Anne says “Taylor Wimpey have restarted building in earnest after the failure of the final challenge. This time it was Goliath and not the David of local democracy that won, alas.”
Traffic out of South Abingdon was fairly slow this morning as most people headed towards Tesco, the trading estate, and the A34. It tailed back nearly as far as the new development.
The new pedestrian lights put in, at the expense of the developers, to marginally improve the traffic flow out of the Drayton Road by holding back traffic on Ock Street, have been operating for some weeks now. So it would be interesting to know if they have had the desired effect.
…the requirement was that “traffic would be no worse”. I think the same report also says ” no more than 5 cars queuing on Drayton Rd. It is fair to say that whilst it is certainly dire, it is no worse (although the houses aren’t built yet).
I got part of a reply from OCC regarding the Consultants report….it us somewhere buried in a hugece.ail full if links and minutes and attachments. If they want the report to be available and open and transparent…they arent trying very hard to make it that way. If anyone wants to sieve through it…please let me know and I’ll pass it on!
Youd think that there’s still an outstanding questions to be answered regarding consultants…..…Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?
Meanwhile, as it seems The Veil and other councils are only interested in responding to FOI requests, I have one about to be submitted regarding this…and consultants on general. It seems the only way to get any answers to anything.
I had already contacted The Veil yesterday regarding the restarting of building work – it is entirely possible that they have no idea it has restarted… I asked whether the reasons for its previous halt had been resolved and to clarify; what was the cause of the halt, and how has that obligation now been discharged? (It was because, i think, some planning requirements surrounding wildlife that the developer had chosen to totally disregard, that were the reason, I think. And far be it for The Veil to notice….it was a member of the public that did). In all likelihood…the developer had probably just hoped The Veil have forgotten, and so chanced their luck. So works the way of things on these here parts…
I guess though…we do need those £400k starter homes.
From TWs website….” We also make a positive contribution to the communities in which we work by developing infrastructure and making financial contributions to local authorities.”. I for one wonder what exactly the positive contribution is?
Queues down spring road have got a bit longer since new traffic lights went in.
What is more concerning is the steady stream of school kids in the morning crossing the road roughly where the old lights were. In traffic management terms they call it ‘crow-flight behaviour’.
I was under the impression that pelican crossings were instituted for the safety of people crossing roads – not as a traffic management tool.
A bad decision by the county council – prioritising the costs of potential legal action vs public safety
…preceded by The Veil prioritising the cost of potential legal action vs the benefit of the community it serves.
Iain. When this proposal was at consultation stage I submitted to OCC my concerns that moving the crossing further along Marcham rd would be a recipe for disaster unless the corner and lead up to the crossing had rainings along that entire stretch to stop “Jay Walking” they ignored my comments, now we gave to wait for the first child casualty before they take heed !
Neal Fawcett I think you are our councillor we can call upon on this issue? (Correct me if I’m wrong) so I urge you to lobby at the highest possible level to have rainings installed ASAP !!
As did i Steve with my school governor hat on and it was clearly not taken seriously
Captainkaos2 and Iain agreeing on something??? Whatever next??? Have i entered a parallel universe? 😉
I too stated that the kids would still cross “as the crow flies” and not walk the extra 50 yds up the road. I also gave my opinion that the Spring Rd traffic would get worse- not better, but all our common sense and knowledge about human behaviour and the local traffic stood for nought against the developers getting what they wanted.
They stand to make a good sum out of these developments and we stand to be paying the price.
Mind full of these comments (and my overactive predicted text thingy) should it now be the case the consultants involved on this be brought to book? How many times have we seen common sense and local knowledge ignored by the decision makers in favour of so called “experts” ?
If the entire Morland Green project was dependent on this junctions modifications being able to cope with the obvious increase in traffic why wasn’t it given a trial period prior to planning being granted?
So now we have an even bigger bottle neck of a bottle neck (not to mention a very dangerous creation too) what’s the answer? It surely can’t be left like this?
How about a one way lane going left off Drayton road through Ock Valley and joining the Marcham rd at McDonald’s r/about (between premier inn and the care home?
…I asked those very questions, about consultants, to Dave Nimo-Smith; the OCC councillor who ultimately rubber stamped the crossings go-ahead, who ultimately decided against a trial, and who went with the consultant view rather than anyone else’s.
He got very shirty, gave me short shrift…and said if I want answers, to submit an FOI request. So I am. This of course succinctly sums up what ‘they’ think of ‘us’.
Finally, with all this disharmony, let this quote from Taylor Wimpey echo round your head…..”We also make a positive contribution to the communities in which we work….”.
this is the weakness of the FoI act. While it doubtless has forced government to be more open and enabled access to information to charities, pressure groups and individuals, it can also foster the attitude in below-par councillors that the ONLY information they should divulge is that forced on them by the FOI act.
government really ought to be so transparent that the FOI is rarely needed.
Since Cllr Nimmo-Smith represents the less-than-marginal Woodcote and Rotherfield in South Oxfordshire there is little chance of him being held to account by voters, sadly. So he can behave as he wishes.
You can have all the consultants, surveys and planners available , but when the decisions are made ultimately by one person, questions Must be asked ?
Is this how it is? A situation arises, (in this case Morland green planning application) that requires careful and expert decision making, the poor old councillor who probably hasn’t a clue about the subject because he’s a teacher or retired civil servant, asks the appropriate council officers for advice, but the officers worried about getting the blame if they make/recommend a bad choice, farm the subject out to consultants, thus avoiding making a decision ( you can’t get the blame for making a bad decision if you don’t make one) the consultants come back with their take on the subject and make recommendations accordingly, but no officers are prepared to challenge the findings or seek comparisons, so the consultants recommendations along with umpteen protective conditions are given to the councillor from which he and he alone makes a judgement, the judgement was wrong because the consultants were wrong because the officers were not diligent.
So where does the buck stop ?
The adverts say where there’s blame, there’s a claim, so do we take action against the councillor and hope he has public liability cover? Do you sack the officers for not showing diligence and expertise? Or should the buck stop at the consultants?
As some of you know I fought this decision at every possible level at the County Council including getting it ‘called-in’ by the Scrutiny Committee.
Sadly we are seeing exactly the behaviour from school children that many of us predicted.
The suggestion of railings was made as part of those meetings but it is difficult to install them along the full length because of access issues.
As far as the traffic is concerned it seems to have made Ock Street and Spring Road worse while making Drayton Road no better.
Well, the FOI request(s) are in…it is likely this blog article will have dropped off the radar by the time any replies come back. I’ll post those replies on AbingdonFirst, for anyone interested, and will let you know when received. If an appropriate article appears here, I’ll also mention it….
Thanks to Daniel (and others) for their activity on this.
Neil, there only need be railings fitted to the south side of the Marcham rd, ideally from the corner to the lay-by, there is only one access point and that’s to the MG garden which could easily be gated, we/you must get out of the w
“We can’t ” mindset, we can and should especially when it comes to our children’s safety !
It was obvious that the lights would make no difference as traffic would be held up turning right to go into town. Also there would be more of a queue down Spring Road. We have not seen the effect of the extra traffic generated by the new development yet. It is very difficult to get out of South Abingdon during peak times.
So Neil what are you doing about it for us? There was a time not too long ago when there was a robust opposition, sadly that seems to have disappeared since the last election, how could the Lib/Dems have gone from being the party in power here to one of being so insignificant ?
i know this may come as a little surprise to some of you; coming from me….but…to get back to the original issue here…
It’s the bats. The issue with the development stopping and then restarting was the bats….
Full dialogue available if required, but in summary:
“On the 18th November 2015, the discharge of condition application P15/V2398/DIS was partially discharged by a planning officer. This allowed Taylor Wimpey to return to site and continue the development.”
I asked for furtehr details….
“The application covered conditions 4 (Mitigation strategy for bats), 6 (Mitigation strategy for badgers) and 11 (Aboricultural method).
The partial discharge relates to condition number 4. Further work is required to three trees (two on the Eastern boundary and one on the Southern boundary) as they were not surveyed previously along with all the other trees on the site.”
Bat surveys can only be done in the summer so the next opportunity to do it would be summer 2016 which would delay the development. On the advise of the Vale of the White Horse DC Countryside Officer the condition was partially discharged by Shaun Wells as these trees would not be impacted by the commencement of the development.”
I asked why the survey can’t wait – to ensure compliance (ie that the bats are OK), as, if they aren’t surely it renders the whole process a little null….
The bat mitigation strategy was prepared by an independent specialist firm on behalf of Taylor Wimpey and reviewed by our (VOWH) countryside officer who advised planning case officer to approve it and discharge the condition.
As for allowing works to commence again under a partial discharge rather than waiting until the summer; an executive decision was made by the case officer which will have been based on a number of factors such as potential impact to wildlife, the proportionality of holding up a site on the for a period of time on the possibility that the three trees not surveyed would be significantly different from neighbouring trees that have been assessed, the need to approve and deliver housing etc.
At this moment in time, Taylor Wimpey are lawfully implementing their planning permission and no enforcement action is required.”
So..there you have it…some facts. Some proper, true facts….it may not be ideal, but at least the information, if anyone wants it, is out there – and can now be “batted” around accordingly!!
Again…a little surprising coming from me, but I must say a quick thanks to The Veil for an incredibly friendly, and prompt response to my queries.
I must say that I was impressed with the way Neil and all the Abingdon Councillors fought to oppose the planning application. In my opinion they could have not done any more.
Not taking anything away from their efforts, Janet, but if every man, his dog and his councillor object to something or are against something or do all that they collectively can….and still something gets permission…it kinda renders every public consultation, resident input, survey, and objection entirely pointless. And that would be a frightening thought.
I hold out hope that while efforts were commendable, there could have been a way to prevent this.
There is a lot of fight coming our way. This example serves to illustrate; either we need to work harder collectively to achieve desirable outcomes for our communities, OR, all efforts and objections are pointless.
I don’t see a third way.
I my cynical way I have often thought that “public consultation” really means “this is a legal hoop that we have to jump through, so we will use the process to tell you what we are going to do whether you want us to or not.”
A long time ago I attended a consultation about the changes to the Abingdon county hall. I asked if there was anything that could be said that evening that would alter in any way the decision of English Heritage? I was told “no”.
The only public consultation that matters a damn is the one that takes place in the ballot box.
…that about sums it up david!
At 5.15pm today the traffic jam on the Drayton Road stretched way beyond Preston Road as far as the eye could see.
Captainkaos2 – often when I report the answers to questions here it is because i have already raised the issue. I did raise the suggestion of putting railings along the south of Marcham Road. It was the access to the MG garden that was the problem and they said that they can’t put gates in because it is too close to the junction for vehicles to stop while the gates are opened.
In response to your and Daniel’s general question about whether I and others, as local councillors, can achieve much – I actually think it is a very fair point for electors to raise, particularly in the light of some of the decisions that have been made that affect our patch.
All I can say is that it is up to you to decide whether it is worth having councillors who at least put up a fight. My view is that it is, because sometimes you will achieve something. A different Planning Inspector could have gone the other way on this development, but they would only have done so on the basis of us putting up a fight.
We lost some of the medium term traffic measures from the County Transport Plan when Abingdon was represented by three County Councillors who weren’t fighting for the town.
We’ve got the current Children’s Centre because I and other councillors made it happen. We may now lose it, but we are more likely to lose it if councillors roll over without a fight.
We’ve still got the possibility of saving some or all of the town bus service because I pushed for services serving more deprived communities to be protected, or the financial pressure might be too great, but we wouldn’t have any chance of saving it if I hadn’t bothered.
So I can’t claim that electing more active councillors solves all the problems, but I do think it makes the difference sometimes.
Here’s a thing, noticed yesterday workmen digging up the centre of the island on the new “white horse” crossing on Ock St and the first thing they did was to put a fluorescent plastic guard rail around the island, now that begs the question of health & safety demand those workmen should have protection from traffic while at that specific location why isn’t there similar or better protection for our children when they use the grossing ?
I wrote to the Abingdon Herald newspaper (it was subsequently published) about the traffic problem on the Preston Road over 30 years ago. Fast-forward to 2015, has nothing changed!