Oakhurst Residents' Association

Oakhurst Residents Say "No to Tadpole Farm" - Thank you from ORA for your support

2012-01-29T15:36:00.000Z

Over the last weeks we have been out knocking on doors and talking to you all about Tadpole Farm and we have been overwhelmed by the level of support you have continued to show for the campaign against development at Tadpole Farm.

We have received well over three hundred written objections to the Tadpole Farm planning application over the last week. This is a clear and robust expression of the level of feeling in the area about this issue.

Oakhurst says, "No to Tadpole Farm". The vast majority of people we have spoken to have been clear that the plans submitted by the developer fall woefully short of Oakhurst's expectations. You could not bridge the gap between Oakhurst's demands for infrastructure such as transport, school places, health care services and employment and what the developer is offering.

Members of the North Swindon Communities’ Association (NSCA) say “We Are Stronger Together”

2012-01-29T15:20:00.000Z

The North Swindon Communities’ Association is made up of community representatives from across the whole of North Swindon including the Parish Councils of Haydon Wick, Blunsdon St Andrew, Moredon Residents' Group, Oakhurst Residents’ Association, Rodbourne Cheney Residents’ Association, St Andrew’s Ridge Residents’ Association and the Whitworth Road Residents’ Association.

At a recent meeting on 12th January 2012, which was also attended by residents from Haydon End, Redhouse, St Andrew’s Ridge and Oakhurst, the NSCA put together their mission statement:

· To bring together North Swindon community and interest groups to discuss matters of mutual interest in a non-political context.

· To share information.

· To speak as one voice.

· To take action on agreed issues affecting the community within North Swindon.

· To be ‘stronger together’.

It was emphasised by members of the group that they wanted a "grassroots up" Association with the community taking the lead. Terry Hunt (Chairman of Rodbourne Cheney Residents’ Association) was duly elected the new Chair of the NSCA.

Date for North Swindon Locality Meeting

2012-01-29T14:59:00.000Z

Formerly known as North Swindon Cluster Group, the next meeting of the North Swindon Locality will take place at 7:00pm on Wednesday, 1^st February 2012 at Blunsdon Village Hall, High Street, Blunsdon, Swindon SN26 7AT.

The agenda will include updates on Neighbourhood Policing, Section 106, Mouldon Hill and the Redhouse Community Centre.

Details For Next Meeting of North Swindon Communities' Associations

2012-01-05T22:55:00.001Z

The next meeting of the NSCA will be held at 7:00pm on Thursday, 12th January 2012 at Oakhurst Community Primary School, Pioneer Road, Oakhurst, SN25 2HY.

If you would like a copy of the agenda or have any items to be added to the agenda then please let Paul Exell, Chair of ORA, know: paul.exell@rwe.com or 07989 494421.

ORA's suggestions for a Standard Objection/Comment Letter

2011-12-14T16:38:00.000Z

PLANNING APPLICATION S/11/1588

RESIDENT'S COMMENTS

TO: Mr I Halsall, Planning Officer, Swindon Borough Council,

Wat Tyler House, Beckhampton Street, Swindon, SN1 2JH

Resident’s Name & Address:

__________________________________________________________________________________

I am/we are concerned about the following issues:-

Road congestion/traffic impact: The proposal has seemingly unrealistic forecasts of the impact of the development on existing traffic flows and there are concerns that the traffic assessment does not accurately reflect the impact of the proposals. This leads to serious concerns that existing local roads, along with the main routes that they feed into, cannot handle the additional traffic that will arise from this application. The plans propose just three points of exit for traffic, Oakhurst Way, Saltzgitter Drive and through Blunsdon Village, none of which is suitable for the addition of large volumes of traffic. There is also no direct route from the proposed site to the town centre or main employment areas, which will also lead to an increase in traffic leaving the site. The proposed rapid transport route is unfeasible as it will have to share the existing roads with no ability to use bus lanes. The increased volumes of traffic will have an adverse impact on the quality of life of the existing communities, along with the associated safety risks for roads that are already difficult for school children and pedestrians to cross. The area of search defined in the traffic modelling is not comprehensive and does not take into account the views of the community which were expressed at the developers’ consultation.

The existing local infrastructure is already overstretched with traffic frequently queuing as it attempts to leave the Oakhurst area via Oakhurst Way/Garsington Drive to get down Mead Way to reach West Swindon/M4 Jct. 16, along Tadpole Lane to reach Cirencester/A419 /M4 Jct. 15 and along Thamesdown Drive. The Cold Harbour Lane roundabout is already congested at peak times. The addition of the traffic from 1,700 houses at the proposed Tadpole Farm will further exacerbate the traffic issues on the existing infrastructure and turn local roads into major highways. Blunsdon residents took years to get a bypass and reunite the two sides of the village. Now this is going to be undone by an ill-conceived new access road. Traffic should have been diverted away from local roads by the delivery of the promised Haydon III off-site highways works.

Saltgitter Drive is a narrow, windy road where at certain points a car and a bus cannot pass at the same time. With the additional traffic from the 450 houses planned at the Abbey Stadium and the increase in traffic from the proposed Tadpole Farm application this local road will become a major highway from Lady Lane/Tadpole Lane to Thamesdown Drive.

There is no ‘joined up’ traffic modelling between Wiltshire Council/Swindon Borough Council/the Highways Agency and the developers. Although there is an application for 800 houses at Ridgeway Farm this is not taken into account with the traffic modelling. Neither is the additional 450 homes planned for the Abbey Stadium. The Government’s proposed planning framework sets down the principle that development on the border between two local authorities should not be dealt with in isolation and the cumulative impact should be taken into consideration.

School places: there is already a shortage of school places in the Northern Sector with temporary school classrooms being installed at many primary schools to meet current demand levels (with the subsequent issue that the communal facilities, such as school halls, canteens, sports pitches etc, were not designed for the numbers of pupils this results in). The introduction of more houses, which would be built and occupied before any potential new school place provision on the site, will compound the shortage of places in the existing schools. There is also no clear indication of how the secondary school provision will be met, with no guarantee that there will be any local provision. This will increase the need for travelling to a more distant school which will further increase the traffic issues for the site. There is a current need for an additional eight forms of entry at secondary level and this outline application does not provide for this need/or any additional need.

Impact on existing communities: the existing community facilities such as doctors, dentists, shops, restaurants, etc are already inadequate to meet the demands placed on them by the current communities and there is no evidence that the application will provide sufficient facilities in the proposed Tadpole Farm development. This will lead to even further demands being placed on the existing services as it can be expected that houses will be built well before the associated community facilities in a new development – if the facilities are ever provided.

Waste disposal: the waste water network in North and North West Swindon is already at full capacity with the existing number of houses (based on evidence from Thames Water Utilities Ltd) and there are no realistic plan as to how capacity can or will be increased to cope with the additional houses at Tadpole Farm.

Flood risk: substantial parts of the land on the Tadpole Farm site already experience flooding, with houses along Tadpole Farm having been affected over the last five years. The addition of more of the surrounding land being built on will reduce the ability of the land to cope with water absorption and will therefore increase the amount of run-off water that the limited infrastructure will have to cope with. This will increase the risk of properties in the existing communities being affected by flooding.

Additional comments:

Signed: ______________________________________________

Link Magazine Article - S.106 Rabbits Will Be Pulled From the Hat

2011-11-21T15:35:00.001Z

http://www.swindonlink.com/news/what-section-106-rabbits-will-be-pulled-from-the-hat

North Swindon Forum Confusion - Where's our developer money gone and does anyone want us to know?

2011-11-20T16:59:00.000Z

Oakhurst Residents' Association belong to the North Swindon Forum which is hosted by the Borough. A meeting date of the 23rd November was mooted to discuss the thorny subject of where the £20m+ of developer money went and why less than 20% of it was spent on facilities in our area. Senior figures from the Borough (both officers and elected members) were to be invited to answer questions from the community.

However, the meeting was publicised in the Link Magazine at Haydon Wick Parish Council offices and then it was cancelled - the Forum was informed that ORA have their AGM on the 23rd November and Haydon Wick Parish Council have also been invited to attend ORA's meeting.

A cabinet member of the Forum attended a Haydon Wick Parish Council meeting last week and when questioned about the meeting said that he didn’t have a Forum meeting in his diary on the 23^rd. However, on Friday a flyer came out from the Borough to say that the meeting was back on and is now at the North Swindon library - which is only two full working days of notice.

ORA have written to the Borough, along with other Forum representatives, to complain about the lack of organisation and transparency. Does the Council, with its much vaunted Stronger Together and One Swindon agenda, seriously believe that this is the way to engage with the community? Does the Chief Executive of the Borough really believe that this is the right way to be engaging with Council Tax payers in North Swindon?

ORA will be taking this up with representatives at all levels.

TADPOLE FARM APPLICATION SUBMITTED S/11/1588 - MAKE YOUR VIEWS KNOWN

2011-11-19T11:37:00.000Z

The developer has now formally submitted their planning application for Tadpole Farm.

The planning application reference is S/11/1588 and details can be found at the following link -

http://195.89.201.121/PublicAccess77/tdc/dcapplication/application_detailview.aspx?caseno=LUCLLAPT0FL00

The SBC Case Officer assigned is Mr Ian Halsall (ihalsall@swindon.gov.uk) and the official end of the consultation period is 8th December 2011, which is only three weeks away! If you send a letter/email then please remember to include your full name, address and the planning application reference.

If you are sending a letter then the address is:

Mr I Halsall,

Planning Officer,
Swindon Borough Council,
Wat Tyler House,
Beckhampton Street,
Swindon,
SN1 2JH

Scout Christmas Post 2011

2011-11-12T09:00:00.001Z

Scout Christmas Post 2011

Scouts across Swindon will once again this year be taking part in the annual Scout Christmas Post.

The 7^th Swindon (Abbey Meads) Scout Group, which covers North Swindon, will be selling stamps at Asda Walmart on the Orbital Retail Park.

Stamps cost 20p each and will be on sale:

Date	Times
Friday 25 November	7pm – 8pm
Saturday 26 November	10am – 4pm
Sunday 27 November	10am – 4pm
Friday 2 December	7pm – 8pm
Saturday 3 December	10am – 4pm
Sunday 4 December	10am – 4pm
Friday 9 December	7pm – 8pm
Saturday 10 December	10am – 4pm
Sunday 11 December	10am – 4pm

The delivery area includes:

All areas of Swindon including Badbury, Bishopstone, Blunsdon, Burderop, Chiseldon, Draycott Foliat, Elcombe, Hannington, Highworth, Hinton Parva, Hodson, Inglesham, Langton Park, Liddington, Overtown, Red Barn, South Leaze, South Marston, Stanton Fitzwarren, Stratton St Margaret, Thorney Park, Wanborough, West Leaze, Wroughton.

Other Towns and Villages:

We also deliver to Wootton Bassett, Purton, Lydiard Millicent, Bushton, Clyffe Pypard, Tockenham, Broad Town, Cricklade, Latton, Ashton Keynes, Shrivenham, Watchfield, Bourton, Idstone, Ashbury & Kingston Winslow.

A special green collection box will be located in Asda ready to receive your cards. Last collection from the post box will be 4pm on Tuesday 13th December. Cards will be delivered over the weekend of 17th/18th December.

For more information, please visit Asda during the above times, visit the Group’s website http://sites.google.com/site/7thswindon/christmas-post-2011or call Philippa on 07960 485206.

Since 1981, Scouts across the UK have been licensed to deliver Christmas cards as part of a Scout Post. In Swindon this helps to raise funds for Groups and raises the profile of Scouting within the local community.

ORA Constitution for the AGM

2011-11-11T12:36:00.001Z

The ORA Constitution can be viewed here.

ORA AGM and Public Meeting

2011-11-10T12:44:00.000Z

Annual General Meeting

Wednesday, 23^rd November 2011, 7:30pm Oakhurst Community Primary School

The AGM will be followed by a short presentation about school places, local neighbourhood issues and Tadpole Farm. We will also discuss what local people can do to contribute to the planning application consultation.

and

Public Meeting

Friday, 2^nd December 2011, 7:00pm

Blunsdon Village Hall

We have invited the North Swindon MP to a public meeting. This will give the residents of Oakhurst the final chance to find out what actions he has taken to protect our homes and school places from the proposed development at Tadpole Farm.

ORA Public Meeting - MP confirms his attendance

2011-10-05T20:03:00.000+01:00

Oakhurst Residents' Association has organised a public meeting to discuss residents' concerns about the imminent Tadpole Farm outline planning application. The meeting will be held on Friday, 2nd December 2011, 7.00pm at Blunsdon Village Hall.

ORA will be inviting residents from all over North Swindon and community representatives from the parishes and residents' associations. The North Swindon MP has confirmed that he will attend the meeting.

Response from the Leader of Swindon Borough Council to Oakhurst and Rodbourne Cheney Residents' Associations S.106 letter

2011-09-21T16:16:00.000+01:00

Dear Mr Exell

Lack of Community Engagement S.106

Thank you for the letter dated 12 September 2011 to Cllr Bluh regarding the above, from yourself and Mr Hunt, an acknowledgement will be sent to Mr Hunt separately as requested.

Cllr Bluh has read and noted your comments and will investigate the issue, when further information is available he will contact you.

Thank you for taking the time to write to Cllr Bluh and bringing this to his attention.

Yours sincerely

Sue Peart
PA Cllr Roderick Bluh
Leader Swindon Borough Council

Response from the Swindon Lib Dem Group to Oakhurst and Rodbourne Cheney Residents' Associations S.106 letter

2011-09-21T16:07:00.000+01:00

Dear Mr. Exell and Mr. Hunt,

Lack of Community Engagement (S.106 money)

Thank you for your letter regarding this very important issue. In response I have raised a councillor question for this Thursday's Council meeting. Interestingly on the same day I received your letter I received one from the Haydon Wick Parish Council in the same vein. My question is as follows:

"I like the other group leaders have received correspondence from the Oakhurst & Rodbourne Cheney Residents Association and the Haydon Wick Parish council in regard to the lack of community involvment in the use of S.106 money in their area. The Parish Council accuses Swindon Council of both a lack of transparency and failing to involve them. Similarly the residents associations highlight a "change" in the process which calls into question how the community will be involved in deciding local priorities if they have no input into the system. Can the leader/cabinet member mindful of the One Swindon ethos state the policy for allocating S.106 money and the involvement of both local resident groups, parish councils and communities in that process?"

Hopefully this should ensure we get an answer.

Best regards.

Stan Pajak
Lib Dem Group Leader

Response from the Swindon Labour Group to Oakhurst and Rodbourne Cheney Residents' Associations S.106 letter

2011-09-21T15:54:00.001+01:00

Dear all

Please find below a response from the Labour Group Leader regarding your correspondence with him to do with the way S106 is being allocated by Swindon Borough Council.

Kind regards

Matt Bradley (mbradley@swindon.gov.uk)

Swindon Labour Group Political Assistant

Swindon Borough Council

Tel: 01793 463800

Web: www.swindon.gov.uk

Dear Sir(s)

RE: Your correspondence with me regarding Swindon Borough Council’s allocation of S106 Monies

I would like to thank both Rodbourne Cheney Residents Association and Oakhurst Residents Association for writing to me stating your concerns with the way Swindon Borough Council is allocating Section 106 monies and, in particular, Section 106 monies from the Northern Sector.

I would like to inform you that the Swindon Labour Group is also concerned with the current system of allocating Section 106 monies and will in due time be calling for a more inclusive, open and transparent system of allocating Section 106 money.

In the meantime the Swindon Labour Group will be asking questions at the next Full Council Meeting to the Council’s administration on the way they have allocated Section 106 money. Please find these questions below. Once we have received answers to these questions we will be happy share them with you.

Cllr Mark Dempsey

Can the Lead Member outline:

1. What projects have the Haydon 3 s106 monies been spent on. Which wards are these projects located in?

2. What proportion of these funds have been spent in Haydon Wick and Abbey Meads wards?

3. What projects were the Haydon 1 and 2 monies spent on?

4. How decisions were made about the destination of the Haydon 3 S106 monies. Which Councillors were involved?

5. How have decisions been taken for allocating the £12.6 million for highway improvements?

6. Why has this money been allocated to the Great Western corridor rather than improvements benefiting North Swindon?

7. What proportion of the £12.6m for highway improvements is being spent on public or sustainable transport?

8. What procedures are in place to ensure that Councillors are not able to unduly influence the process of allocating S106 monies?

9. Have there been any incidents of Councillors seeking to unduly influence the process of allocating S106 monies?

Cllr Jenny Millin

As parish councils and residents associations are getting increasingly angry with the disbursement of S106 monies that take place almost in secrecy and with a lack of transparency, or referral to the council's own guidelines that state:

'Infrastructure needs are informed by consultation responses from other Council service areas, neighbours, Residents Associations and Ward Councillors'.

Would the Lead Member please tell me how decisions are made about the destination of Section 106 monies, and which Councillors actually are involved?

Furthermore can the Lead member tell me what procedures are in place to ensure that Councillors are not able to unduly influence the process of allocating Section 106 monies, to get 'first bite of the cherry'?
And could the Lead Member also tell me whether he is aware of any incidents when Councillors have unduly influenced the process of any S106 allocation?

Priory Vale Developer Money - Have the Ward Councillors offered Oakhurst a Crumb of Comfort?

2011-09-21T15:46:00.001+01:00

Oakhurst Residents’ Association & Rodbourne Cheney Residents’ Association

(Please reply to: Mr P M Exell, Chair – ORA and to Mr T Hunt, Chairman – RCRA

Cllr Rod Bluh

Leader of Swindon Borough Council,

Civic Offices,

Euclid Street,

Swindon.

SN1 2JH 12^th September 2011

Dear Cllr Bluh,

Lack of Community Engagement (S.106):-

Oakhurst Residents’ Association and Rodbourne Cheney Residents’ Association attended the feedback meeting with the developers at Tadpole Farm on Wednesday, 31^st August 2011. We have checked the facts set out in this letter with other attendees at the meeting and they have agreed that the following is a factual representation of how the Abbey Meads ward councillors responded at the meeting.

Cllr Tomlinson said that the system for the expenditure of S.106 money has changed since Steph Exell left the Council (September 2010). She also said that S.106 money will not be made available through the cluster/OneSwindon arrangements and that community groups are not allowed to negotiate the expenditure of S.106 with the developers (even if a developer asks for suggestions, as was the case at the meeting). Cllr Tomlinson made it clear that ward councillors are in charge of local priorities, with respect to S.106, without having to make reference to any community groups.

Various community representatives asked the Abbey Meads ward councillors present (Cllrs Heaton-Jones, Stoddart and V Tomlinson) how the community will be involved in deciding local priorities if they have no input into the process. They were also asked how the system had changed. None of the councillors answered the questions. Mr Dempsey (Chair of St Andrews Ridge Residents’ Association) said that he did not know that the system had changed and asked Cllr Heaton-Jones how the system is currently working. Cllr Heaton-Jones did not respond.

Although a recent FoI response from Swindon Borough Council states that there has been no change in the system since September 2009, why would a councillor who holds the office of whip and attends all the cabinet meetings, say that the system has changed? Is a change of policy pending and, if so, why? How might the community expect to get involved in setting local priorities and putting forward suggestions for local projects to be funded from S.106 in the future? When do you plan to tell the community how the arrangements will work?

We would appreciate a prompt response to our concerns.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Exell

Chair of ORA

Terry Hunt

Chairman of RCRA

cc. Cllr J Grant – Leader of the Labour Group

Cllr S Pajak – Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group

Mr G Jones – Chief Executive

Mr S Taylor – Head of Law and Democratic Services

Mr R Hailstone – Haydon Wick Parish Council

ORA publishes it's previously submitted response to SBC's Core Strategy

2011-09-20T10:05:00.000+01:00

After a reasonable delay, ORA is able to fully publish it's detailed response to Swindon Borough Council's Core Strategy. You can see the full document here.

Is the Northern Development bypass dead?

2011-09-04T11:26:00.000+01:00

It has come to ORA's attention that the proposed £10 million+ improvements to the Bruce Street bridges will be part funded from the Haydon 3 developer money (this money was the Priory Vale part of the Northern Development Area). The legal agreement originally had, ORA believe, about £17 million to be shared between the Bruce Street bridges and the Purton/Iffley Road link. However, the legal agreement was renegotiated in 2008, when our North Swindon MP was on cabinet (and would have needed to have had his approval as an Abbey Meads ward councillor on cabinet), and several million pounds was, ORA understand, signed away.

This has meant that unless substantial monies are made available to this area again through large-scale development that the northern bypass is, effectively, dead. This will mean that any development on the North Western border of Swindon will have to use local roads, including Oakhurst Way. The local community programme at Swindon Borough Council called OneSwindon has said that residents should 'like where they live'. With the traffic increase from Tadpole Farm and other developments in the area the question might be, "Are the Council supporting communities liking where they live?"

Rodbourne Cheney S.106 money finds its' way to the Community Forest

2011-09-01T12:00:00.050+01:00

It has come to light that S.106 money (this is the financial contribution that a developer makes to offset the impact of lots of new houses in an area) from Moredon and Rodbourne Cheney ward may be winging its' way over to the Community Forest and Wiltshire Fire before anyone has had opportunity to put in a local view. This may sound all to familiar to Oakhurst residents with so much of the Haydon 3 money having been spent by SBC's cabinet members outside of the Priory Vale area (where the developer money was originally destined for).

In discussions between the developers and a local Residents' Association information became available that some of the S.106 money from the new frozen food outlet in Rodbourne Cheney village has already been diverted elsewhere before the application has even been decided.
ORA are concerned that the same thing might happen to the Tadpole Farm legal agreement with money been taken out of the S.106 pot before there has been any discussion with the local community. We might find that road improvements are being carried out in another part of Swindon whilst we are suffering the impact of the additional traffic from the 1,700 houses and a waste-to-energy facility. Once the money is gone there might not be another chance to get it back!!

What is happening to the incinerator at Tadpole Farm/Chapel Farm?

2011-09-01T10:00:00.004+01:00

Confusion reigns in North Swindon about what the plans are for a CHP (combined heat and power) plant. The developers say that there are plans for waste to be disposed of at the new, proposed Tadpole Farm/Chapel Farm waste site. This waste will be processed at Waterside and transported to Tadpole Farm/Chapel Farm. The traffic figures for this 'waste' disposal have not been calculated into the overall transport assessment for the development at Tadpole Farm, but it is estimated that
8 lorries a day will trundle over to North Swindon carrying MSW (municipal solid waste). The developers have indicated that this may not be enough waste to achieve the necessary plant efficiency.

However, ORA understand that the project to procure pyrolysis plants for the Borough has broken down irretrievably and there appears to be no 'viable' waste strategy to take its place. So how will the developers achieve their Borough-set objective of a district heating system powered by a CHP plant? Would anyone in the area actually want a pyrolysis plant/incinerator on their doorstep when it will increase lorry movements at the very least?

The ward councillors did not have answers to give to the community.

No medical centre for Redhouse Village Centre

2011-08-31T22:00:00.000+01:00

At this evening's developer community feedback meeting concerning Tadpole Farm, it has emerged that the PCT have not taken up their option for a new medical centre at Redhouse Village Centre. There was a legally documented time period of six months for the PCT to take up this option and ORA believe this has now expired.

This had been one of the key amenities that the ward councillors had asked for to service the new community at Tadpole Farm. However, none of them had any idea that it is unlikely to be delivered.

Do any ward councillors represent Oakhurst?

2011-08-31T21:52:00.000+01:00

ORA were invited to attend the developer's community feedback meeting concerning development at Tadpole Farm this evening. Representatives from community groups, Haydon Wick Parish Council, Blunsdon Parish Council, ward councillors, a Borough officer and two representatives from the developers were in attendance.

The main concerns arising from the consultation in April were highways (55% of respondents), need for 1,700 additional houses in a stagnant market,
infrastructure first not last and amenities (schools being the most urgent).

The developers came with no solutions to residents' concerns and very little room to manoeuvre. The core strategy was the key defence to the routing of estate roads and the ward councillors put in no objection to this planning policy document in the meeting despite the huge impact this development will have on Oakhurst.

In fact, Cllr Tomlinson's focus was the Redhouse Village Centre. This consumed quite a bit of time in the meeting. Forget the impact of traffic on our community which was our main concern. The community centre at Redhouse took centre stage. If the Village Centre wasn't complete then the developers should beware that the application wouldn't be taken seriously at Planning Committee.

When it was suggested that Oakhurst might not be 'bought' by a few pieces of silver the same ward councillor made it clear that residents' groups would not be involved in negotiations about S.106 money. That was the Borough's job. When the question was asked whether this money would go Borough wide like the Haydon 3 money the response was that the rules had changed. However, none of the ward councillors was prepared to elaborate on what the rule changes are.

ORA are sad that we're burning to keep Redhouse warm!!

Why has the Conservative Council Leader kept the people of Oakhurst in the dark about the pyrolysis incinerator plant at Tadpole Farm/Chapel Farm?

2011-07-29T14:01:00.000+01:00

The North Swindon MP has made it known to ORA that the Conservative Council Leader has plans, that he has known about certainly before February 2010, that a pyrolysis incinerator plant will be built at Tadpole Farm/Chapel Farm as part of the proposed development of 1,700 houses on the same site. The Leader has made it clear that the incinerator will be of great benefit to Oakhurst. However, he has omitted to tell ORA and people living in Oakhurst until he sent an email to the MP which was a veiled attack on one of our members.

"As for the plasma pyrolysis technology, we are confident that this will help many of environmental needs including supporting an energy partnership with local businesses and reducing our land fill. At the moment the evidence shows that it will be a great benefit to the whole borough, including Oakhurst".

ORA wonder why this 'great benefit' has been kept so secret when the Conservative Leader attended ORA's public meeting of 120 residents in April this year and made no reference to the jewel in his crown. ORA and the residents of Oakhurst are puzzled why he did not make a grand announcement earlier.

Questions regards CPCP cluster meeting raised.

2011-07-18T09:44:00.000+01:00

The Haydon End Community blog has reported on the CPCP North Cluster meeting here, and asks questions regarding the future direction of this organisation.

NEW PYROLYSIS PLANT PLANNED FOR TADPOLE FARM/CHAPEL FARM

2011-07-12T19:06:00.001+01:00

Pyrolysis is classed as incineration. According to the EU Definition 2000/76/EC, Article 3(4), incineration plant means, “Any stationary or mobile technical unit and equipment dedicated to the thermal treatment of wastes with or without recovery of the combustion heat generated. This includes the incineration by oxidation of waste as well as other thermal treatment processes, such as pyrolysis, gasification...”

WE ARE CONCERNED:

Oakhurst Residents’ Association (ORA) have been trying to ascertain the facts about what kind of waste–to-energy facility is going to be installed at Tadpole Farm/Chapel Farm (TF/CF) for the last few months. The latest information received from the local Ward Councillors has been that, “the methane from the existing landfill site will be used to generate heat for a district heating scheme at TF”. This would, in all probability, enable any potential developers to improve their sustainability code rating and boost their chances of being successful in the planning process.

ORA have asked repeatedly whether any municipal solid waste (MSW) will be used in this process and have been told ‘no’. However, after the publication of the proposed Wiltshire and Swindon Proposed Submission Draft Waste Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) and some detective work from ORA members the Council have confirmed this week that residual waste will almost certainly be used at some stage to power a new pyrolysis plant which will be constructed as part of the Tadpole Farm development and Chapel Farm expansion. There will be five pyrolysis plants constructed at various sites across Swindon (the first one at Waterside) as part of the Borough Council’s corporate waste policy which was first conceived in 2005.

Pyrolysis plants use, as yet, unproven technology in the UK by heating waste to very high levels without using oxygen. The individual pyrolysis modules are the size of a large skip and are housed in an industrial building (the size of this building will be determined by the number of modules used). To maximise their efficiency and cost-effectiveness any module would have to run most of the time with industry experts advising us that this could be 24 hours a day.

Residual waste will be brought to the site by lorries where it will have to be stored until it is ground up into small pieces and fed into the plant. When the local sources of residual waste begin to run down then waste will be brought in from other locations across the country.

ORA have the following concerns: (some of these concerns are taken directly from the Borough’s DPD):

1. Not once have any of our elected representatives, Borough Officers or representatives from the developers been open and transparent about what the waste-to –energy plant was going to be fed by, despite two public meetings and smaller committee-led discussions with them. As the pyrolysis pre-feasibility study had already been carried out by a European contractor for the Borough in 2010, identifying Tadpole Farm as a site, then why was this information not disseminated to our members or to other community groups/Parish Councils. In fact, the planning department had requested that the DPD was discussed at the recent North Swindon community forum (held last week) and yet this item was removed from the agenda.

2. The developers put in a submission to an additional consultation to the Wiltshire and Swindon Waste DPD in 2010 seeking to, “strike out the allocation of those parts of the Chapel Farm landholding...comprising a range of potential uses including composting, a materials recovery facility, inert waste recycling and transfer and local recycling”....Longer term ‘Energy from Waste’ operations also suggest themselves....These operations would represent ‘bad neighbour’ uses through odour, noise and visual impact on a future Tadpole Farm community...The Waste Site Allocations DPD has therefore introduced a strong potential for conflict”. However, in the Swindon Link magazine in the July 2011 edition a Borough Council planning officer is quoted as saying, “We are keen to investigate the opportunities of utilising Chapel Farm as a resource to generate energy and (developers) are happy to work with us on this”.

3. There are extensive pre-treatment processes required to be able to handle MSW. Best results are obtained from single stream wastes such as sewage sludge, plastics, wood, tyres or agricultural wastes but where MSW is to be used it should be pre-sorted to remove the majority of the non-organics and processed to homogenise the feedstock.

4. A new direct site access will need to be provided off the existing private access road into the site. A transport assessment should be submitted with a planning application to identify the measures that will be taken to adequately mitigate or compensate for the anticipated transport and related environmental impacts of the proposal. ORA are worried that even if a planning application predetermines a route to be taken by the site traffic that this will be difficult to enforce and local roads are bound to be affected by waste transport.

5. There isn’t a stable market for the by-products of carbon char and ash and this may have to be disposed of in landfill sites.

6. Many processes may still require residues to be disposed of, some of which, from flue gas treatment, could be hazardous in nature.

7. The technology is unproven in the UK on a commercial scale using MSW and there is patchy experience overseas.

8. The emissions to air are primarily carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide.

9. Due to the proximity to housing there will be a need for acoustic screening and any proposed development in the northern part of the site will require further noise assessment.

10. Dust, bioaerosol and odour mitigation will be required and an assessment carried out for Particulate Matter (PM10) and dust. Often these types of plant give out a distinctive smell associated with the process.

11. Visual impacts on surrounding residences will need to be mitigated through sensitive site planning and screen planting.

12. There are number of non-main river watercourses adjacent to the site and therefore the risk exists for potentially contaminating land uses in the area.

13. This will use an existing greenfield site abutting Tadpole Farm (to the North West) and the site is not allocated for development within the adopted Swindon Borough Local Plan.

Do the Councillors take the community view seriously about Tadpole Farm?

2011-07-12T12:28:00.000+01:00

TADPOLE FARM COMMUNITY RESOLUTION

Oakhurst Residents’ Association representatives attended a meeting of the North Swindon Forum, called Connecting People/Connecting Places (CPCP), on 8th March 2011 and the following resolution concerning development in North Swindon was voted on and carried by ORA, Blunsdon Parish Council, Haydon Wick Parish Council and Rodbourne Cheney Residents’ Association:

“There should be no further development in North Swindon until promised and future infrastructure is in place such as roads (Iffley Link Road), community facilities and schools. We ask that our cluster councillors take this resolution to Full Council as a motion to show their support for the community in North Swindon.”

This resolution was amended (see below) by the Conservative Group

at Swindon Borough Council and our local councillors Stoddart, Heaton-Jones and Tomlinson from Abbey Meads supported the amendment despite concerns expressed by the community groups who had voted for the original resolution. ORA wrote to the North Swindon MP asking for his support for the community view as he had spoken out against development at Tadpole Farm at ORA’s public meeting on 6^th April 2011. He did not reply until after the amended resolution/motion had been passed by the Conservative councillors at Full Council:

“I will continue to keep a close eye on this issue and await the developers’ proposals. Infrastructure is key, as the impact on existing residents must be paramount when striking the need for additional development across the town.

Apologies Full Council has now passed, however I understand the principle of both versions, so will continue to raise these points.

Other North Swindon Forum Conservative councillors also supported the following amendment (taken from the minutes of Full Council on 14^th April 2011 - http://tinyurl.com/SBC-Council-Minutes-14Apr2011):

Councillor Peter Stoddart (Abbey Meads) moved and Councillor David Renard (Haydon Wick) seconded:

“This Council notes that the Tadpole Farm consultation on the proposed development of 1700 houses will, if built, rely on the current Swindon infrastructure.

This Council notes the concerns raised by Blunsdon St Andrew Parish Council, Haydon Wick Parish Council, Oakhurst Residents’ Association and Rodbourne Cheney Residents’ Association at a North Swindon Cluster meeting regarding the possible traffic implications of the development.

This Council requests that the Borough Council’s Planning Committee consider these concerns as part of the wider consultation on the draft Core Strategy and report back to the Lead Cabinet Member in due course.”

(Labour) Councillor Des Moffatt moved and (Labour) Councillor Derique Montaut seconded that the (Conservative) Motion be amended to read:

“This Council notes the Tadpole Farm consultation by a developer on the proposed development of 1700 houses.

This Council invites the Borough Council’s Planning Committee to consider these concerns should an application be received.

As part of the wider consultation on the draft Core Strategy document this Council requests that officers consider recommending that no occupation of any part of Tadpole Farm be permitted until infrastructure is in place to accommodate resulting traffic from such occupations.

In order to provide the proper road requirements that are needed for the Tadpole Farm development, this Council requests its Director of Planning and Transport to investigate how a Spine Road could connect with the A419 without affecting the residents of Blunsdon and the conclusion arising from that study be made available to the Planning Committee at the time of consideration of any planning application.

Members of ORA’s committee attended Full Council at the Borough on April 14^th 2011 having heard that the community resolution had been substantially altered and asked the following question of the Leader, Councillor Roderick Bluh:

“Can the Leader account for his nullification of CPCP by altering such an unequivocal resolution into a politically-suiting motion that bears no resemblance to the community view?”

The Leader answered that “the councillors are not delegates at CPCP and they do not have to support the community view.”

The Amendment was put to the vote and declared lost.

The Substantive Motion was put to the vote and declared carried.

Thought: why did the Councillors/MP/Council Officers support and act upon the community view in East Swindon about scaling back the Eastern Development Area but not act upon the community view in North Swindon?

PROPOSED CROFT PRIMARY SCHOOL PUBLIC MEETING - Croft Area Residents' Association

2011-07-07T15:22:00.002+01:00

Another issue has arisen where SBC have proposed plans that have angered local residents; this time in southern Swindon. Here are the details about the meeting:

(Please note that this meeting is not being held by ORA, nor does it directly impact on the Oakhurst area)

WE ARE HOLDING A RESIDENTS’ MEETING ABOUT

THE CROFT PRIMARY SCHOOL PROPOSAL

7.00pm WEDS 13^TH JULY 2011

AT THE MARRIOTT HOTEL, PIPERS WAY, SWINDON

Hotel Parking will be free to Meeting Attendees

Fellow Residents,

Swindon Borough Council (SBC) propose to build an additional 420 Pupil Primary School on the Croft Sports Centre site, opening in Sept 2012

SBC have submitted the planning application for the Proposed School S/SP/011/0884

Residents … you need to be involved now!

· SBC spent £1million on the temporary East Wichel School on the Croft site which was supposed to accommodate 60 pupils. Only 15 pupils in fact attend the school, which equates to a sum of £66,000 per pupil! SBC must not be allowed to make the same mistakes again.

· It costs £6.5million of Tax Payers’ (i.e your) money to build a Primary school, so we need to be ensure the need is there.

· SBC’s proposed access and traffic plans for the Croft School will also have a major impact on EVERYONE living or working in the local area. Please do NOT believe this doesn’t concern you.

· You may have heard the rumour that King William Street School will close and relocate to the Croft site, coincidentally freeing up land adjacent to the Stagecoach Bus depot?

If you are you concerned by any of the above points, we urge you to attend the meeting for a full briefing on the data that has been gathered from SBC, which we believe proves an additional Primary School is NOT needed in Old Town, and the traffic chaos it would cause if it were to go ahead.

SBC local Councillors and Senior Council officials have been invited to attend the meeting and our aim is to challenge SBC’s data, business case and Traffic plan for the School via a thorough, step by step presentation, after which SBC will be invited to respond, as well as answer questions from local residents.

Robert Buckland MP, opposition parties, The Bristol Diocese (C of E bid for the School), local schools , local press and Major local Businesses including Nationwide, Intel, Marriott Hotel & Businesses situated in Wakefield House (the old Burmah site) have also been invited to attend the meeting.

We look forward to seeing you on 13^th July.

Thank you

Kareen Boyd

e-mail : Croft.Area.Residents@Hotmail.co.uk Tel: 07515 834854

Oakhurst Community School Summer Fayre is today

2011-07-02T09:00:00.003+01:00

This is the school's biggest fundraiser of the year; if you've got some spare time today, please see if you can pop along.

It's being held from 11:30 to 14:30, on the school grounds.

North Swindon Forum to meet Thursday 7th July

2011-06-30T10:11:00.001+01:00

The North Swindon Forum are due to meet at 19:00, Thursday 7th July 2011, at the Haydon Wick Parish Rooms.

According to the meeting flyer:

This is an opportunity to get your voice heard and influence decision making in North Swindon. Your local councillors and agencies working in North Swindon will be in attendance.

Items for discussion will include:

Police Update and Priority Setting
Wiltshire and Swindon Waste Site Allocations Development Plan
Mouldon Hill
Improved Sport and Recreation Facilities in the Northern Sector
Delivering One Swindon: An Invitation to Get Involved
Confirmation of Cluster Chair

Your local councillors...

Abbey Meads: Vera Tomlinson, Peter Heaton-Jones, Peter Stoddart

Blunsdon: Doreen Dart

Moredon: Colin Lovell, Jennifer Millin, David Wren

Haydon Wick: David Renard, Claire Ellis, Rex Barnett

Oakhurst Community Primary School Summer Fayre Saturday 2nd July

2011-06-27T09:00:00.003+01:00

Oakhurst Community Primary School Summer Fayre

This is the school's biggest fundraiser of the year; please try and come along to help out this integral part of Oakhurst's Community.

It's being held on Saturday 2nd July from 11:30 to 14:30, on the school grounds.

ORA response to Core Strategy and Tadpole Farm

2011-06-26T08:50:00.001+01:00

The ORA committee produced a response to Swindon Borough Council’s newly proposed Core Strategy, and submitted it to the Council. A decision was made not to publish the entire document, (which totals over 7,000 words), into the public domain at this time, but we are able to release the following synopsis:

ORA have looked at the whole core strategy and used the major categories for reference. However, our submission is based on Tadpole Farm. Our main points of concern are:

Employment

The provision of employment opportunity in the Northern Development Area (NDA) and proposed Tadpole Farm development is poor. These developments are geographically positioned at the furthest point away from the centre of Swindon compared to other development areas. They are also not within easy commutable distance of the eastern employment areas which will inevitably undermine attempts to provide a good range of travel choices.

Waste

As it stands the Core Strategy does not address key strategic issues with the wastewater network. These issues are particularly acute for any development to the North and North West of the town with the current sewer network already at full capacity and solutions, which will be expensive and difficult to implement, yet to be defined or funded.

Traffic

The road infrastructure in North Swindon is not sustainable, with no direct route into either the town centre or employment areas. Any further development will further stretch the capacity, leading to concerns over safety and impacting on the quality of life of existing communities.

Education

The NDA has grown over recent years without adequate local provision for education, and is still continuing to grow with many existing development sites not yet completed. It is already, frequently not possible for parents to get their children into their local school – resulting in a need to travel to a school further away. Further development at the Tadpole Farm site will exacerbate this issue, with inadequate school places being provided for the residents and, in all likelihood, the school provision being delivered well after occupancy of the residential build has started placing further burdens on the existing schools of North Swindon.

Green Infrastructure

The River Ray and associated green corridor is not directly accessible to residents, prevented by the railway line. It will be necessary to provide new crossings over both the railway and River Ray. It is not clear how the funding is to be secured for the development of the Cricklade Country Way or associated access from the NDA.

Brownfield Land

The Core Strategy does not place enough emphasis on the development of brownfield sites. Just 17% of the development proposed will be using brownfield land despite so much of this land being close to the Town Centre.

Sustainability

ORA’s assessment of the Core Strategy supports the previous evidence base, which concluded that development to the North and North West of Swindon represents one of the least sustainable sites for development compared to other areas, such as to the east of Swindon, and this has far-reaching effects on the permeability of the site. Consequently it will require far higher investment in infrastructure than other potential development areas, and this is unlikely to be deliverable.

Flood Risk

Flooding is a very serious concern; in recent years the River Ray has burst its banks several times. Most notable of these occasions was in 2007 when the waters extended significantly beyond the current Environment Agency flood maps. Several homes suffered flood damage and Tadpole Lane was impassable to smaller vehicles for several hours. Many residents submitted their concerns regarding the flooding, which are still displayed on the Wiltshire Council consultation portal. ORA do not feel confident that promised work on the watercourses has been carried out or that the causes of the flooding have been properly identified and mitigation planned.

Electoral Boundary Change

2011-06-14T09:00:00.001+01:00

The LGBCE has produced details of their new proposals for the SBC ward changes. They have broadly followed the proposals of the Conservative Group in Swindon. Their consultation window closes on the 20th June.

The new boudaries being proposed look like this:

As you can see, Oakhurst, and a small sliver of Redhouse will be folded into the Priory Vale ward, whilst the remainder of what used to be Abbey Meads ward would become St Andrews ward.

Although the LGBCE can not be expected to administer for unbuilt properties, the question remains what will happen to the houses that could well be built on Tadpole Farm? Are the current residents of the proposed St Andrews ward happy that their own councillors would also represent the interests of residents of a future Tadpole Farm? Are the residents to the south of Redhouse happy that their 'suburb' will be effectively split in half in this manner?

If you would like to have your say on the draft recommendations, please contact the LGBCE at:

The Review Manager (Swindon)
The Local Government Boundary Commission for England
Layden House
76-86 Turnmill Street
London EC1M 5LG

or email them at reviews@lgbce.org.uk.

Deadline for Core Strategy Approaches

2011-06-13T13:15:00.000+01:00

The deadline for responses to the Swindon Borough Council Core Strategy is 18:00, Thursday 16th June 2011. Although the ORA plans to respond formally to the Core Strategy, if you have your own individual concerns you wish to direct to the council, you have only a few days left within which to do so.

Details of the Core Strategy can be found here, there is an online response form available here, or you can email a response directly to forwardplanning@swindon.gov.uk.

Blood Donation in North Swindon; Monday 13th June 2011

2011-06-06T09:00:00.003+01:00

This is just a reminder that Orchid Vale Primary School have scheduled a blood donation session for Monday 13th June, between 15:00 and 19:30.

To enquire more about the sessions please email orchidvaleblood@gmx.com or visit http://www.blood.co.uk/.

Oakhurst Community Primary School Summer Fayre 2nd July 2011

2011-06-03T09:00:00.002+01:00

Oakhurst Community Primary School Summer Fayre

This is the school's biggest fundraiser of the year; please make a note in your diaries and try to come along to help out this integral part of Oakhurst's Community.

It's being held on Saturday 2nd July from 11:30 to 14:30, on the school grounds.

Minutes From 6th April Public Meeting

2011-05-30T09:00:00.003+01:00

Here are the (extensive) minutes from the Public Meeting hosted by the ORA at Oakhurst Community Primary School on 6th April:

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 6^th 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.

Oakhurst Residents' Association prepares response to the Core Strategy

2011-05-27T10:01:00.000+01:00

Apologies for the hiatus in posting updates on the blog; the ORA Committee have been hard at work preparing a detailed and technical response to Swindon Bororugh Council's new proposed Core Strategy. Hopefully once the document has been completed, we'll be able to publish it here.

Swindon Borough Council have also extended the deadline for responses to the Core Strategy; their new deadline is now 18:00, Thursday 16th June 2011. Details of the Core Strategy can be found here, there is an online response form available here, or you can email a response directly to forwardplanning@swindon.gov.uk.

Isambard Academy plans to impact upon Tadpole Farm plans?

2011-04-16T09:00:00.003+01:00

The provision of Secondary Education is a widely contentious issue when it comes to the proposed Tadpole Farm development. Crest Nicholson did not provide any concrete plans for the provision of such a requirement in their recent consultation, but one of the ideas that was mooted was the construction of new school buildings on the current Isambard Campus, whilst relocating the school's sports facilities/playing fields to their 'proposed Common'.

However Isambard's proposed conversion to an academy may alter these plans:

The following passage is an extract from this Letter from Chair of Governors:

"Isambard is a school built through a PFI scheme. PFI means Private Finance Initiative, which means the school was built using funds provided by commercial organisations rather than through public funding. Without going into the complexities of this, the key result is that a commercial organisation owns the school building. The Local Authority owns the land and the school are tenants.

Currently the Local Authority has a legal relationship with the commercial organisation that owns the building so that if they fail to provide contracted services, or fail to maintain the building, the Local Authority can do something about it. The school has no such agreement; we have no power to ensure the building and associated services are run in the best way for the students and staff. Becoming an academy will change this. The land will be placed in trust, the building will still be

owned by a third party but the school will have the legal capability to negotiate with that company to ensure the school building is of the highest standard."

So, if the land that the school occupies will no longer be in the hands of the Local Authority, how would this impact Crest Nicholson suggestions? What would be the terms of the 'trust' the land is placed in, and how can Crest Nicholson be confident that their proposals can be implemented?

Isambard School - Conversion to Academy Consultation

2011-04-14T12:35:00.003+01:00

The Chair of Governors at Isambard Community School has informed ORA that the school’s Governors are considering converting the school into an academy. They would like to hear your thoughts on this matter. Please see here for more details.

If you would like to ask questions, or to voice your thoughts in a public forum, there will be a meeting for parents or interested parties on Tuesday, 26th April 2011, 6.30pm at Isambard School (school hall) or if you would prefer to email your views then please email consultation@isambard.swindon.sch.uk. The consultation period closes on Thursday, 28th April 2011.

ORA members have expressed the following concerns about the way that the consultation has been managed:

The consultation period is very short.
There has been very little communication with the general community about the proposed change.
There has been no letterbox publicity about the consultation.
Only parents of Year 6 pupils have been contacted but parents of younger children (especially Year 5 who were invited to the schools’ open evening) appear to have no say about what is going to happen, despite Isambard’s importance in this part of north Swindon.

The Chair of Governors has been invited to attend our next committee meeting on 4th May and we will let you know if there is any more news on this issue.

SBC Proposed Core Strategy Consultation begins today

2011-04-12T09:07:00.000+01:00

The emerging core strategy sets out the Borough’s future development principles from now until 2026. ORA understands that 19,000 homes will have to be built by this date.

Tadpole Farm is one of the sites identified for development. The first consultations will be held today and tomorrow at the Central Library from 10am to 5pm.

Reports from ORA's Public Meeting on 6th April 2011

2011-04-12T09:04:00.000+01:00

Swindon Link has reported on our public meeting here

ORA Committee Positions

2011-04-07T09:00:00.002+01:00

Our current committee now consists as follows:

Chair:	Ian Birch
Vice-Chair:	Rob Nyman
Membership Secretary:	Stephanie Exell
Treasurer:	Andrew Oakes
Minutes Secretary:	Brychan Travers
Committee Members:	Henry Mandikutse

Tadpole Farm : SBC Cabinet Member Agrees With ORA

2011-04-06T22:19:00.000+01:00

At a public meeting held in Wanborough to discuss the proposed Eastern Village plans, the Swindon Borough Council Lead Member for Planning, Cllr Peter Greenhalgh, unexpectedly seemed to come out in support of ORA over Tadpole Farm!
He is quoted as saying that the "council was trying not to make the same mistakes as in north Swindon, with its sprawling mass of housing and overloaded transport network", seemingly agreeing with ORA that the roads in Oakhurst and the rest of North Swindon are already overloaded and cannot take anymore houses.

See the full article at -

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/local/8953600.7_500_homes__No_thank_you/

Public Meeting Tomorrow 7:30 @ Oakhurst Primary School

2011-04-05T09:38:00.000+01:00

Here is a copy of the leaflet we distributed last week, with details of tomorrows public meeting:

Tadpole Farm : Is Public Consultation Invalid?

2011-04-02T23:55:00.000+01:00

In a bizaare move SBC's Cabinet Member For Planning has allegedly refused to attend a public consultation on a proposal for 7,500 homes in East Swindon if the media are at the meeting to report on it! He is quoted as saying that he would only attend if the media were excluded...for more details see the full article -

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/8947266.Press_blackout_over_homes_plan/

Surely a public consultation is open to all, including the media?

Reports on reactions to Tadpole Farm consultations

2011-03-28T16:02:00.000+01:00

Swindon Link has a report here and Haydon End Community Site also has some thoughts here.

Tadpole Farm: Oakhurst Residents' Petition Goes On-Line!

2011-03-23T23:04:00.003Z

The petition that calls for our Swindon MPs and councillors to consult with the residents on developments that affect them and to take account of their views has now gone on-line as an e-petition!

If you have not yet signed the paper petition, then please go to -

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/take_account_of_our_views

and register your support now!

SBC Proposed Core Strategy Consultation Dates & Venues

2011-03-22T14:27:00.001Z

The emerging core strategy sets out the Borough’s future development principles from now until 2026. ORA understands that 19,000 homes will have to be built by this date.

Tadpole Farm is one of the sites identified for development. Please note the proposed consultation dates for the core strategy:

Exhibitions:

Central Library: 12th & 13th April - 10am to 5pm
North Swindon Library: Tuesday, 26th April - 2pm to 5pm
Parks Library: 3rd May - 10am to 2pm
Brunel Centre: 5th, 6th & 7th May - all day.
Highworth Library: 10th May - 10am to 2pm
Wroughton Library: (to be arranged).

Launch: Thursday, 24th March 2011

Consultation: for 8 weeks - closing date Thursday, 19th May 2011

Neighbourhood Policing Team Surgery 26th March 2011

2011-03-22T09:00:00.000Z

The Swindon North NPT will be holding an open surgery for consultation with members of the public on Saturday 26th March 2011, between 12:00 and 13:00, at North Swindon Library.
(Orbital Retail Park, Thamesdown Drive, Swindon)

Tadpole Farm: Crest Nicholson selling all things to all people?

2011-03-21T09:00:00.011Z

Crest Nicholsons' consultation documents show us three different proposals for the same area of land. Which one are we supposed to believe will be the end result? Surely not all of them?

Here is an image taken from the southern edge of Crest Nicholsons' initial design concept for Tadpole Farm:

It shows an area of green space that Crest Nicholson have designated as 'The Common', that would separate the Tadpole Farm houses from the rest of Priory Vale.

Under the title 'What facilities could be provided?', Crest Nicholson produced this map:

In conjuction, they said "A variety of green areas could provide Formal sports areas and fields"

Then, also in the same consultation material, under the heading 'What open space could be provided?', we see this map:

The adjoing explanation reads "The plan above and the photos illustrate the varied green spaces to which informal public access could be provided"

On top of both of these possible uses for 'The Common', Crest Nicholson also stated in their March 2011 Q&A document "It is also possible that land north of Tadpole Lane could be used for playing fields to enable Isambard School to build on some of their existing playing fields without losing their overall sports provision."

So we have three possible uses for 'The Common'; Formal, Informal and Educational, all of which seem mutually exclusive. So whilst it could be argued that Crest Nicholson are only in the initial stages of their community consultation, how can the general public be expected to provide their opinions on such conflicting information? How can one area provide facilities for three different uses at the same time?

Tadpole Farm: ORA Resident Feedback Form

2011-03-20T09:15:00.001Z

The Oakhurst Residents' Association have produced a feedback form for our members to express their concerns to Crest Nicholson regarding their current community consultations.

Click here to print or download our Resident Feedback Form.

Click here to see the last three venues over this coming week for the consultations.

Tadpole Farm: Crest Nicholsons' Transport Assessment

2011-03-19T09:00:00.057Z

Crest Nicholson agreed an area of search with Swindon Borough Council and the Highways Agency when assessing the impact of traffic from Tadpole Farm.

Here is the map of that area:

As you can see, there seems to have been no study into any potential increase of traffic towards Juction 16 of the M4. Could this be because that this route through West Swindon already has severe issues?

Crest Nicholson say "Thamesdown Drive and Oakhurst Way have sufficient traffic capacity to accommodate the additional traffic from Tadpole Farm."

Unfortunately, Crest Nicholson have not published their Transport Assessment figures, but with Oakhurst Way already being difficult for pedestrians to cross at busy times already, it would be interesting to see what volumes they view as acceptable, and how they compare to current levels.

However, Crest Nicholson also say "A number of the roads in Priory Vale have been built as spine roads to a high design specification. They are over 6m wide with wide verges and large roundabouts."

Why would the width of the roads or the size of the verges be of importance? Is there is a suggestion of increasing the number of carriagways on a road? What are the other roads in Priory Vale that are mentioned here, and for what reason have they been earmarked by Crest Nicholson?

Tadpole Farm: Traffic flow proposals from Crest Nicholson

2011-03-18T16:50:00.003Z

Here is the map produced by Crest Nicholson to illustrate their proposals for traffic flow from the Tadpole Farm site:

Crest Nicholson say "As part of the proposals there is also the potential to introduce traffic

calming measures along Tadpole Lane, to slow vehicle speeds and to discourage rat-running traffic."

What would then happen to traffic arriving into Swindon from the western end of Tadpole Lane? Should the alterations really discourage drivers who would normally travel the length of Tadpole Lane, wouldn't this then increase the traffic flow onto Oakhurst Way, regardless of traffic flow from the new development?

Crest Nicholson also have this to say about their 'Western Gateway': "A single lane bridge with traffic signals would restrict traffic flows from the new community."

Although traffic lights may be able to control traffic flows through to Oakhurst Way, we won't know exactly how this will be intended until details proposals are submitted further on down the line. Without this information, it is difficult to predict exactly how bad the traffic along Oakhurst Way will become.

Oakhurst Residents' Association on Facebook

2011-03-14T09:00:00.000Z

Oakhurst Residents' Association now have their own Facebook page.

Tadpole Farm: Public Meeting 6th April @ Oakhurst School

2011-03-12T08:44:00.004Z

Oakhurst Residents’ Association will be holding a public meeting on Wednesday, 6th April 2011, 7.30pm at Oakhurst Community Primary School. The meeting will be held at a key point for SBC’s proposed Core Strategy and at the end of the first community consultation with the developers concerning proposed development at Tadpole Farm. We would like to invite you all to our meeting to represent the concerns/aspirations of Oakhurst and the wider community

Oakhurst Residents' Association - Disclaimer

2011-03-11T09:06:00.001Z

A disclaimer has now been added to the site.

While every care has been taken in the compilation of this information and every attempt made to present up-to-date and accurate information Oakhurst Residents’ Association cannot guarantee that inaccuracies will not occur. Oakhurst Residents’ Association will not be held responsible for any loss, damage or inconvenience caused as a result of any inaccuracy or error within these pages or any publications produced by the Association. Some pages may contain links from our site to pages maintained by other organisations. These are provided purely for your convenience. They do not imply that Oakhurst Residents’ Association endorses or supports those organisations, the information on their pages, or their products or services in any way. No responsibility is assumed by Oakhurst Residents’ Association for the contents of their pages or for the actions of individual members of the Association.

Key resolution about development passed at North Swindon Cluster Group

2011-03-10T15:55:00.000Z

On Tuesday, 8 March 2011 members of ORA attended the Connecting People, Connecting Places (CPCP) meeting at North Swindon Library. On the agenda, among other topics, were SBC’s proposed Core Strategy document and the Tadpole Farm community consultation with the developers.

After a good discussion, a resolution was put to the meeting by the chair of Haydon Wick Parish Council and seconded by ORA – the resolution was that there should be no further development in north Swindon until the promised and future infrastructure is in place such as roads (including the Iffley Road link), community facilities and schools.

This motion was unanimously supported by the floor, except for Cllr Barnett, (Haydon Wick) who thought he might support the infrastructure argument if he had more information. Cllr Renard (Haydon Wick) left before the vote but said that he would second the motion at Full Council (after he had checked with the Head of Law and Democratic Services about procedure). Community representatives from Blunsdon Parish Council, Haydon Wick Parish Council, Rodbourne Cheney Residents’ Association and ORA have asked that our councillors take the cluster’s resolution to Full Council a.s.a.p. and that they support the views of the local community through the resolution. We are now awaiting a response from the Cluster lead, about what support our North Swindon ward councillors will give to residents in response to this resolution.

Oakhurst and North Swindon residents turn up to support ORA CAMEO

2011-03-10T14:49:00.001Z

It was great to see existing members as well as some new faces at ORA’s CAMEO (Come and Meet Each Other) held at Oakhurst Community Primary School last Saturday (5^th March). We had a busy morning meeting each other, sharing information and listening to community concerns, at the first event of this type which ORA have held since the Association was reformed in November 2010. ORA committee members were on hand to chat to residents and one of our local councillors dropped in during the morning.

It was really good to be able to talk face–to-face with residents from several areas of North Swindon and to find out how residents are feeling about general community issues, especially our collective concerns about the proposed development at Tadpole Farm.

CAMEO Event Tomorrow at Oakhurst School

2011-03-04T09:00:00.004Z

This is just a reminder that Oakhurst Residents' Association is organising a CAMEO (Come and Meet Each Other) Event. This will be tomorrow, between 11:00 am and 1:00 pm, at the community rooms in Oakhurst Community Primary School. This will be an 'open' event, so that visitors can drop in at any point during the times mentioned.

It's an opportunity for ORA members and Oakhurst residents to get to know one another, to catch up on community news and to update everyone about the Tadpole Farm campaign.

Refreshments will be available for attendees.

North Swindon once again shortchanged?

2011-03-03T09:00:00.002Z

Swindon Link magazine has an article here concerning the whereabouts of over £10 million of developers' money that was supposed to be earmarked for North Swindon.

It certainly makes the £700,000 obtained by Abbey Meads Councillors pale in comparison. Once again, is this a direct result of North Swindon being under-represented on Swindon Borough Council?

North Swindon Cluster Meeting - 6.30 pm, Tuesday 8th March 2011

2011-03-02T09:00:00.013Z

Please come along to your North Swindon Cluster Meeting at the North Swindon Library.

This is an opportunity to get your voice heard and influence decision making in North Swindon. Your local councillors and agencies working in North Swindon will be in attendance.

Items for discussion will include:

- Police Update

- Mouldon Hill Update

- Dates of next meetings

- Any issues or concerns raised by residents

- Core strategy and how residents of North Swindon Cluster can be involved

A map showing the extent of the North Cluster can be found here.

SBC Planners to present plans to Parish Council

2011-03-01T09:00:00.000Z

From the minutes of the Haydon Wick Parish Council here, we can see that Swindon Borough Planning Officers have asked to give a presentation of the Core Strategy to the Council meeting in April or May.

The Parish Council have resolved to arrange for the for the presentation to take place on Tuesday 19 April 2011 at 7.00pm prior to full Council.

Tadpole Farm Community Consultation

2011-02-28T18:47:00.005Z

Proposals at Tadpole Farm for approx. 1700 dwellings

Swindon Borough Council’s future Development Plan proposes building at

Tadpole Farm. Local residents and community representatives are invited to

a series of exhibitions displaying the findings of the work carried out to date

by Crest Nicholson. Members of the developer’s team will be available to

listen to your views and to answer questions.

(Dates below)

Friday 11 March 6pm – 9pm Isambard Community School

Saturday 12 March 10am – 4pm Isambard Community School

Monday 21 March 11am – 7pm North Library, next to ASDA,

North Swindon District Centre

Wednesday 23 March 3pm – 8pm Blunsdon Parish Hall

Thursday 24 March 3pm – 8pm Haydon Wick Parish Council

Offices, Thames Avenue

Your comments and responses to the issues raised by the proposals will

be welcomed.

If you have any questions about this consultation the please contact ORA

Blood Donation in North Swindon; Tuesday 8th March 2011

2011-02-28T09:00:00.006Z

This is just a reminder that Orchid Vale Primary School have scheduled a blood donation session for Tuesday 8th March, between 15:00 and 19:30.
To enquire more about the sessions please email orchidvaleblood@gmx.com or visit http://www.blood.co.uk/.

There is also a subsequent session scheduled for Monday 13th June.

Developers and MP reveal their disastrous proposals for Tadpole Farm!

2011-02-26T15:45:00.005Z

On Friday, 25^th February 2011 a meeting was hosted by the North Swindon MP for the developers and ORA The purpose of the meeting was for ORA to gain a better understanding of the developers’ proposals for Tadpole Farm.

The outcome of the meeting is that ORA are now a lot clearer about the position of our political representatives – with both the MP and the ward councillors appearing, to all intents and purposes, to be batting for the developers against the residents of Oakhurst

Despite strong views from ORA and others about the impact that increased traffic and the risk of flooding will have on their lives, the MP’s highest priority seemed to be open spaces with traffic issues at the bottom of the list. There was also talk of closing Tadpole Lane, which would force all traffic coming to and from the A419 along Tadpole Lane/Lady Lane to use Oakhurst Way and Saltzgitter Drive for access to Thamesdown Drive.

There was also talk of expanding the Isambard school campus across Tadpole Lane with a footbridge to give the children access to both halves of the school. The main conclusion seems to be that everyone, with the exception of ORA, has already decided that Oakhurst Way and Saltzgitter Drive are going to take the brunt of all the traffic. ORA members are all that stands between the developers and disaster.

ORA are totally committed to fight the development at Tadpole Farm and we are now going to double are efforts with our ‘No to houses at Tadpole Farm’ campaign.

ORA Upcoming Events

2011-02-26T09:00:00.012Z

This post details any upcoming events that the ORA has scheduled, or could be important to the local community. We aim to keep this as up to date as possible.

Oakhurst Community Primary School Summer Fayre

Saturday 2nd July 11:30 to 14:30.

This is the school's biggest fundraiser of the year; please try and come along to help out this integral part of Oakhurst's Community.

Protestors Clear First Hurdle

2011-02-25T09:00:00.002Z

Campaigners against the proposed wind turbines at the Honda site have cleared their first hurdle as the Swindon Borough Council Planning Committee voted to defer a decision on the application to build three 120m wind turbines. This was to allow time for the council planning department to produce a report laying out the legal grounds for refusal of the application.

Further details can be seen in the Swindon Advertiser article at http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/local/8840380.Wind_is_taken_out_of_turbine_sails/

Parish Council Shares Tadpole Development Concerns

2011-02-24T09:00:00.007Z

The Haydon End Community Site has highlighted the documented concerns of our Parish Council here .

ORA Membership

2011-02-22T12:48:00.001Z

So far our membership has grown in a few short months to over 150 individuals, so thank you to everyone who has shown an interest and signed up.

If you have not joined the ORA, and are thinking of doing so, please continue reading...

If you would like to become a member, and live in Oakhurst, please email Steph Exell at steph.exell@sky.com , or phone on 01793 703276. We require your name and email address* for membership, and would like to know your address if possible, to both verify that you are indeed a resident of Oakhurst, and to see what roads/areas are represented by our members.

We are also sensitive to data protection issues, and will honour any requests for information not to be held on electronic databases.

Membership is completely free, and will also allow us to keep you updated with ORA business.

If you do not live within the boundaries of Oakhurst, but are still interested in the business of the ORA, then you can apply to be an Associate Member. You will still receive all the information that members receive, but will not be eligible to vote at ORA General Meetings, nor be able to become a member of the ORA Committee.

*An email address is not always a requisite, but we would prefer this medium to get in touch. If you do not have an email address, or are unwilling to give us this information, please use the phone number provided to discuss your membership.

ORA Constitution published

2011-02-19T09:00:00.000Z

The ORA Committee met on Wednesday 9th February to cover a range of issues, one of which was to adopt and sign the Constitution of the Oakhurst Residents' Association. This has been reproduced below:

CONSTITUTION OF OAKHURST RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

1 – NAME

The name of the organisation is the OAKHURST RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION (hereinafter called “the Association”).

2 – OBJECTIVES & MISSION STATEMENT

The organisation has been set up to represent the interests of the community and its residents, when dealing with planning proposals and any issues which are already affecting individuals or are likely to have an impact on the area in the future. We will represent the area referred to as Oakhurst. It is our intention to work with other representative organisations in North Swindon in order to achieve common goals.

Our objective will be ensure that suitable contacts are established with our local MP, Councillors, planning officials and where appropriate developers to ensure that an accurate and honest exchange of information is achieved and to negotiate satisfactory and acceptable outcomes when residents or the community have been unable to reach satisfactory solutions.

Develop strategies that will enable the organisation to convey to decision makers our thoughts, and reactions to plans that are likely to undermine local resources reduce the efficiency of local services and conflict with future aspirations for the community.

We will endeavour to create a close community in order to improve awareness on all matters whether they are social, recreational or leisure.

3 – POWERS

- In furtherance of the Associations objectives the Association shall have power to:

a) Bring together representatives of Government, local Council and statutory authorities and individuals.

b) Arrange and provide meetings with others to discuss, make presentations regarding personal or group issues.

c) Collect and distribute information on any matters relating to the Associations objectives.

d) Raise funds and invite donations and/or contributions whether by subscription or otherwise to cover the Associations costs.

e) Ensure that all activities are conducted in a lawful manner and comply with recognised rules;

4 – MEMBERSHIP

a) Membership shall be open, irrespective of sex, race, and nationality or political opinions.

b) Individuals aged 18 or over.

c) Who live in the area of benefit and shall be known as full members.

d) Members who live outside the area of benefit shall not have the right of vote at General Meetings of the Association.

5 – SECTIONS

- Sections shall be groups of individual members as may, with the permission of the Committee, be formed within the Association for the furtherance of common or special activities. The Committee will define terms of reference as necessary for each function.

6 – GENERAL MEETINGS OF THE ASSOCIATION

a) Annual General Meetings – will be held once per calendar year and being no more than 15 months after the adoption of this constitution. At least 21 days notice shall be posted in a conspicuous place, local press or electronic means.

b) The business of each Annual General Meeting shall be:

i) To receive the Annual Report of the General Committee, which shall incorporate the accounts of the Association referred to below, and provide an account of the work and activities of the Association during the preceding year.

ii) To receive the accounts of the Association for the preceding financial year.

iii) To elect the General Committee of the Association for the following year, and note the names of persons appointed.

c) Special General Meetings – The Chair and the Secretary of the General Committee may at any time at his/her discretion call a Special General Meeting to discuss specific issues. 21 days notice for such an event will be provided by posting a notice in a conspicuous place, by press or electronic means.

7 – THE GENERAL COMMITTEE

a) Shall consist of a maximum of eight (8) full voting members.

b) Committee members shall serve for twelve months from election and then maybe be re-elected or re-appointed for a further twelve month term.

c) The officers and members of the Committee should behave at all times in public with respect for other members of the community, so as not to bring the Association into disrepute or conflict. Should this happen the member/s may be asked to resign.

d) Officers or Committee members absent from more than 3 meetings without apology or permission of the Committee shall cease to hold office.

e) Officers or committee members wishing to resign, should submit notice in writing providing reasonable notice to enable a replacement to be appointed.

f) Each member of the General Committee shall upon appointment receive a copy of the Associations constitution. Each member shall also be requested to sign the minute book a declaration of acceptance of the terms of the constitution.

8 – SUB-COMMITTEE

a) The General Committee may appoint one or more sub-committees for supervising or performing special activities or services.

b) In this case the General Committee shall define terms of reference, its composition and duration of activities.

c) All acts and proceedings of the sub-committee shall be reported to the General Committee in a prompt manner.

9 – CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Members of the General Committee should declare as soon as practical any conflict of interest relating to the activities of the Association.

10 – RULES OF PROCEDURE AT MEETINGS

a) Voting – Any questions arising at a meeting of the Association or its committee shall be decided by a simple majority of those present and eligible to vote. No member shall exercise more than one vote. In the event of a tied vote the Chair shall have a casting vote.

b) Quorum

i) Committee Meetings – one third of the members with power to vote shall form a quorum at meetings of the General Committee.

ii) General Meetings – ten members with power to vote or one third of the members with power to vote, whichever is the less, shall form a quorum at General Meetings of the Association.

In the event that no quorum is present at an Annual General Meeting of the Association, or the meeting has to be abandoned the meeting shall stand adjourned and be reconvened 14 days later, and those members shall be deemed to for a quorum.

iii) Minutes – Minutes of all meetings shall be kept by the Association and the respective secretary shall enter all proceedings and resolutions.

11 – STANDING ORDERS AND RULES FOR THE USE OF THE ASSOCIATION

a) The General Committee shall have the power to adopt and issue Standing Orders for the conduct of Association business. Such Standing Orders shall come into operation immediately, provided always that they shall be subject to review by the Association in General Meeting and that they shall be consistent with the provisions of this constitution.

12 – FINANCE

a) All funds raised by or on behalf of the Association shall be applied to further the objectives of the Association and for no other purpose. Provided that nothing herein contained shall prevent the payment or repayment of reasonable out of pocket expenses incurred on behalf of the Associations business.

b) An account shall be opened in the name of the Association with a recognised bank. The General Committee shall authorise in writing the Treasurer, the Secretary, the Chair and Vice Chair, to sign cheques on behalf of the Association. All cheques must be signed by not less than two authorised signatories.

c) The Association shall take out Public Liability Insurance.

d) The Associations financial year shall be from 1^st April to 31^st March.

13 – ACCOUNTS AND ANNUAL REPORT

a) The General Committee shall keep accounting records for the Association.

b) Prepare an annual statement of the accounts of the Association.

c) Arrange the auditing of the accounts of the Association by someone other than the treasurer.

d) The General Committee shall comply with its obligations with respect to the preparation of an annual financial return.

14 – INDEMNITY

a) In the execution of the Associations business no member of the General Committee shall be liable:

b) For any loss to the property of the Association by reason of improper investment made in good faith (so long as he/she shall have sought professional advice before making such investment) or;

c) For the negligence or fraud of any agent employed by him/her or by any other member of the General Committee in good faith (provided reasonable supervision shall have been exercised)

d) No member of the General Committee shall be liable by reason of any mistake or omission made in good faith by any member of the General Committee other than wilful and individual fraud, wrongdoing or wrongful omission on the part of the member who is sought to be made liable.

15 – PRIVACY POLICY

The Association will only discuss the interests of members attending the meeting or members who have given express permission to a member of the committee for their interests to be discussed.

The Association will safeguard members’ details. We will not pass the addresses or email addresses of members to third parties without their express permission.

The Association will not pass third party information regarding individuals, households or businesses to its members unless asked to do so by a public body, for example the police or the council. In such a case we will make it clear where this information has been sourced.

16 – DISSOLUTION

If the General Committee by a simple majority decides at any time that on the grounds of expense or otherwise it is necessary or advisable to dissolve the Association it shall call a meeting of all members with the power to vote and of the residents of the area benefit of the age of 18 and upwards of which meeting not less than 21 notice (stating the terms of the resolution to be proposed thereat) shall be posted in a conspicuous place, local press or electronic means.

If such decision shall be confirmed by a simple majority of those present and voting at such meeting the General Committee shall have the power to dispose of any assets held by or in the name of the Association. Any assets remaining after the satisfaction of any proper debts and liabilities shall be applied towards such charitable purposes for the benefit of the residents of the area of benefit.

17 – ALTERATIONS TO THE CONSTITUTION

Any proposal to alter this constitution must be delivered in writing to the Secretary of the Association not less than 14 days before the date of the meeting at which it is first to be considered. Any alteration will require the approval of both:

a) A simple majority of the members of the General Committee present and voting at a General Committee meeting;

b) A two-thirds majority s of members with power to vote present at the said meeting.

c) At least 21 notice shall be posted in a conspicuous place, local press or electronic means stating the wording of the proposed alteration.

AREA OF BENEFIT

Oakhurst, Swindon

THIS CONSTITUTION WAS ADOPTED & APPROVED

At a Committee Meeting of the Association held on: 9^th February 2011.

(Names of Signatories have been redacted for privacy reasons)