Trivial things you don't understand/mildly annoy you

[Reg Smeeton]

To be perfect it would be downhill there and back. The journey home is a killer, especially the part going into field rise and then to okus.

Well we're all different, for me sitting around in slow moving traffic, for short distance travel, physically and mentally makes me feel ill. I'd always take an alternative if it was there.

[horlock07]

You are witnessing the effects of permitting massive expansion in the north & west of Swindon without insisting on the infrastructure development required to support it.  I was visiting friends in Swindon at the weekend, specifically in Peatmoor and Oakhurst.  Both friends had, up until very recently, been living on the very edge of town.  But very soon, both will be enclosed on all sides.  The scale of the development is quite surprising when you see it for the first time.

Sooner or later, the penny will drop and the Council will realise that government cannot persist in using Swindon as an easy site to locate vast new housing development - without also investing significantly in infrastructure.  It's a bit of a mess, to tell the truth.

Not sure what this has to do with the government, the Council decides where development takes place through allocations within their Local Plan (including how many houses are required via the SHLAA process - I won't bore you!  ) and through determining applications against that adopted Policy, the government can have many things landed at their door (but I will leave that to Reg  ) but where housing is specifically developed isn't one of them.

[Ardiles]

Does central government not decide/allocate the number of housing units that need to be built in each local authority area?  (I thought they did...and that the local authority would then write its Local Plan with a view to meeting the allocation.)  I think my gripe is that it's all well & good to demand that x,000 houses are built by 20xx - but surely there also needs to be funding made available to build the infrastructure.

It seems to me that Swindon - & other councils - are caught between a rock & a hard place.  The town's infrastructure needs a massive overhaul.  Existing transport links were built/designed for a much smaller town.

[Reg Smeeton]

Not sure what this has to do with the government, the Council decides where development takes place through allocations within their Local Plan (including how many houses are required via the SHLAA process - I won't bore you!  ) and through determining applications against that adopted Policy, the government can have many things landed at their door (but I will leave that to Reg  ) but where housing is specifically developed isn't one of them.

It's fair to say that much of these developments are SBC led, but central government has ultimate power....as shown by recent decisions to build at Coate and Wroughton, where SBC said too much in wrong place...Tories forced it through anyway.

It's one of life's little ironies, that the plans for expanding Swindon were put in place by Labour controlled SBC many years ago...the idea mixed council and private housing, would cater for housing need in post war austerity Britain.

This would generate a mixture of skilled and unskilled jobs as companies relocated to tap the work force.   

To that end SBC bought up large tracts of land around the town...part of the plan was that in return for the developments it would enable the building of civic monuments which would benefit the cultural development of the place....eg sporting facilites, theatre, and a long held dream of a university.

But the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry....and SBC's have big style.

It began with the Thatcherite axe on local government, and Council housing being impossible to build...followed by various economic crises, ripping the heart out of employment in skilled work, leaving a top heavy amount of low paid jobs in distribution etc.

The hegemony of neoliberal economics in the last 20 odd years, meant that SBC would have to take the housing estates, but could get back next to nothing in return.

The somewhat forlorn hope being that the private sector would fill the hole and provide cultural developments....and this is where the low wage economy kicks in, it won't as there's no money in it.

So SBC, are left with the statutory crap bits that so far cannot be privatised...and even these are subject to such cuts that they are inevitably inefficient.

[4D]

Roundabouts don't work if there is a biased flow of traffic. E.g blagrove, biased flow between J16 and Mannington so the other two junctions struggle to flow well.

[Samdy Gray]

I commute ~14 miles to work and the longest part of that is getting from Freshbrook to J16. As part of the planned works on Great Western Way there have been suggestions for part-time lights like they have at Mannington.

[horlock07]

This is news? http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/36101069/student-hits-a-deer-on-his-driving-test-but-still-passes

[Panda Paws]

No, it's content....

[horlock07]

Does central government not decide/allocate the number of housing units that need to be built in each local authority area?  (I thought they did...and that the local authority would then write its Local Plan with a view to meeting the allocation.)  I think my gripe is that it's all well & good to demand that x,000 houses are built by 20xx - but surely there also needs to be funding made available to build the infrastructure.

It seems to me that Swindon - & other councils - are caught between a rock & a hard place.  The town's infrastructure needs a massive overhaul.  Existing transport links were built/designed for a much smaller town.

There are national housing targets but they are very fluid, as part of the evidence base for the local plans the Councils have to identify how many houses are needed within a certain period (the 5 year supply) and then allocate sufficient land to deliver that. Many Councils have tried to cook the books to get numbers down and often Councillors try to challenge such figures. Amusingly in Lancaster the Green Councillors made a big song and dance that the figures were wrong and got them independently reviewed which led to the numbers being increased not decreased as they hoped!

It gets a bit messy as certain LPA's were trying to circumvent the system by not identifying a five year housing supply and thus preventing any house building, and the government addressed this by introducing a clause that if the Councils could not prove a 5 year supply, assuming that there was no material reasons not to grant consent permission should be given, the developers get much of the flack but I assure you the LPA's tend to be as unscrupulous in cooking the books to show supoply. 

In terms of highways infrastructure the planners will just consult with the highways authority which is normally the county council unless the authority is unitary, they will have all manner of models which they can plug proposed uses and density into to see if it works. The Councils can also charge whats called the Community Infrastructure Levy on schemes, which is intended to pay for infrastructure http://www.swindon.gov.uk/cil no idea where Swindon are with this but it can be quite high figures on many residential schemes, the Council are then required to use the money to deliver identified infrastructure schemes. 

The problem with any infrastructure is the time and cost of building anything these days, its not like the 19th century when roads and railways were popping up all over the place and I am sorry to say its the public who cause many of the problems, they much of the need for new starter homes and homes for their kids, until they can see the development and it may affect their house values....

[horlock07]

It's fair to say that much of these developments are SBC led, but central government has ultimate power....as shown by recent decisions to build at Coate and Wroughton, where SBC said too much in wrong place...Tories forced it through anyway.

It's one of life's little ironies, that the plans for expanding Swindon were put in place by Labour controlled SBC many years ago...the idea mixed council and private housing, would cater for housing need in post war austerity Britain.

This would generate a mixture of skilled and unskilled jobs as companies relocated to tap the work force.   

To that end SBC bought up large tracts of land around the town...part of the plan was that in return for the developments it would enable the building of civic monuments which would benefit the cultural development of the place....eg sporting facilites, theatre, and a long held dream of a university.

But the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry....and SBC's have big style.

It began with the Thatcherite axe on local government, and Council housing being impossible to build...followed by various economic crises, ripping the heart out of employment in skilled work, leaving a top heavy amount of low paid jobs in distribution etc.

The hegemony of neoliberal economics in the last 20 odd years, meant that SBC would have to take the housing estates, but could get back next to nothing in return.

The somewhat forlorn hope being that the private sector would fill the hole and provide cultural developments....and this is where the low wage economy kicks in, it won't as there's no money in it.

So SBC, are left with the statutory crap bits that so far cannot be privatised...and even these are subject to such cuts that they are inevitably inefficient.

I have no idea of the cases which you mention, however did they go through on Secretary of State say so or just the opinion of a Planning Inspector, if its the latter I would be intrigued why it is being blamed on the government as the Inspector is independent and applying adopted Policy, something that many LPA's are loathe to do as it often costs votes hence they determine against policy to play the electorate, the developer appeals and a few £100k later in costs to the tax payer it goes through - is it right I am not going to comment, but certain LPA's don't seem to get it, there is an LPA up here which has been cooking the housing numbers for years and keep losing appeals and costs, must have cost the Council millions now and they keep doing it?

Mixed Council and private schemes are a lovely idea but no one actually wants to live in them on either side, the private owners fear it will affect their house prices whist the Council tenants feel looked down on by their neighbour), this is not just my opinion, I have been told this by a number of different housing needs officers throughout the country. It needs Councils to start working with HA's or others to develop new social housing, however the right o buy extension is going to merrily fuck that up so no idea!

I just don't get Swindon at all, its essentially the Crewe of the south (but Crewe is nowhere near anywhere and thus has an excuse). However Swindon seems to have missed so many boats, I have never worked with the Council but some former colleagues of mine have and knowing I support the club have told me how shocked they are that somewhere so affluent and near London has such a dreadful dead town centre?

[Reg Smeeton]

I have no idea of the cases which you mention, however did they go through on Secretary of State say so or just the opinion of a Planning Inspector

Houses will be built near Coate Water, the Government has decided.
 
Planning permission was turned down by Swindon Borough Council after a lengthy enquiry last year, but Persimmon Homes have successfully appealed to Eric Pickles, Government Minister for Communities and Local Government, who has now granted outline planning permission to build 900 houses.
 
The decision goes against a petition signed by over 52,000 people who objected to the plans.
 

[horlock07]

Houses will be built near Coate Water, the Government has decided.
 
Planning permission was turned down by Swindon Borough Council after a lengthy enquiry last year, but Persimmon Homes have successfully appealed to Eric Pickles, Government Minister for Communities and Local Government, who has now granted outline planning permission to build 900 houses.
 
The decision goes against a petition signed by over 52,000 people who objected to the plans.
 

I am sorry Reg, but it one knows anything about how the planning system (and sadly I do) that report is rubbish (I assume its this anyway as the text seems smiliar to what you have pasted - http://www.swindonweb.com/?m=2&s=1804&ss=1807&c=10882 ), I assume from a 30 second internet search this is the scheme... http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9601467.Controversial_Coate_Water_homes_plan_gets_go_ahead/

a) The Council turned it down at committee, the applicant then has the right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate (an independent body supposedly apart from government).
b) The Inspector determined in terms of adopted local and national planning policy, I cannot see anywhere that Mr Pickles got involved (and trust me, working in the business I am no fan of his!) or any evidence of the SoS calling it in, which he is within his rights to do, instead he left it with PINS - PINS acts on behalf of the government, but where the SoS gets involved it usually means a letter from a civil servant, signed by the MInister, the Buffet botherer does not sit there making decisions;
c) I am sorry but that's the way the planning system works, it the proposal is policy compliant you can have a petition of 5 people of 500,000 people and there is every chance it will get approved - if the matter raised is not even a planning matter and they often aren't (rights to views etc), they just get entirely ignored, PINS and Councils (should and its a big should from my experience) work to their planning policies but as I noted earlier they often don't to keep their constituents happy.

There are a lot of things you can land on Pickles and the Tories but this doesn't appear to be one (from my very limited reading of it! on Google).  

Edit - note the rolling of eyes was not aimed at you, more the depression of explaining how the planning system really works!.

[Reg Smeeton]

Also from the Adver.

  The scheme was loudly booted out by Swindon Council in 2011. Planning committee chairman Dale Heenan declared: “Public opinion is very clear on this, that we don’t want to see development.”

But the door for development was already ajar after the site had been outlined as a “preferred housing option” for 750 houses in a 2008 Swindon Council planning blueprint.

To the horror of many, developers were in 2012 given the go-ahead after Government Minister Eric Pickles over-ruled the council’s decision

[horlock07]

Also from the Adver.

No idea then unless Mr pickles called it in, the earlier article specifically quotes an Inspector in reaching the decision with no mention of the SOS, the fact it had already been allocated suggests it was fairly inevitable

[Ells]

Having to come home from the pub to shoo away some wannabe scousers who were going through my neighbour's skip.