “the portfolio holder”?
– What is ” the scrutiny comittee “?
– what does ” calling it in” mean?
The less ‘confusing councillor speak’, the better….
Mr Melville where are you when needed?
Sorry for the council-speak Daniel. Just like Westminster, the decisions these days are made by the leader of the council and his chosen cabinet members. Each cabinet member has responsibility and decision making powers – portfolio – for a particular council service area.
The scrutiny committee – usually chaired by an opposition member- is meant to review council policy, keep a check on how council delivers its services and ensure it is in line with council policy.
The scrutiny committee has the power to “call in” a cabinet decision, which means the cabinet member can be summoned to a scrutiny committee meeting to explain his decision and referr the decision back. If they are not satisfied.
I’m not sure I’ve explained this well, as my experience is with the Vale, but it should be similar.
Thank you Angela. Do you know, are any of these things worthy of any merit? Are they all bark, or actually have some bite? The Vale has an incredibly poor record of any ‘teeth’ on planning matters (65 Oxford Rd as a case in point, despite, quote; ‘overwhelming evidence against the developer’).
“Refer the decision back…”. What does that mean? Refer to who? To do what? By when? Which means? When does the public know if it is indeed ” called in”? How is the explanation publicised? Who gets to hear this explanation – the public? The result of which will be relayed to the electorate when? How?
More discussion behind closed doors? Or widely publicised, attended, reported and appropriately judged hearings?
How and or when will we be notified of a judicial review happening?
What happens to cllr nimmo-smith if the traffic is not recorded at an acceptable level after development – is he accountable now for this decision? I don’t mean come election time, I mean now…while in office and getting it wrong (if that is how it transpires). Is Taylor Wimpey equally accountable if they are not correct in their predictions? Are there any covenants or penalty clauses?
I know you may not know Angela…but while we have your ear…many thanks!
Excellent and clever picture, but isn’t it of two pelicans crossing rather than two pelican crossings?
Daniel, I THINK that The scrutiny committee, after hearing all the evidence can, if they disagree with the decision, recommend to Cabinet that the decision be reversed, or it may go to a meeting of the full council as a recommendation to reverse the decision, but I’m not quite sure which. Neil Fawcett is a county councillor, if he is still following this thread he can enlighten us, otherwise I will go and find out, myself.
Many thanks Angela. I am sure others would be eager to hear the outcomes of all this too, but in the meantime; backstreeter, I am happy for you to give my email address to Angela/Neil if they would rather contact me directly (and you don’t mind passing it on). Many thanks.
Hi – we are looking at getting the decision called in. If we do, and the Scrutiny Committee agrees that the decision was wrong, it then goes back to the Cabinet to decide.
Apologies for slow responses – I’ve been pretty busy dealing with this and it’s also the Vale Council on meeting where they decide whether to continue with their plans to build piecemeal in the Green Belt and I’m also working on that campaign.
Hi Neil, how likely can this be called in, at what point do we have to admit. Defeat and start trying to get as much 106 money as we. Can, a doctor s surgery, a dentist, an increase in the local schools be part of any deal.
Abingdon First
Good to hear Steve king ( small k ) is not part of Abingdon First . As Abingdon First is plainly against addressing the problem of a huge undersupply of housing . Obviously there is an issue of road safety here to be resolved . The national problem and especially in the south is ,house prices continue to rise due to undersupply . Vast numbers of young people ‘generation rent ‘ will continue be forced into renting for decades from private landlords who profit from this situation!
As Steve king is widely known to own a portfolio of rented residential property and is currently building himself a luxury house ,it would look very hypocritical if he was part of Abingdon First ! Steve King is very quick to portray the ‘snouts in the trough image ‘ . See Comment 19 Above “Non-Statutory Interests of ‘far from starved Cllr Nimmo-Smith Note – these are not disclosable pecuniary interests’ Perhaps Mr King should declare his property interests and his income from rented property before he attacks those who have to make land available for housing ? The fact remains Steve king’s name is all over Abingdon First’s website like a rash !
Yes pseudocream, Steve king (small k) has posted various comments on our website; as have others; as everyone is welcome and encouraged to do.
We aren’t particularly against addressing anything. You are encouraged to contact us if there is something you feel we should be trying to look at, or that you feel strongly about that the people of the town don’t know of. Better still, if you can, please write a piece on it and we can post it for you – it’s quite tough being able to spend the time on the site it requires – but we would value your support and contribution .
Those of us at the meeting on 9th October were dismayed at the about turn by OCC on a previous decision. The decision was based solely on what would happen at the twin roundabouts without taking into consideration the bigger picture for South Abingdon.
The changes at the twin roundabouts will not solve the congestion problem once the 159 new houses are occupied. The reasons are already in print, as follows.
Hallam suggested that the new pelican crossings would reduce the length of the peak time queue in Drayton Road by 30 car lengths. They then suggested that only 41 cars would leave the new development during the AM peak period, with 30 going north and 11 going south. The Planning Inspector agreed with these figures. See the Planning Inspector’s Appeal Decision Report items 36 to 42 on Development Traffic
As part of their planning application Taylor Wimpey also produced a Traffic Assessment (UN 50148 May 2014), using the same software as Hallam. The table in paragraph 5 shows that now 84 cars would leave the development during the AM peak period and 37 during the PM peak period.
Using the same split as above that would mean 63 cars going north and 21 going south. These 63 cars going north would be joining a queue which has only been shortened to accommodate 30 cars. The queue would therefore lengthen by a further 33 cars.
It was a condition of the Planning Inspectors decision that the proposed housing development could not go ahead if it resulted in more traffic congestion.