The planning appeal by the developers was considered at the end of May and now a decision has been made. Quoting the planning inspectorate website http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/ViewCase.asp?caseid=2191911&coid=2183168
The outcome was Allowed.
The planning inspector thinks there is a real need for more housing in Abingdon.
But he says no development should happen until there is a guarantee that the traffic mitigation measures are to be put in place – that is the additional crossing of Ock Street to the east of Drayton Road, to “avoid severe transport effects that would otherwise arise from the development.”
Surprised NO. Disgusted YES.
Inspector should have said that they can build the houses, but no cars are permitted. – How can a new pedestrian crossing on Ock street improve traffic flows
how many back handers?
Makes it all seem a bit futile really; objecting to anything. How sad.
Still, if nothing else we have all learned that the real answer to assuage the dire traffic situation at this end of town and the ramifications it causes accross the whole area…is ANOTHER crossing. Traffic; sorted.
Out of interest…what comeback do we have to the planning inspector, of the developer if all their gauarantees and traffic mitigation measures DON’T counter the traffic issues?
I assume that the planning inspector can make these decisions free of any blame or accountability for negative outcomes?
How on earth would a pedestrian crossing 2 miles away make the traffic situation better???
Corrupt bulls**t to me…..
daniel – you are right – there is no accountability for decisions by planning inspectors.
Just read inspectors report, well tried to.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, bloods now boiling.
Reads like it was all a foregone conclusion.
Who pays for:
1. The new pedestrian crossing on Ock street.
2. The relocation westwards of the existing crossing.
3. The new traffic lights, road crossings at the entrance to the site.
4. The provision of bus stops and pavements on Drayton road at the site
5. The removal (?)of trees along the length of drayton road
and landscaping of the frontage of the estate onto Drayton road. – presumably providing a wider path/cycl;e path along drayton road.
I think it is possible to appeal to the Secretary of State – but it is very expensive (think what QCs charge) and the grounds for appeal have to be very strong. Irritation (anger) with the Inspector or with the system is not adequate.
Any appeal would need to produce strong legal argument or show pretty clearly that the decision ignored significant planning regulations. Inspectors are not chosen because they usually make mistakes – or because they are corrupt.
I am dismayed by the decision; but letting off steam here is like spitting in the wind – it may clear your throat, but you’re likely to get hit in the eye…
Surely they should have to pay for the traffic mitigation measures, put them in place and then wait to see if they actually work (unlikely) before being allowed to start building.
There must be ?? some sort of scientific evidence and survey results produced by traffic experts to prove that a new crossing will solve the problem. Is this available to the public?
If this evidence is so conclusive lets have a few more pedestrian crossings dotted around the town. Traffic problem solved!
So what’s next? Old women chained to diggers and trees, students hiding in tunnels and other local residents singing around an oil drum. Come on south Abingdon if there’s nothing else left what do you do? You get out a placard and chant! Surely somebody knows where Swampy is these days…
Since our MP spoke against the proposal, perhaps she could be invited to lead any further activity.
How disgusting. It just shows that developers have the government in their back pockets. No real thought or consideration is put into the effects of development on the existing population. So much for cries of the Big Society. We have absolutely no voice whatsoever. Big business and money rule OK. No wonder Hallams were not worried about putting their case. They knew it was a foregone conclusion. Who plays at who’s golf club?
What a cack-handed result and a democratic farce. I grieve for my home town.
Before much longer, the only thing able to move freely through Abingdon will be river water !
Guess what ? Some of the loudest complainants (after the event) will be residents of this new ‘development’.
As local Planners seem to have no clout, does the new County Police Commissioner have any say in this perceived situation (gridlock/public disorder etc.)
hang your heads in shame, VWHDC & no housing without infrastructure MP Nicola Blackwood.
So the powers that be ignore the local people and do what is best for the developers and their pockets as usual. There’s a surprise.
I have lived in Abingdon all my life, but this really is the final straw.
Last one out, turn out the lights.
Absolutely disgusting – despite putting a credible case against the development it was all in vain, complete farce. The whole procedure was just ‘going through the motions’ to appear to be listening to residents when in fact the decision had been made months ago.
Taking some comfort (although not much) that the Grampian condition means that the road improvements have to be in place before development even begins. It also appears that Hallam will be contributing to the cost although I couldn’t find reference as to how much.
I think the whole episode has just gone to highlight just how inept the District Council have been in recent years by letting the Local plan lapse in 2011 and then taking 2 years to get a first draft published. The inspector even makes reference to the fact that he could only give “limited weight” to the plan in its current form. Hopefully this will encourage them to move quicker before other developers swoop in through the massive loophole they have left by their incompetence!
The Inspector’s report read more of how to counter residents views to allow the development. It will make my life in Abingdon more dangerous. Car drivers fed up with queuing on the Drayton Road race down Preston Road and because of parked cars come down on the same side of the road as cars driving up. I have had several near head on misses which will just get more frequent when the houses are built. Will I be able to sue the Inspector for making the roads more dangerous and the likelyhood of accidents more likely to happen?
I think not.
BykerRode & Kelly – the developers will have to pay for all that work.
Paul – you are quite right that there would need to be very firm grounds for any further action. the big weakness in the report is that the Inspector admits that he doesn’t really know the extent to which the changes to crossings around the junction will mitigate the extra traffic created by the development, yet then goes on to allow the appeal on the grounds that the measures will mitigate the problem.
Neil – could one possible course of action then be not to appeal against the development itself but rather ask for a tranisition period after the road improvements have been made to confirm that traffic levels at the junctions drop enough to incorperate the expected increase from the houses? Say 3 months
More houses = more problems such as flooding ,traffic,devaluing near by houses , harms wildlife . However think of the council tax , local council building inspectors,council rental income houses , did I mention how it affects the council
Chris – that would be the rational approach to take, and we could ask.
Moody man – I understand your cynisism, but all thre councils opposed this development, and argued a strong case at the Inquiry. It is a planning inspector that has allowed the development.
Just to concur with Neil. There is no local disagreement in the councils or between the parties on what is a predatory development that will make the traffic worse on drayton road and has an inplausible traffic mitigation plan.
I dont think you’ll find any councilors or indeed local officers rushing to defend what is an appauling decision which has been opposed at every turn.
Planning Inspector eh? Does he live live in Abingdon?
Ah whats new …….. always the same outcome … sigh
Maybe time to up sticks and move? Isle of Sark maybe, to be car free? I’d be happy with a pony…….
Forgot to add, the pony would give me less crap!
Re Chris. I think that is a sensible suggestion and should carried out. So sensible I expect the legal actions to prevent such a move are already in place!
Given that three Councils opposed this development, the local residents will not be alone in their dismay at this decision. I think Chris’ idea is spot on. Perhaps another public meeting can be arranged for us to understand where we (ie the councils & residents) go fom here to do everything we possibly can to ensure the transport improvements are put in place, fully tested and working effectively before development on the site commences.
Town council vs district planners and appeal officers = no chance
It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness. I hope that the Councils and our MP will call a meeting to explain what is possible and what is wishful thinking. Moaning about the Inspector is gets us nowhere; it is the decision and its argument that have to be reviewed.
I am sure that the MP will have had considerable (negative) feedback about this decision. Since she is the person who has most chance of talking to the Secretary of State, I do hope that she will be take a lead.
A gridlocked town with no shops – great vision for the future of Abingdon
Moody man – do you have any idea at all as to what the town cpuncil is responsible for?
Moody Man – you have the line- up wrong:: the protagonists were the developers and the Vale – the former were appealing against the latter who had rejected the original application. The Town Council were speaking in support of the Vale – as were all other local politicians – up to and including the MP.
Nobody here has mentioned Nick Boles the Planning Minister who came to Abingdon recently – is there any way of getting the matter referred to him?
Mathew Barber the Leader of the District Council has tweeted this evening. ” Hugely disappointed by the appeal decision on Drayton Road. VOWHDC will take legal advice on grounds for judicial review”
159 houses, but where are the jobs? Can’t wait for the local councillors to knock on my door for a vote 🙁
The development is entirely contingent on the crossing works in Ock Street, which are in turn dependent on Statutory Processes. So if lots of people object to the new / relocated crossings (with valid grounds), then it can’t go ahead……
Incidentally, if solving the Drayton Road queuing problem is simply a matter of relocating the pedestrian crossing, why has this not been proposed before? Was it considered at the time of the ABITS proposals? Does Neil Fawcett have any information / recollections of this?
I wonder how long it will take the local press to take an interest in this news?
It isn’t up to ‘local councillors’ to create jobs and it isn’t the councils fault this stupid housing site is being built, Hiten. So maybe you should try being a councillor as I am never doing it again, it’s horrid work!
As far as I recall, previous traffic studies have shown that the ‘bottleneck’ is at the McDonald’s roundabout, not the Drayton Road roundabouts. That is why it has been argued that a diamond interchange at Lodge Hill would reduce the traffic coming from the north to that bottleneck, thus speeding up the traffic coming from the east, that is, from Abingdon and the Drayton Road.
How ironic that the worst traffic block might be right in front of the Police station. More reason for the County’s Police Commissioner to make some decisive high-level input to this debate.
While it may not materially affect the imminent Drayton Road problem, a Lodge Hill full interchange would instantly improve the town centre situation at peak times.
For Southbound commuters, is an improved Steventon link any part of the proposed development ?
Going off the point a bit but still traffic related, does anyone know what the “temporary” barriers at the Vineyard/Stratton Way/Stert Street intersection are for? They seem to have been there for years.
GJ apparently the road is structurally unsound and therefore the council have put those ugly barriers there to prevent traffic parking and further running the risk of damaging the road. It is such an eye sore, and just as you come into the town, an awful advert, And then you see the Knowl building that is need of a desperate lick of paint. What the hell is Nicola Balckwood doing to earn her money????
apparently she’s religious so you can’t expect much from her.
The barriers are due to a problem on the culvert that the river sturt flows through ubder sturt street. The county council are addressing it but i know the engineering and access issues are both complex.
What do you expect Nicola to do Rolf? Magic up a new road in the blink of an eye? You people have no idea of how this country really works
I joined the South Abingdon Residents Planning group. The idea was that residents in South Abingdon would have a say (and an interest) in how South Abingdon developed. This has turned out to a futile exercise. Central Government and Developers who can buy influence can ride rough shod over residents and sweep aside any local opinion. Is it any wonder that there is no community any more. Residents have absolutely no say. Profit and outside interests take precedent. Local community is being destroyed.
I will tell you what I expect her to do, Carol. Influence key decision makers to put pressure on those to manage the budget effectively, which would then enable investment being put into basic infrastructure. Those barriers on Stert Street have been there for an age and it is clearly unacceptable. It is bad for the town. I also expect Miss Blackwood to speak to whoever owns that Knowle building and other buildings in the town for that matter so they can be brought up to a satisfactory standard. This short sightedness results in further investment coming into the town being restricted. Its her job not mine. She should get things done, its just not on that the town has to put up with failing basic infrastructure. We all pay our taxes (well most of us)
I will ask again. Were the ‘mitigation’ measures now proposed (slip road at McD’s roundabout and relocation of crossings) considered at the time of ABITS?
If they are going to be so effective now, why have South Abingdon residents still had to put up with the Drayton Road congestion for the past 10 Years?
If there were overriding safety or other objections then, do these not still apply now? Or are the rules different if somebody else offers to pay for the work?
I am sure there are past or present councillors reading these blogs who may know some of the answers to these.
Ref the “blink of an eye” comment perhaps it’s worth introducing the landslide in Bagley Wood to the discussion. Have a look at :-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1369307
@rudi
Religious people can be just as idle as irreligious people – and just as industrious. If you want her to do something, insulting her is probably not the best strategy…
I really don’t know what all the fuss is about… Its just more houses and more traffic.. Here’s a thought.. Why don’t all you lazy people who drive your kids to schools that are 5 mins from your house… And drive to work at fairacres or Abingdon business park just walk? I live in the town centre and walk everywhere, and it really annoys me seeing mums in their ‘Chelsea tractors’ with their overweight kids scoffing McDonalds at 7.30-8.30 am. Why don’t you just do what we did in times gone by… And walk… That’ll go a long way to getting this town less congested, and mean that investors will build in this town. All you have to do is look at places like bicester and witney and see what good it can do to have more cyclists and walkers around
i see the harp is up for sale
Amen Scott. i can’t think of anywhere in abingdon you can not walk to easily, i live in peachcroft and walk everywhere, have done since i used to go to john mason for school, you get people here driving their kids to schools, there is no school in this town that is out of walking distance from anywhere else in town.
I’ve said the same thing about lazy car users Scott but go carful. These people on here get their knickers in a twist if you don’t side with them by pointing the blame at someone else. They want 1950’s Abingdon but want ” the council” (county district or town doesn’t really matter) to do something to make things better. They’re not sure what but it doesn’t matter as it’ll be the wrong thing anyway. If they built a ring road and took away the traffic you’d be reading people moaning that the council took away all the passing trade. If investors built here they’d be moaning that big chain stores were moving in and taking the trade from the local shops. not to mention they would be developing in the wrong place in the wrong style at the wrong time etc etc etc….
Chris I’m sure we would never have lived it down if our mummies had to pick us up from school not to mention missing out on the socialising on the way to and from ( whatever that may have involved) I regularly see people in cars outside schools I know only live one or two roads away but like you say it doesn’t matter where you are in Abingdon your not to away to walk. Trouble is the parents don’t want to get up earlier to see their kids off but in tern are causing it to take just as long to drive.
The Grapes are for sale as well….
The barriers have been explained on this blog for a while, the underground pipes [River Ock??] have been reinforced with brick(divers I recall), but there is still a chance of subsidence, they are hoping they won’t have to dig up the whole area to expose the pipe and rebuild or replace.
The traffic lights could be moved anyway; in that trial period you might see if the proposed changes have any effect in Drayton Road. Ditto the N.Abingdon A34 jnction.
Malcolm – A number of different options were looked at as part of the options for ABITS including putting in traffic lights, changing to one single roundabout and others.
I (and others) suggested making the road bridge into three lanes – with a right turn and a left turn lane heading north, with footbridges outside the current bridge. Apparently there were technical reasons why this couldn’t work.
I don’t recall a specific suggestion like the one Hallam have come up with being looked at. For me it’s in the ‘if it was that easy it would have been done’ category.