Councillor Neil Fawcett tweeted today
“Sadly the County Council Cabinet voted unanimously to allow the moving of the Marcham Road crossing #Abingdon”
Initially Oxfordshire County Council rejected the crossings, then at a second hearing reversed that decision and allowed the moving of the crossings. That decision was referred back to the Cabinet for this final decision.
The lights will consequently move from where they can be seen currently to where the nearest car is speeding.
Moving the pedestrian lights was proposed by the developers as a traffic mitigation measure so that traffic congestion after the development of 159 dwellings on Drayton Road is no worse than before. The area already suffers traffic congestion, and has done for decades, and local people want real road improvements before any further development.
The Leader of The Vale of White Horse District Council is still looking to get legal advice about whether any further avenues are still open to oppose the crossings,
One lesson from this sad saga is that running local government as though it were Westminster (with Cabinets and such) is not a good model. If nobody else has noticed, the Westminster village is not commonly regarded as being in touch with the rest of the UK.
This local example of “Cabinet” decisions simply confirms that the higher up the greasy pole you climb, the further from reality you move. Cloud-cuckoo-land is no longer a joke, but is becoming a grim reality.
Sorry, I should have thanked Neil Fawcett for swimming against the tide!
I agree with ppjs, I think Neil is a ‘White Hat’ and there are other Abingdon Councillors who have the town’s interests at heart … no names, or people might feel they are guilty by association with me. However, the town needs a list of the political numpties who have either supported this and other misconceived developments, or not stood up and opposed it with venom.
No-one, anywhere in Abingdon, is safe from these unthinking traitors.
This would be a list of the councillors the people of the town shouldn’t vote for next time and, if there’s a party political bias to the yeah-sayers then that party should be punished as well.
I just hope nimmo-smiith is out on his ear next time.
what a duff decision. I don’t agree that this is a party political thing. Every councillor in Abingdon (as far as I am aware – there are two who I dont know personally) is against this development regardless of party. All three of our county councilors (and those from our immediate neighbours) argued with cabinet that they reverse this decision. Councilors from all parties have spoken at the various review points in this process, most of us submitted objections to the plans and all of us have voted in one council or other against the development.
This is a case where the occ cabinet are, I’m afraid to say, frightened of judicial review and as a result are not acting in the best interests of Abingdon. I hope the Vale will take a more principled stance, as they have done so far on this matter.
Well, Iain, we expect all Abingdon-based politicians to be on the ‘phone this morning to all media insisting, without fear of career retribution, that this decision be reversed. We expect all of them to be seen on tonight’s regional TV news programmes accusing Vale politicians of being unprincipled and the OCC of being totally gutless. We expect the Town’s politicians to start doing what they were voted in to do … this IS a mandate issue.
Anyone thinking that the rush hour traffic pouring onto the double roundabouts at the end of Ock Street can be alleviated by pedestrian crossings needs their bumps felt.
Time for all Abingdon politicians to ‘grow a pair’ and go public and as public as possible.
newcomer is bang on the money.
the town has already been ruined enough. It doesn’t seem to matter who you vote for, the developments will always go ahead even if there is no infrastructure to support it. In years to come this will really bite
We’re all a part of the “big society” until we disagree, then the people are ignored. Can’t wait for the numpties to come around asking for my vote!
The County Councillors who have allowed this do not have to live with the consequences. It will be a nightmare trying to get out of South Abington down the Dayton Road when all the extra cars are on the road from the new housing. The idea of locallism and the big society are all tosh.
Who the hell advised them on this? The bottom of Ock Street junction is bad enough already and moving the lights will have no effect on the present congestion.
Doesn’t this just show something is wrong with our democratic system. Everyone I am able to vote for at all levels town,district,council and government are opposed to this, yet the people we vote to represent us do not have the power to actually do anything!
It seems to be a case of “responsibility without authority”. Our elected representatives get all the blame but have no authority to do anything about it.
Fully agree Steve – nicely put
Wow … such clever people coming up with the idea of alleviating this huge traffic problem and added houses with moving the pedestrian crossing.
Maybe they can move the rest of Abingdon’s crossings and we’ll have a traffic free town!!
Hahahaha hahahaha …… just drawing breath ….. hahahaha
And a bloomin Happy Christmas to all those idiots!!
Yep, agreed – nicely put Steve.
It does then beg the question….why vote?
We`ve been involved, as residents of south Abingdon, throughout the whole of the opposition to this development by `vulture` developers and have spoken at the various hearings and sat through the 4 days of the Public Enquiry. We are as disappointed as everyone else is by the outcome but we have learned a lot. in the process. The local councillors of ALL parties were united in their opposition to the development – together with the MP. We`d like in particular to thank Neil Fawcett, the County Councillor for S Abingdon for his support and hard work in representing the residents of S Abingdon in this. BUT there were 2 factors that made it highly unlikely that the developers would be resisted. in the end despite the huge efforts made.
1. There was no Local Housing Plan in place which left the Vale open and vulnerable to exactly the kind of speculative bid that Hallams/Taylor Wimpey mounted.
2. With the chronic underfunding and emasculation of local government by the present central Government, the Vale (and the County Council) were faced with writing open-ended cheques for vast amounts for possible judicial reviews/ continual defending of legal positions by hugely expensive lawyers. This in a climate of financial cutbacks necessitated by central government policies. From the beginning, Hallams and Taylor Wimpey had power and money on their side. We still hope that the decision, in some way, may be reversed and are glad that the Leader of the Vale Council is still working towards this.
Hate to sound negative, but here goes another waste of taxpayers money to lawyers who will reword what legal advice has been said before. In reading the OCC documents it mentioned that both OCC and the Vale had taken independent legal advise and both had concluded it couldn’t be overturned. Don’t get me wrong I’m not in favour but here comes a point in this austeer time where the councillors yet again throw good money after bad. What this does highlight is that a two tier (county & district) probably does not work and maybe it is time to look at a Unitary. Even more worrying is the announcement yesterday of a tri-county model and ‘infrastructure’ was mentioned which doesn’t bode well.
The reason there was no Local Housing Plan in place was that the elected nitwits didn’t stick to their knitting and have one in place … so now it’s not their fault … these people live in a dreamworld.
Of course, having let their guard down in this way legal costs are going to be expensive.
Then that traffic expert, nimmo smith changed his mind …. that didn’t help things.
And Iain … who felt they had the authority to plough on with the Guildhall Cinema and now feels they have no responsibility to let the town know what the situation is and how much money has been wasted?
Steven Green (post no 9) is spot on. The Friends of Abingdon wrote along those lines to Nicola Blackwood back in September: her public pronouncements often imply that her status as an MP in a marginal seat gives her good access to ministers so we thought that perhaps she could persuade them to act in the spirit of the Localism Act. Her reply in November was not particularly helpful but she did invite us to write back with suggestions for improvements and we will be doing that in the New Year. Showing that we are speaking on behalf of the wider community can only strengthen our case so we would be happy to incorporate constructive suggestions from others. If you would like to have some input into our work on this do get in touch via
the Friends of Abingdon website http://www.friendsofabingdon.org.uk
Newcomer – this thread (and my comment) has nothing to do with the cinema. You really are a stuck record – or CD given your old job.
I’ve repeatedly, on this site, answered all your questions including on the costs and am not going to bore everyone yet again. These are also a matter of public record and if you are really interested you can read the relevant council meeting minutes or attend the meetings which are open to the public.
Iain, you’d be surprised how many people don’t have a clue what the Guildhall project has cost the Town thus far … not everyone has discovered what exciting reading material council minutes can be … indulge the readers here and give us a ballpark figure including the amount haemorrhaging in costs to the Town on a weekly, monthly and annual basis because the Guildhall lies almost fallow.
I note you star on the current Oxford Mail website with a model of the latest imagineering of the Guildhall project – a snip at £3.5million if all those wayward ducks get into a line. Everything will be okay sometime manana (manyahna) if all those fanciful P&L estimates come to pass, though have you told the Crown & Thistle that their car park may disappear?
It looks comfortably scheduled for after the next election, or, perhaps, the one after that.
It’s so Banana Republic …
Hold on…so, the Guildhall’s gonna be selling bananas!?
I suspect ‘the readers’ dont want to hear me repeat myself Newcomer – they probably want to discuss drayton road which is what this thread is about
Your drivel about the crown and thistle car park is totally made up scaremongering and categorically untrue
The bottom line here, and everyone in Abingdon knows it, is that the town simply cannot take any more development without MAJOR infrastructure improvements being in place FIRST. That includes Lodge Hill and a new river crossing to get as much traffic away from the Ock St/Marcham Road area that is only there because there are no alternatives. Oh! the river crossing is out because the planned road is meant to go through the middle of this hideous Drayton Road development.
Wouldn’t it be great if the local people “black-balled” this development? In other words, Taylor Wimpey build what in essence will be a ghost town! No-one buys, the developer loses millions, and it would be national news and a kick in the teeth for ALL unwanted developments across the country, AND make them think twice before committing money to where it’s not wanted!
Pipe-dream? Maybe, but it WOULD have happened in the old close knit communities.
I fear Guido that the “need for affordable housing” that we are fed will mean that a lot of people will be queuing up to buy the £400k 4 bedroom houses….oh, and get their hands on the £150 bicycle voucher per household.
Still, one bike per household….should be able to take it in turns to go to the cinema!
(Tying in both threads rather successfully, me thinks :))
Surely, Iain, you are an unique politician who doesn’t like to hear himself repeat again and again …
In a vacuum, Iain, one cannot help but speculate especially as you are quoted in the Oxford Mail as saying:
‘But we are also looking at creating a dedicated cinema screen at the back of the building, in what is currently a car park.’
And which car park is this? Do tell.
If you read this thread carefully then you’ll see that there’s a strong element of dissatisfaction about the way that the councils have handled matters on behalf of the Town and I think the Guildhall Cinema is a legitimate topic for discussion.
I’d speculate that circa £100K+ has been spent without any palpable progress and that’s not counting the opportunity costs and the ongoing maintenance of the building. We now appear to be on the Mark III plan, at least, and the finger-in-the-air completion date just continues to recede into the future. You haven’t given an update in the general media for ages, so this is your chance.
I’d really like to be wrong on this, but it’s got all the hallmarks of a slow-motion train crash.
The electorate need to know.
Guido … did I hear that the developer had found evidence of a huge medieval plague pit while excavating the Drayton Road site?
Ooohhh…medieval plague pit? Archaeological survey… Let us hope so…the landowner stumps up the cash for such things…all being well it’s costing them a fortune! Small change of course, but a certain degree of schadenfreude none the less.
With a degree in archaeology and calloses from 100s of hours on site, i will savour every pittyfull trowlling….ever rain soaked day of delay. I only hope the health and safety inspector isn’t called to site because of any possible infringements and stop work til resolved! More delay. More people being paid, while delayed….
Ok, if the need for affordable housing is as great as they are stating, let them make ALL 1,159 new homes to be sold for less than 100k, with a proviso that they cannot be sold for profit for ten years! Either they ARE needed for affordable housing, or they ARE luxury homes to make the developers as much profit, at the expense of the town as possible! Which is it? Surely even though the Vale has given the go-ahead, it is down to OUR Council and OUR planning officers to say what sort of homes can and cannot be built? Slap so many provisos, delaying tactics, Etc. on them that they regret the day that they ever came to Abingdon?!
Rubbish as usual newcomer. The car park i referred to in the interview is the guildhall carpark, nothing to do with the crown and thistle who are our neighbours. I’ll happily show you if you dont believe me.
This is typical of the level of factual accuracy in your posts – i hope sensible people ignore them. because you dont like something doesn’t mean it’s bad.
Apologies for coming late to this discussion – and thanks for the very kind words people have expressed. I’m very sorry that we weren’t able to win in the end.
I’m sure the fear of further legal costs was part of the reason why the Cabinet voted the way they did. A number of them also said very clearly that they were basing their decision on believing ‘the experts’ over the public.
They seemed to miss the point, even though it was spelled out very clearly to them, that no proper assessment had been done of whether the current crossing is safer than the proposed ones, and that no assessment of the wider traffic consequences had been done.
The only hope now is that the Vale can find grounds to have the County’s decision reviewed.
The papers have been full of the negative consequences of the changes in planning that has led to the Drayton Road development. Perhaps a new government in May will reverse that legislation. It may add a new twist to who to vote for….
Will the lib dems adopt the change in their manifesto given the local campaign against Vale plan?
It is a measure of how remote the member of OCC’s Cabinet are that they now consider that their “experts” know better than the voters whom they are asked to serve.
And now, to add to our joy and delight, Westminster has decided to cut local funding even more….
Happy Christmas!
…and so…I still struggle to square the circle. Why vote?
I see there’s a letter (‘I am still waiting’) in the current Abingdon Herald from someone who’s also being stonewalled by the Town Council when it comes to information regarding the financial management of the Guildhall project.
The writer states that he made a formal approach to the Leader of the Council (Sandy Lovatt, I assume) on June 26th of this year for information regarding the Town’s expenditure on the project and was told that such information was not immediately available. The writer was surprised … though I’m not.
Since then, despite promises to the writer, the information requested is still not ‘immediately available’.
Without repeating the whole sorry saga outlined in this letter, the writer concludes by expressing his concern that ‘the town council is either struggling with this major project, or deliberately being secretive, or both’.
I can fully appreciate his concerns.
The whole letter is worth a read.
So, Iain, it appears that I’m not the only ‘concerned citizen’ who’s totally missed your repeated explanations of what the Guildhall project has cost thus far.. I think you should tell us again, soon, so that we have time to absorb the information before the next election.
daniel – my answer to your question is that individual councillors (or MPs for that matter) can make a positive difference, even if they can’t change everything.
One example from our patch – we would not have had the South Abingdon Children’s Centre in its current form for the last 15 years had it not been for a group of local councillors working together to line up the local councils, school and housing associations to make the project happen.
That may not have helped everyone, and it does leave other problems unresolved, but it has helped improve the lives of thousands of children and their families over that time and is one of several things that makes me feel my role is worthwhile.
I could produce a long list of specific and bigger things that I know pro-active local MPs have achieved for their constituencies over the years I’ve been involved in politics.