Public Meeting
Wednesday, 6th April 2011, 7.30pm
Oakhurst Community Primary School
(Compiled by Paul Exell, edited by Brychan Travers)
Welcome from Graham Mack (GM)
GM: The draft Core Strategy says that 19,000 more homes are needed. Are they in fact needed and are 1700 at Tadpole Farm specifically needed?
IB: Please submit your questions, we will get to all if we can and will try to answer all eventually.
Introduction of the Panel:
Ian Birch (IB) – Chair ORA
Steph Exell (SE) – Secretary ORA
Mark Viner (MV) – Labour party candidate for Abbey Meads
Peter Heaton-Jones (PHJ) – Abbey Meads Ward Councillor
Peter Stoddart (PS) – Abbey Meads Ward Councillor
Vera Tomlinson (VT) – Abbey Meads Ward Councillor
Justin Tomlinson (JT) – MP, North Swindon
Rod Bluh (RBluh) – Leader of Swindon Borough Council (SBC)
Dave Potter (DP) – Director of Planning and Transport (SBC)
Richard Bell (RBell) – Head of Planning (SBC)
James Jackson (JJ) – Strategic Transport (SBC)
GM: So how about 1700 houses at Tadpole Farm?
RBluh: I’ll start by filling in approach to strategy; why we build and why it is an issue, always. Tadpole Farm is a proposed site; there is no planning application yet. Full details are not yet known, until an application is in, then the Planning dept cannot decide on it. Tadpole Farm has been in the Core Strategy since 2008, and it is one of the areas that makes up the requirement for the 19,000 homes that SBC want to deliver by 2026. The previous Core Strategy had 36,000 houses; the new Strategy radically reduces this number. 36,000 new homes were neither desirable nor deliverable. We are trying with this latest Core Strategy to match numbers required with the potential to deliver them. The market determines the number needed; about 1,200 a year on average, 2,300 at peak and 300-400 at lowest.
We don’t know now when the recovery will kick in and when these will be built. We keep hearing that there is a shortage in supply. Why is there a demand? One main reason is immigration, according to some, but really it is an ageing population. As people live longer they need more houses. Also, single occupancy is increasing. Needed in the UK generally, Swindon attracts growth and employment. It has transport links and has been on a growth curve for a long time. Nobody can get up and tell you that there is no need for houses, as that would not be the truth. There will be houses in the future, there will be planning consents; it is about managing the quality of houses, the associated infrastructure and overall design. We must make sure we learn lessons from the past, we need to build communities that work. Nobody here has all of the answers, so we need to keep it flexible. One of the big concerns for many with large developments is that the houses will appear overnight. However, it takes years to build them. They are phased and therefore some of the concerns that seem to come up at the planning phase are not the reality. Hope the answer gives an indication.
GM: Who is in favour of Tadpole Farm?
RBluh: Yes.
DP: For it being in the Core Strategy.
JT: I am a local resident in Taw Hill, and have a mailbag full of people on waiting list for houses. The government has said locally people can choose how many houses need to be built; but that would result in no houses being built. The government responded with an incentive to build (6 years Council Tax up front, per house). I’m not against all development; but as local resident, I think North Swindon is full. For any further development to take place we need more infrastructure. At best, Redhouse is a concrete jungle; in the past there has been poor design. In the past, objections could be made on the basis of too low a density, but you could not object on too high a density. Also of concern are school places; any new development must have these in place. We cannot have unsustainable development.
GM: But you voted for it?
JT: I voted for it in Core Strategy in the context of 36,000 houses in the entire strategy. But we cannot take the houses with the current infrastructure. Due to Oakhurst/Redhouse having such a high density compared to other areas, this is not sustainable.
GM: Shall we talk about transport?
JJ: If we can outline the original background of Tadpole Farm. It was a decision as to which site was most suitable to bring forward. We’re now looking at mitigation and detail, the impact on Oakhurst Way/Mead Way and the proposed new access to the north – this is part of the ongoing planning process.
GM: So will the transport links be in place?
JJ: That is not known yet. When an application comes in, it will contain the developer’s view on what they will do to mitigate the impacts.
GM: Anyone else on the panel want to comment?
MV: The Labour group feel that it should not go ahead until the infrastructure is sorted. These roads were never designed to cope with this volume of traffic. Without the pre-provision of a spine road, we are not in favour of this development. Thamesdown Drive went in very early, due to the political will to get it built at start of development, so it is possible.
RBluh: When I say yes to development, it is down to the quality of infrastructure being in place. Until the planning application is in, we will not know this for sure; it will be up to the Planning and Traffic departments of SBC to assess this. There are two issues. Firstly, the principle of development; we may need houses, but if the money is not there for infrastructure, then someone has to say ‘Enough is enough’. Secondly, the impact on community: schools, hospitals, leisure facilities. Developers’ contributions will not cover all of these costs. So it comes to the big picture of the infrastructure; it is key.
PHJ: Let us first be clear, there is no planning application in yet, but Crest have given us quite a good idea of what they are planning. What they are currently proposing I am not in support of. They think that Tadpole Farm is an island and forget that there are people living within 500 yards of it. They forget that there are roads, schools, community facilities that cannot cope already. If they do put in an application then they will have to improve it.
(Question from) Floor: They are talking about an unlit country lane as a main transport route?
DP: A link to the A419 is needed.
JT: I have been inundated with post about the A419 in the last two days. If developer contributions do not cover cost of infrastructure, then this is another point against their design.
Floor: At consultation, we were told that the developers had looked at on/off ramps on the A419 but the Highways Agency had turned it down. So a A419 link means traffic going through Blunsdon; it is going to overload the junction.
DP: The Highways Agency has a right of veto on any application. Discussions are being held at the moment with Crest about how we can make it work. We are also continuing to talk to the Highways Agency about alternative options. If we are determining a planning application, then we have to look at the capacity of the road; queuing on roads is not a valid reason for refusal. Councillors have to take it in to account, but might still lose on appeal. Provided the roads can take it, then they have to accept it. We undertake modelling; if it shows that the roads do not work, then that is grounds for refusal. There are other grounds: nuisance, obstruction or inconvenience. The amenities test is more subjective.
Floor: What about safety for children? There have been so many near misses already along Oakhurst Way.
DP: We have to take safety in to account.
Floor: What about safety in the tunnel under the A419?
DP: This has to be assessed by the Traffic department, using rigorous safety tests.
GM: Steph, you have a question?
SE: When I have been in discussion with Crest and James Jackson about traffic modelling, I do not get any feeling of confidence concerning their accuracy. Ridiculous figures are quoted; the area of search was Akers Way into town but not including Rideway Farm, Pry Farm developments, etc. There is a Wiltshire County Council document that says that if you have houses on boundaries, then it can result in over capacity on junctions. Callington, Thamesdown Drive, Mead Way, Purton Road, Akers Way are junctions that are already over capacity, to name but a few. Ridgeway Farm is not included in modelling as it is only an application; it is not an approved plan, but it will have a huge impact on Oakhurst Way.
DP: We have undertaken the strategic modelling to look at where traffic will flow. We have made our views known to Wiltshire County Council on Ridgeway Farm; about its impact and the cumulative impact on Swindon. If the application is refused and appealed, SBC will make its traffic concerns known again at appeal.
GM: Rod, do you get on with Wiltshire?
RBluh: That is a bit emotive. I have been advised that refusal of Ridgeway Farm is likely.
Floor: There have been many leaflets through the door from our ward councillors; they seem to change their views on if they are for or against Tadpole Farm...
PS: I deny ever saying that I was in favour of Tadpole Farm.
Floor: I have a copy of the Bassett Buddy article. Wiltshire and Swindon have a joint mineral extraction process/code. Could we do something similar for planning/houses? Could we look at the bigger picture and get proper infrastructure, for example, the Iffley link road? Can we combine together and work as a team and make it work for the community? There is a lot of money for developers for these houses; what can we get for it?
DP: That would be our aspiration as well. We have worked with Wiltshire on a joint plan in the past. Prior to unitary change, there was a two-tier system. North Wiltshire was out of kilter with us. What Wiltshire has decided to do is to take more time over their Core Strategy. Swindon has decided it is not in our best interest to wait, because that would mean that the 36,000 figure in the present Core Strategy would be the current document. We would like to bring Wiltshire forward with us.
Floor: Infrastructure and the bigger picture is our concern, for example, hospitals. The world has changed greatly over the years; we do not see how we can cope with absorbing the number of people in these houses into the existing infrastructure. What if the bank rate goes up, how can Swindon and its resources cope?
GM: Are we talking Tadpole Farm or Swindon?
Floor: We’re talking about overall, not just locally.
GM: Who wants to take this?
DP: Looking at the whole Borough, it is not houses, but jobs that are involved in the discussions. Existing companies want to develop or to move within Swindon. We’re trying to identify land for jobs, then the houses follow the jobs; it has always has been that way. Swindon is in the top 5 in GDP tables, nationally. There is a balance to be struck; there are more people commuting into Swindon than live and work in it. There has been a demand and there will be one again in the future. Companies want to reinvest or move away.
Floor: Can we actually answer the question on cuts to services?
RBluh: We have to accept the current economics. We need to look at number of houses and when they arrive. We are in the top 5 in terms of contributing to the economy.
Floor: So can we get central government to pay for the infrastructure? The Iffley Road link was promised, but never happened. Section 106 funding seems to be in limbo. Shouldn’t we be lobbying the government for this money to build the infrastructure?
RBluh: We have been lobbying for years, both with previous MP and this one. We need a cheque for infrastructure when the development is approved. That lobbying will continue, but in the current climate nobody is expecting the funding to be there.
Floor: But can’t you acknowledge…
RBluh: Swindon’s strength is it’s business community, as jobs are dependent on what happens locally, but we cannot gridlock the town either. It is a balance. The Planning department need to make sure it is sustainable.
Floor: North Swindon had some things that were prerequisites, such as the Iffley Road link; but they never happened?
RBluh: That is the issue, the North Swindon application was rejected and we lost on appeal, so the Section 106 funds not forthcoming. If we refuse again, we may lose the Section 106 monies again. Can DP clarify this?
DP: Wiltshire County Council put the transport evidence to appeal and Iffley link was an assumption, with 10% contribution from developer; but without government funding, it was not possible to do.
Steve Wakefield (SW) (representing Toothill & Freshbrook): All of these cars from these new houses will end up going down Mead Way and it cannot cope already. What I really want to say is that without traffic planning, we will end up with rat running through Freshbrook and Toothill. Nice to hear Rod shifting ground…
GM: You would know about shifting ground!
SW: Yes, I would! I am here to make sure that we do not end up with traffic rat running.
Floor: I live off Saltzgitter Drive, which is already a rat run. Is there any way that we, the residents, can look at modelling about traffic flows?
JJ: In essence, this detailed information will come out of the transport assessment on the planning application. This would set out the specific numbers; there are numbers in the core strategy, but they are high level.
Floor: Is there any way the community can look at these early and say this is not going to work. With buses, Saltzgitter Drive backs up and is used as a rat run already. Can we look at figures and comment?
JJ: Yes, that is possible at the pre-application stage.
JT: This point is key, now that we are dropping from 36,000 to 19,000, we have more control. So far with consultation, it is in the developers’ interest to make it look good; the very same developers that promised the ‘café culture’ in Redhouse. I organised a meeting with developers, and invited residents to moan at them. You need to take any information from developers with a large pinch of salt.
Mark Dempsey (Chair of St Andrew’s Ridge Residents’ Association and Labour Councillor for Parks):
I live on St Andrews Ridge and have formed a Residents’ Association up there with Kerry. The first question is, with a wide focus on the core strategy: do we want more edge of town development, or should more we build in existing urban areas, to reduce the need for cars and so encourage brownfield developments? Second, if we do have to have the development, then where do Justin et al see the all traffic going? We would like to have clarity on this.
JT: First, on the brownfield development; if infrastructure is not in place, then do not build it at all. Brownfield can also increase density in existing areas. We should only build houses that local residents want.
GM: Let’s move on to flooding.
RBell: As part of the Core Strategy, we had to perform a strategic flood risk assessment that had to be signed off by the Environment Agency. They will only sign off and raise no objections if we have policies in place to say there is no development in statutory flood plain, ie. any land that would flood in a 1-in-100 year event should not be built on. Also any development should not increase the risk of flooding. In the Core Strategy, this is considered. Development must provide plans and planning applications that will not increase flooding.
GM: Let’s have the view from floor…
Steph: John Ilet, of Crest Nicholson, said at the public consultation “We don’t know what is causing the flooding…” which did not fill us with confidence.
Floor: There was no flooding before the houses were built….
Floor: On the flooding issue, in July 2007 Tadpole Lane was under 2-3 foot water for 36 hours. Is flooding defined with a depth?
RBluh: The original criteria for North Swindon were below where the figures are today, so it should not happen in future.
DP: The Environment Agency do know where the flood risks are, but if it happens in the future, then the council will be liable for future flooding if Environment Agency said no and we built anyway.
GM: What about flooding risk to existing houses?
DP: Not our issue. Where there is a possibility with a new development to relieve the risks to an existing one, then we will try to do it. We can try to influence things.
Floor: Poor maintenance of culverts along Mayfly were the issue, the Environment Agency could not believe how bad they were.
Floor: How many meters are we above 1-in-100 year level here?
RBell: I do not know off hand, I just that we are above it.
Floor: This is a double-barrelled question. Firstly, is Oakhurst still an NSDC responsibility?
RBluh: Yes.
Floor: Secondly; Tadpole Farm is assessed against 1-in-1,000 years criteria, as is Wichelstowe. If NSDC want to build Tadpole farm then surely they must bring Oakhurst up to 1-in-1000 level from the 1-in-100 level it was designed against. I have been campaigning for years on the ditches and Tadpole Brook. Peter H-J has finally recently got something started. The Environment Agency think it is not graded properly.
RBluh: Whether the council is responsible or the Environment Agency, there has been a lot more effort going in to them. If there are particular issues, then we’re happy to take them up.
Floor: Going back to traffic; the proposal from the developer showed that they excluded Cricklade Rd and Moonrakers junction; why was this?
JJ: Our model is borough wide. I believe the map you are referring to at the public consultation was only of critical junctions, but other areas were included in the assessments. There is a need to agree trip rates from the new site; that is key.
Floor: I have been an Oakhurst resident for 7 years; you could turn the clock back to leader and deputy leader talking about impressive growth of Swindon, but what about the number of empty office blocks and empty shops in town centre? Also Justin Tomlinson referred to meeting with developers, but we already have empty shops in Redhouse, have not got the pub or church or community hall that were promised, plus it takes three weeks to get an appointment at Taw Hill Medical Centre. Now Tadpole Farm comes along and suddenly a community centre plan appears; is this a coincidence?
RBluh: No it isn’t. Let’s try to deal with facts. Shops, industrial units, offices are a function of economy. The town centre is not failing. The last 4 years of recession has not helped, but it is starting to turn. The old college site will go online in next few weeks. Occupancy rate is increasing. I would like to see the growth going back in to the inner town areas, but this will not happen without government support. In most towns, you end up with growth on outside and a decaying centre, infrastructure issues as well. With the new Core Strategy we have reduced the numbers of houses from 36,000 down to 19,000, which is more realistic, and if it happens, then we need to get the best result we can. We cannot afford to refuse planning permission, and then lose an appeal. We’d end up in the same place we are in now. It is one thing to have a vision and be idealistic, but another thing to learn quickly is to be pragmatic and do the best you can. Regeneration and jobs are key. I accept that development puts a strain on people. It’s a big issue in Swindon and always will be and it will always cause tension. Growth will happen and we must work together to get the best result. Councillors sit in the middle, represent residents and then get caught between the corporate parts and the residents. I must tell you the truth.
Floor: Elegant speech, but do I have to wait another 7 years to see improvements?
RBluh: No.
JT: The reason we do not have a pub in Redhouse is because of Crest; they are inflating the cost of the land to make pub financially unrealistic. This is so they can revert to houses later on when the pub is not built. We paid a premium for these houses and then we do not get what we pay for.
Floor: Crest will fail to deliver again.
GM: What is in place if the developer does not deliver?
Floor: Can we have an enforcement officer paid for by developer?
JT: I am trying to pass legislation in the House of Commons to put a Developers Bond in place, so when they fail to maintain an area then this is used to do the work. At the moment this is only done when an area goes up for adoption. It is unacceptable to have to wait for adoption of areas for this to be done at present.
GM: What is in place now?
DP: It is a really important point. Without a Core Strategy plan in place, then Section 106 monies will not be forthcoming and we will have no influence over the plan that the developers want to adopt.
SE: The Core Strategy, at least the Tadpole Farm part, says that we need to minimise impact on existing communities; how will this impact be minimal? We have been to many consultations and we cannot see how the impact of this will be minimal when traffic is pouring down Oakhurst Way, Ermin St, etc. How do you plan on doing that?
DP: By negotiating with the developer. With any new build we will try to ensure that we control it.
Floor: Where is the pressure coming from for this development? It does not seem to be coming from anywhere apart from developer?
DP: The pressure comes from the economy and market demand. There is always demand. When North Swindon was originally planned, people then felt the proposed houses were not needed, but they have all sold and you live here.
Floor: Government plans say that you can buy with 5% deposit for new house or 25% deposit for second hand house. So existing homeowners cannot sell their houses, as the newer houses dominate the market due to the lower deposit needed.
RBluh: This comes back to the economy. The Core Strategy says likely demand is 19,000, but I am not convinced that we will need this number of houses.
Floor: That is the point, that old houses will not be attractive to buyers.
RBluh: Young people are tending toward a German style of renting; they are not keen on being tied down to long term burden of mortgage. Minimising impact does not mean no impact, nobody denies that. It is a balance of trying to get it right. There is a demand, partly locational and partly economic.
DP: An important point about demand is the balance of house sizes. I spent most of today at planning enquiry defending refusal of planning application, based on this point. Legislation demands we keep a five year supply of housing land, if we cannot demonstrate this, then it is all over.
Floor: So what is the point of localism?
RBluh: We’re hoping it will help…
Floor: Having listened to all so far, I’m under the firm conviction that Tadpole Farm will go ahead despite what anyone says here. Can we have show of hands, assuming that adequate infrastructure is in pace are you for or against it?
(Vera was excused as she is the Vice Chair on the Planning Committee, as were the SBC officers. In the show of hands, RBluh and PS showed that they were for the development, the remaining panel members voted against).
JT: This area was built for 10,000 houses and we are pretty much there already. The developers can address open space needs, they can address school places needs, but I cannot see how they can address transport infrastructure.
GM: Right, lets move on to schools.
Floor: The developer talks about building on the current Isambard site and moving their playing fields north of Tadpole Lane.
RBell: What we expect to be built on the Tadpole Farm site itself is a two form entry primary school. We need to decide where the secondary school places will come from. It would be unreasonable to build a completely new secondary school on the site, as it would not be sustainable with the proposed numbers.
Floor: I live on Mayfly Road, am already bringing my child to Oakhurst Primary School for play group, but can not apply to register to come to the school until year before my child would enter. Already I am worried they’ll not get into local schools.
JT: The admissions priority is firstly special education needs, then sibling placement, then finally ‘as the crow flies’ distance. The issue comes if they build Tadpole Farm primary school after the houses are built, as our existing schools are already saturated. With respect to secondary places, one of the suggestions is to expand Isambard, so they would need to move the playing fields; but that is a problem for their governors.
PHJ: As a governor at Isambard, we have been looking at this for a long time, especially as there is also no 6th form in North Swindon. The developers must share some of this responsibility as well.
Floor: Isambard is not big enough now as it is. The whole local school provision is not adequate.
Floor: My daughter is 18 months old; there’s a year to go before pre-school and there is no guarantee that she will get in to her local school.
JT: Just some advice: you can ask what the furthest point that people got in from, and can check this from year on year. This will give an indication of your chances.
Floor: With respect to Isambard, I hear it is trying to become an Academy. How will they respond to the demand if they become an Academy?
PHJ: Speaking as a governor, we need to look at if becoming an Academy is good or not. The decision has been deferred as the governors need longer to think about it.
Floor: A document that came through my door, which talked about negotiations with only one residents’ association; specifically Redhouse Residents’ Association. Surely you need to look at all areas within the catchment area?
PHJ: I will look into that, it does not seem right.
JT: It would have to be the entire catchment area.
SE: It also seems a very short consultation timescale, too quick to allow proper consultation.
GM: Sorry, we are out of time, please can Ian summarise?
IB: Issues highlighted tonight include that there are not enough school places, the amount of traffic would be too much for existing infrastructure, and there could be an increase in flooding risk; in addition to other issues. Oakhurst Resident’s Association and other local associations will try to keep very close to this. Thanks to all on panel and to GM for chairing and thanks to the floor for your attendance.
