The Vale of White Horse Planning Committee voted by seven votes to five, with one abstention, to allow 158 dwellings on the field next to the Drayton Road – on the other side of those Lime Trees. 10 of the Lime Trees will be cut down to make an entrance onto the Drayton Road.
The committee were deciding on Taylor Wimpey’s modified housing plan. Taylor Wimpey had brought the land from a previous developer with a plan for 159 dwellings, but wanted to use their own style of housing. That original plan was turned down by the Vale of White Horse Planning Chairman, without even going to committee – among other factors, because of South Abingdon’s traffic problems. But that plan was allowed on appeal by a planning inspector. This time the modified plan did go to the committee, and that same chairman voted for the modified plan, and Council officers kept saying it would be very cavalier of councillors to go against officer advice, and face significant costs if they lost a second time on appeal.
A number of local councillors had spoken against the scheme before it was discussed by the committee, and three local residents were allowed just 3 minutes between them to present the views of residents. When the clock stopped for Anthea to take over there were just 33 seconds remaining. She wanted to speak on the environmental issues of the development. She put the case that the developer’s studies had failed to reveal the bats and other wildlife. She did not have time for her conclusion, which was “One has to conclude that if the developer’s evidence is inaccurate, here, then surely other aspects are also inaccurate.”
After the vote, the debate ended in shambles as some Councillors thought there was still time to include a condition about measuring the effect of the traffic mitigation scheme (those pedestrian lights on Marcham Road) before houses were built That was ruled out of order. It should have been proposed properly and voted on before going to the final vote.
…localism in action, from Parish to Parliament.
Surely, chairing a committee meeting includes the responsibility for timing matters properly and ensuring that procedure is kept and allowing for all relevant issues to be considered. Were other contributors to the debate limited to three minutes?
At least it sounds as though the elected Councillors know deep down that the decision to go ahead is fraught with serious consequences for the town infrastructure. Why do paid officials think that their judgement (opinion) is unchallengeable?
Did the Chairman’s nerve fail?
Abingdon Councillors put up a heroic fight against the planning permission being granted. I do not think that they could have done any more. The planning officer was adamant that planning permission be given despite evidence being given about the danger of cars entering and exiting the development in a 50 mile an hour zone and tthe traffic mitigation of moving the crossing not being proven. Yes local residents had 1 minute each to put their case. No one had chance to put their conclusion
As the public had a time limit one can only hope the idiots who passed this have a time limit as well … lasting until the the next election. This especially for the Chairman of the committee who, from this report, comes out of this very poorly.
Woeful decision. Drayton road will be gridlocked. The town Centre is off limits if you live South Abingdon, it’s quicker to get to Didcot.
Big society?
If the Tories want people to believe in the big society, they need to listen to the people!
I invite the Planning Officer to stay at my house for a week – he can live in the shepherd’s hut at the back – and to drive to work each day from Mill Road. On a normal day during school term time getting out to the A34 in order to get to work will take about 15 minutes for the half mile journey. If there’s any additional problem on the A34, he will need a calendar rather than a stopwatch….
There are a couple of issues I have here. The first is the assertion that “Council officers kept saying it would be very cavalier of councillors to go against officer advice,” Pray tell, if councillors cannot go against officer advice, what is the point of having councillors at all? Surely they exist to evaluate and, yes sometimes overrule officers? Otherwise we have no democratic accountability.
The other issue is that I have slight issue with talking in vague terms about committe members rather than naming those who attended, and who voted which way. On the planning committee it is quite disturbing how few members represent or live in Abingdon, the biggest town in the Vale. Accorning to the website, here are the committee members. I have added in which ward they represent. It would be good to know how individuals voted. Does anyone know?:
• Councillor Robert Sharp (Chairman) (con: Standford, lives in Shellingford)
• Councillor Sandy Lovatt (Vice-Chairman) (Con: Abingdon, Dunmore, lives in Abingdon)
• Councillor Eric Batts (con: North Hinksey and Wytham. Lives in Southmoor, Abingdon)
• Councillor Roger Cox (Con: Faringdon and the Coxwells. Lives in Faringdon)
• Councillor Anthony Hayward (Con: Longworth, lives in Goosey)
• Councillor Bob Johnston (Lib Dem: Radley, lives in Kennington)
• Councillor Bill Jones (Con: Hendreds, lives in Wantage)
• Councillor Sue Marchant (Lib Dem: Grove. Lives in Grove)
• Councillor Jerry Patterson (Lib Dem: Kennington and South Hinksey. Lives in Kennington)
• Councillor Janet Shelley (Con: Blewbury and Upton. Lives in East Hendred)
• Councillor Margaret Turner (Con: Harwell, lives in Harwell)
• Councillor Catherine Webber (Lib Dem: MArcham and Shippon, lives in Drayton)
• Councillor Richard Webber (Lib Dem: Drayton. Lives in Drayton)
• Councillor John Woodford (Lib Dem Appleford and Cumnor, lives in Abingdon)
• Councillor John Amys (Substitute) ( Con: Grove. Lives in Grove)
Well put re. the ‘democratic process’, davidofLuton.
And your list … it looks as though our problem is ‘The Village People’.
I was a substitute member of the Planning Committee last night and ended very frustrated that my comments on resident’s behalf seemed to be overruled. I still do not know how errors and omissions in the report could not be deferred for clarification or how the installation of the new crossings should have been made a condition of any permission – and be proved to have worked. It will be too late if they don’t.
PS I voted against the application and the developer noted my name as doing so !
Thanks for a fly on the wall POV mike. So, out of interest….if you (and others) have dire concerns regarding the process by which the decision has come about….what recourse is there?
There must surely be some “higher authority”…. Even one higher than ” The Planning Committee”, that such concerns must be raisable to? An ombudsman, a complaints department?
A quick Google brings up this:
http://www.planning-applications.co.uk/ombudsman.htm
Now, my “laypersons” reading of it seems to take fromit that there may wellbe a case to answer and take to the Planning Ombudsman that correct processes have not been carried out – taht eveidence has not been heard etc.
If anyone else thinks that thsi is a case worth further discussion, then I am happy to meet up with like minded individuals.
This being the case, what would be needed in the first instance (from our better placed Councillors) is specific details on what the “etc” is above….what concerns might there be regarding how this decision has been brought about. We are not appealing the decision…we are raising concerns about the process used to bring about that decision and how we feel that the local Planning Committee has not acted appropriately.
Happy to meet and discuss, if anyone thinks it is worth while…or indeed can find a better place to direct our grieviances.
I am in the process of taking further advice.
Thank you Mike.
Of course, individuals can contact the Ombudsman themselves – it does not necessarily need to be via their Councillor.
If you haven’t seen it already Mike, I have sent you an email. I look forward to your reply to the questions I raised and taking my own plight forwards, or disseminating it to others.
I await your reply, both personally, and on this blog.
It is quite amazing how cowed our council members are with the threat of legal action. Central government give the illusion of local power where in fact none really exists when the power of a large company like Wimpey can put the wind up the official at the mere threat of expensive litigation.
I am not blaming the councilors for having no backbone, but the system that has been put in place to scare them away from dealing with local interests first and foremost, and big business second.
I also think it a good idea to name and shame the Councillors who voted in favour of this application, it seems solely because of Mr Watson’s decision (based on clearly flawed ‘evidence’ provided by the developers). I attended, as you know, and from memory can say who voted against. Against the Application were: Richard and Catherine Webber, Mike Badcock, Sandy Lovett and ??? can anyone recall who the other vote against was made by?
For sure the following voted for: Jerry Patterson (despite saying he thought the plan an outrage!)
At the end of the day we need houses, to help reduce cost and to gain much needed infrastructure money.
I find people in this area are very ‘not in my back garden’ about situations such as this.
EC…of course, you have a point…and we are all entitled to your opinion, however you either are nor aware of the concerns surrounding this development, or disagree with them.
This development of 158 ‘high end’ houses will do little to address the housing crisis we are all told to believe exists.
These houses are not actually in my back yard. Yet I can still see that the wrong houses, in the wrong place are a poor solution. Still…I am happy to accept them should the planning process be trustworthy and demonstrably followed. It isn’t. It hasn’t.
EC. Your comment “I find people in this area” to be disgustingly condescending. Also, “Infastructure Money” points towards you being one of the Schister property developers or even worse, one of the council cowards who voted for the development. The decision has been made by people who will not be affected by the Drayton Road carpark, as it will become and I will back any way of stopping it, good luck Mike and Daniel. Do not hide behind your initials again, say who you are. I don’t want people to think your idiotic comments came from me.
…no real update from me, regarding the Ombudsman. I havw been working on my letter today, and I am still looking to collate specific incidents/details where people feel that the process has fallen short…so, if any of you who attended meetings, were shouted down, were aghast at why a decision took a particular turn etc, please let me know – I will be contacting the ombudsman myself regardless…so please…details welcome!
Whilst there is no mention of the Planning decision on the VOWH website or their Twitter account, Taylor Wimpey are advertising the Drayton development as *coming soon.”
The following appears on the overview on Taylor Wimpey’s website.
“Local amentities right on your doorstep – including a convenience store for those everyday essentials and the Orchard Centre and Clarendon Centre – offering high street names and plenty of places to eat or grab a coffee.”
…haven’t had a reply from any of my councillors yet. Hopefully I will next week.
Nice to know that Taylor Wimpey are boosting Didcot’s and Oxford’s shopping facilities, whilst ignoring Abingdon’s struggling retail sector….oh wait, they obviously know that the road into town wil be gridlockedv and unusable….