Strong Winds affected much of Abingdon on Monday and Tuesday. Branches and twigs were left strewn about, but as so often happens, the trees on soft land, near one or other of the rivers, fared worse.
After the wind, along the Mill Stream, and the banks of the River Thames, some trees were left leaning at a greater angle,
or even carried further from their original bank.
One tree, covered in ivy, near the bottom of Healey Close, by the River Ock, had been toppled over.
This ‘bayou’ … how close to the town centre? We are lucky indeed.
Sad to see that the developer seems have put a ‘reception area’ into what, I believe, was to be the ‘public access’ into the Old Gaol from Bridge Street. So the ‘trick’ has been played on The Vale’s vacuous council and there’s going to be a ‘gated development’ and this part of the town is going to be denied the ratepayers.
Come the election – whatever the election – you must remember that it’s not the politics of the candidates, it’s their competence and their ……. – fill in the word of your choice . I started with ‘competence’ as that seems the main attribute lacking.
If and when the ‘promised’ restaurants and riverside area ever come to fruition as part of the Old Goal development, how will they be accessed by the public?
Is this why a restaurant is being pushed at us in the Abbey Gardens plans? To deflect our notice away from the shortfall on the Old Goal planning promises?
Do our councils/administrative bodies have any clout in this? The developers seem to do just as they wish.
The Vale Council seems to be very efficient in granting licences for even more takeaway outlets and for granting extensions of opening hours to those which already exist.
Is this what the Abingdon ratepayer wants rather than access to the open areas at the riverside?
Having made the above post I decided to explore th Old Goal website. They are indeed giving details about 3 restaurants which are said to be available for letting.(Who owns them I wonder?).
But I could find no trace of them on the letting agents website. Anyone have any info?
But to return to the interesting, if sad, pictures on this post…the authorities concerned seem to have been extremely prompt in responding. I passed near there yesterday and noted that the fallen trees on the bank had been cut into logs etc. Sad to see trees go though.
not to play devils advocate or anything but, if you don’t live on the old gaol development why exactly would you want to be there?
@4 I think there is some misunderstanding here. I don’t think either comments 1 or 2/3 say anything about wanting to be ON the development. The issue was more about access to the to Bridge St /E St Helens St walkway hitherto a right of way and access to facilities at the riverside i.e. proposed restaurants and arts space.
rudi … access to the river, throughway/shortcut from East St Helens to Bridge Street, a sense of ‘communal ownership’ of the town, proof the The Vale isn’t going to sell the rest of the town from under our noses … after all, The Vale Cabinet have absolutely no personal interest in the town apart from looting it.
That said, the river bank at the Old Goal now looks like a fortification and has no charm whatsoever, so you may have a point.
The sale agreement and planning approval for the Old Gaol were conditional on public access (day times, 6 days pw) all the way round the Old Gaol building and through the new development/Twickenham House to East St Helen Street. The S106 agreement specifies the routes and hours.
When the route through to East St Helens was first supposed to be opened it took a fair amount of lobbying from some of us to make it actually happen and it looks as if we are going to have the same with the routes around the building: the one behind it is described in the Marketing brochure as “private access for residents”! I feel another campaign coming on….
PS thanks to Newcomer for flagging this up: I went to look this afternoon and although the new reception area does indeed block off the former main entrance, and will spoil the view of the building it does not prevent public access as that will be through the new entrance they created by knocking down part of the police station.
….if ‘public access’ is a requirement under the plans, is part of some legally binding/authoritative sounding S106 agreements etc…why is a campaign necessary?
Either we have the access stipulated. Or we don’t. Either the full weight of planning enforcement will reap its thunder towards Cranbourne Homes….or it won’t.
Hester … still such an optimist.
Post hoc rationalization is what keeps the ‘reasonable’ busy while the determined steal their heritage.
You should stop consorting with the enemy.
Daniel, I think the provision of social housing was a condition, but the developer wriggled out of that.
Were this fiction one might expect the plot to develop into various local office holders/officials having received fat brown envelopes, but this is the outer Home Counties, and this is Abingdon and nothing like that could have possibly happened …
Thank God we live in the Real World.
I think the social housing was the houses they built at the top of drayton road where the garage used to be
If that’s the case rather a good result for the developers, don’tcha think, Iain?
Not exactly unusual approach. I guess its the way developers think – at least there was some social housing which is the most important thing
Iain, I think the local developer has manoeuvred the (willing/pliable/incompetent) Vale Cabinet nincompoops into gifting them a private gated estate in the middle of the town.
I wouldn’t trust the Vale Cabinet with the office’s biscuit kitty.
On this I must disagree Iain; the most important thing is that we can rely on The Vale to absolutely, unequivocally ensure that the very best has been achieved for Abingdon.
The winners from the Gaol fiasco is absolutely, and unequivocally…the developers.
To say “…at least we got some social housing…” is the net result of an absolutely awful set of circumstances, that were allowed to come to pass by The Veil. Abingdon expected and deserved the very most from the Gaol fiasco. Not the very least.
I, too, went down to look at the Old Goal development this afternoon. Thank you for the enlightenment…I wondered what the big glass doors on Bridge Street were an entrance to.
I noted though that the gateway on the East St Helens St side is now locked with a key pad and intercom, so I guess that way in to the public access is now blocked off. Game, set and match to the developers I guess.
“Where” does the intercom go to?
I don’t think the people of Abingdon can afford to have whoever made the Vale’s decisions on The Old Gaol making decisions for the town again. We need to know who were the Vale’s decision makers and what decisions they were responsible for. This is NOT commercially confidential.
What should have been a facility for the town has ended up being a revenue stream for the Vale.
The present Old Gaol site seems to have lost all the advantages of its riverside location by become a fortress – probably its original design brief in the 19th century. However, we were promised more and it doesn’t say much about the local authority exercise of regulator powers that is has submitted without demur to a breach of the planning conditions.
And the idea of putting the promised social housing well away from Old Gaol is social planning snobbery of the worst kind: the well-to-do mustn’t be allowed to see the poor, it might upset their breakfasts!
Newcomer – I fail to see how lobbying the authorities to enforce obligations on developers (as opposed to just bleating about it on blogs) can be described as “consorting with them”!
Cassandra – at the risk of people thinking I am defending Cranbourne (those who know me know that that is hardly likely!) the sad fact is that Bank Holidays and Sundays are the days when they ARE allowed to close the gates so they might well not have been open yesterday. I will go and check today.
It was this time last year that we succeeded in getting them to stick to their commitments – and remove the “private- no access” signs, but anything people like you can do to report backsliding is very helpful.
Newcomer an Daniel – you need to remember that the cranbourne homes deal precedes the current administration, as did the social housing on the drayton road. The developers neglect of planning conditions is another matter and i agree the vale should be enforcing them vigorously
Hi Iain – am grateful for the dialogue. What do you mean though? I am starting to understand that regardless of politics, or colour of the party at the top table….decisions affecting our town are made by the unelected. By the council officers. Have those people changed at all in the last few years?
The Gaol fiasco was a number crunching exercise….who crunched those numbers? It wasn’t a yellow councillor, was it?
Iain, I’m sure Daniel is as aware as I am re. the timeline of this sad exploitation of what should have become an attractive public asset for all the residents of the town.
I’d really like to stress that I don’t have any political affiliations and if you feel as though I’ve had a go at you in the past because you’re a Tory then you’re wrong. Labour and the LibDims can be as incompetent as Tories.
Oh dear … that last bit might scan a little more hurtfully than I meant … don’t take that last bit too much to heart. I know you are a well intentioned chap, but you should never have picked-up the poisoned chalice of the Guildhall (and yes, I know which party was in power when that decision was made).
As for the Old Gaol, we need to know which politicians/civil servants seem to have been colluding with the developer such that we’ve arrived at the current sad situation.
Now is the turn of the ‘political season’ when politicians (of all stripes) are particularly long on stating initiatives they will never deliver. It’s not clever being cynical … it’s the New Realism. We need to know the actions and voting records of our councilors … issue by issue.
I’ll vote for any candidate who would live up to a promise to use every effort at their disposal to make ALL council(s) discussion on local issues public. None of this ‘commercial confidentiality’ and ‘it’s too complicated’.
Councilors are elected to crack the whip on our behalves. Let’s see some action.
From The Herald, 2 Jan 2008:
Homes and shops for Old Gaol
Jerry Patterson, leader of the district council, said: “This scheme will deliver much greater access to the site than we have ever had in living memory.
“It will provide an elegant gateway to the town, providing a lively focus point right by the river – as well as delivering affordable housing elsewhere in the town.”
Jerry Patterson … where are they now? Long gone, we hope.
The affordable housing to be provided under section 106 was to be homeless temporary accommodation at Harcourt Way. Originally it was supposed to be 14 singles’ flats but it’ was revised to be fewer but larger flats to accommodate families. Every time I asked when this will get built I got told that an application will be coming to planning very soon. This still hasn’t happened. The last time I asked, recently, I was told it wasn’t actually needed any more. Giiven that the Vale is now using bed and breakfast as emergency temporary accommodation I find this very difficult to believe.
I was the portfolio holder for housing when the Old Gaol development plan was approved, so have to bear some responsibilty because I was never happy with Cranbourne Homes being the selected developer because of a past experience, but never said why.
…so what can be done now? Or best just to let it go?
The proposal to build 8 flats for homeless families on the site did resurface in April/May 2014 but there was outcry from local residents who thought it was more important to preserve the homes of wildlife including “birds and ethnic mammals, particularly hegehogs” than provide homes with easy access to schools and shops for needy people.
Daniel – what we can do is a) ask all those seeking election what they plan to do to meet Abingdon’s housing needs and b) start lobbying the newly elected Vale Councillors from May 8th!
The site used to be s tree nursery belonging to the Vale. Once it ceased to be it was always intended for social housing. it only became a wildlife “haven” because there was such delay in the section 106 accommodation being built. The oppostition from the most local residents was due to fear of anti social behaviour that might ensue from tenants. This wasnt without reason since similar accommodation in close by Marsh Court had resulted in this, despite promises to the contrary, until better management was put in place. As far as I’m aware, and I speak as the local councillor, there hasn’t been any trouble since. Lessons having been learnt from that experience mean that the Harcourt Way development will have better control systems in place from the start, this was also one of the reasons for switching from single people’s accommodation to families. but this hasn’t been enough to allay fears, hence the opposition, Conservationists have picked up on the wildlife aspect and joined the fray.
And Hester is right, we need more people to be asking candidates and new Vale councillors what They intend to do to meet local housing need.
Nope. I don’t swallow it. Smoke and mirrors….
Whilst we all argue amongst ourselves over the “he said, she saids”….the Developer gets away as the innocent party in all of this.
This shows us a number of things: Developers can not be trusted. The Planning controls put in place to protect us from untrustworthy developers can not be trusted. Rather than this issue be brought to rest at the feet of those who are responsible…we can’t trust that it ever will be.
In light of this, it isn’t the hedgehogs fault, but the developers and the planners and all the enforcement of those.
This housing, was, I thought, supposed to go somewhere else – was it near Fitzharris(?)…but only because that all got messed around, this other site was plucked?
This (the social/106 housing or what have you) should have been done and dusted, built and painted before a Napoleonic brick was touched. Of course, it wasn’t…as we had a developer to keep happy. Don’t blame anyone else.
Of course, whilst all this rumbles on we will also forget how much all this has truely cost us….
As Cranbourne paid LESS in the end for The Gaol, because of the property market downturn, can we assume The Veil is now on to them to pay not what they should have done but actually X% more, as property is now at the “previous peak +some”? No…of course we aren’t.
Of course…blame the hedhhogs if it suits.
The question keeps being asked, who was responsible for the Old Gaol?
I don’t think anyone else was who contributes to the blog apart from me so let me tell you how it was from my perspective
The ruling group were the Lib Dems and I was one of them, on the Executive as the portfolio for Housing.
This was going to be a huge decision, a huge responsibility
We had consultants to advise … of course we did, how could we not.,
There was lots of discussion which I’m sure included the whole council.
We were insistent that any tender had to include community use, public access to the riverside, and social housing off-site. We also knew that we had a responsibility to get as good a financial deal as possible.
I can’t remember if we had a long list of tenders.
There were 6 developers whose tenders we examined, carefully, and whose presentations we listened to, carefuly. One was offering to take the Old Gail off our hands … for a small fee! In the end it seemed that Cranbourne Homes was ticking all the boxes and offering the best financial deal. Almost too good to be true….. so how could we not go with it?
Hours were spent throughout the process, by all of us. I’m pretty sure the whole council was invited to the presentations, but it was 7 years ago so my memory may be playing tricks.
We are still waiting for all that was promised by Cranbourne but we do have the new premises for The Abingdon Bridge young people’s advice and support centre – the Community use deal that was agreed.
It looks like we are going to have to be vigilant in ensuring tthat we get the public access to the river and to keep up the pressure for the social housing, Since I will no longer be a Vale Councilloor after May I shall have to do it from the outside, but trust me, I will.
While it’s fine to be critical of the outcome it is not fair to be so rude about those involved in the decision. Making.
Would a different set of councillors have succeeded any better?
If you were one of the councillors how would you have done it?
To the best of my knowledge there has never been anything underhand in any way about the process which I have seen suggested at some time or another.
Daniel, I don’t understand your point about smoke and mirrors.
The Harcourt Way site was always the one intended for the social housing not The Fitzharris Room (community hall)
All this ‘misunderstanding’ would have been avoided had politicians trusted the electorate and been open with the whole process. Of course, an independent forum, such as this, would be needed to avoid any accusation of censorship on the cumbersome council sites.
We were sworn to complete secrecy over the tendering, but that’s normal because it would affect the tendering. I honestly can’t remember how much of the whole process was made public, but Lib Dem policy generally was to open up the council to the public and not have things in confidential without good reason.
I’m not being secretive or making excuses, I honestly can’t remeber much more about it. All I can say is that we genuinley believed we were doing the right thing at the time and had got the best deal.
Perhaps I should have explained my own unease about Cranbourne, but it was based on work their “parent” company, as local builders, had done at my house, many years before, and it seemed wrong to use my personal prejudice against them.
A useful explanation Angela. Thank you.
My comment is about the hedgehogs. It feels like someone is about to lazily shout out “NIMBY” regarding the social housing…. Which is 100% not what this is about, and is anything but the real issue.
Look how badly things have gone for the Abingdon rate payer regarding the Gaol. Think of all we could have learned to ensure the same doesn’t happen again and we are walked all over by developers.
65 Oxford Rd, Drayton Rd development fiasco….
We are about to get 1000 houses in North Abingdon. We are about to get Abbey Meadow developed. Abbey House? Charter phase 2? It would be lovely to think that we are strong, planning regulated, enforced….but who really thinks any of what is to come is to be done any better than what has gone before? I have zero confidence in the system to do what is best for us, when we should have every confidence.
Blame the hedgehogs if you like….but what we really need to do is address the issues and the failing of the system.
Do the developers make any provisions for flower beds, I wonder?
I was one of those involved in the Community in the Old Gaol Campaign and – under strict commercial confientiality restrictions – we were given access to the documents involved in the final stages, specifically details of the four bids on the final shortlist. The Vale’s decision brief (whic had been published) had 5 criteria – one financial and 4 others. The financial criterion counted for 50% of the weighting if a mechanistic scoring approach was taken. It was clear that the Cranbourne proposal was a considerable way ahead of the others on the financial side: this was almost certainly because they already owned Twickenham House so were able to factor in the use of that area, which other bidders could not. The Cranbourne proposal was not substantially better or worse than the others on the remaining criteria: none of them were great from the Community point of view.
From what I saw I do not believe there are any grounds for accusing councilors of dirty tricks at the decision stage – what I am very unhappy with is what has happened since. I dont know what changes – if any – were negotiated to the financial terms, although that has been the subject of much speculation and comment andit would be good if the Vale could give a clear answer once and for all. What I do know is that there has been a gradual erosion of the other aspects to the agreement, whether to do with public access, the vsiual appearance of the site, or the provision of socal housing as discussed above and I fully intend to tackle councillors about this afetr the election.
Whatever confidentiality councilors are sworn to I would have thought their main contractual responsibility would be to their electorate.
Much of the the arrangements re. the Old Goal are now sufficiently in the past that I would have thought the ‘books’ could now be opened on everything.
Commercial confidentiality I can understand at the tendering process stage….but after all this time (7 years?), there can be no commercial confidentiality and there should not be ANY confidentiality about what was supposed to be paid, and what has ACTUALLY been paid by Cranbourne….otherwise it DOES look as though there has been some underhand dealings or money has “disappeared”!
(It may be perfectly legal and above board, but with all of this “smoke and mirrors”, to the average lay-person, it LOOKS as though this deal stinks!) SOMEONE somewhere knows exactly how much Cranbourne were supposed to pay, (Sandy Lovatt let slip on radio Oxford that it was £7 million??), and SOMEONE somewhere knows exactly how much of that initial figure has been paid back…or is it, as there have been suggestions, been written off as a long term loan…never to be paid back? Whichever way, Abingdon taxpayers have been shafted….! Someone should be liable for this! We have a RIGHT to know who to blame!
Julian is an honest man. I’m with him. Are there any honest people on the council? I”m sure there are. It’s time for you to stand up and blow the conspiracy.
I can’t blow any conspiracy because I don’t know of any conspiracy and that’s an honest answer.
I have been concentrating my watch on the housing, with little success, obviously, 🙁 and left it to the financial and other experts to to chase up on other stuff.
Angela, thank you for your honesty. Can we be assured that the “financial and other experts” are actually chasing this matter up? At very best it looks like gross financial mismanagement….and at worse…..?!
I would hope and trust that the leader and whichever cabinet member now has respondibility would be chasing, also the shadow cabinet members, but I don’t know.
I have to confess that, being Mayor this year, I just haven’t had time to concentrate so much on the Vale as normal.