Plans for 10,000 homes 'forced on residents' (From Herald Series)

The land south of Grenoble road is where we must build more houses it's not exactly a beauty spot, green belt? don't make me laugh! build and build now.

It's unfortunate that the use of the word 'homes' has become commonplace as a synonym for 'houses'. This is developer speak, introduced to make us feel guilty, as if we are depriving someone of their home if we oppose their plans. In fact, a house is not a home until it is associated with a specific individual or family. It's a small point, and pedantic maybe, but psychological tricks like this are getting too common, and the Oxford Mail should not propagate them!

This whole thing is a travesty. At the SODC meeting Wallingford Councillors were not allowed to propose a motion to change the site. It was a total stich up by the conservatives led by the odious Ann Ducker. The site they are proposing at Wallingford does not have any provision for a school. The developer says they are not building enough houses to pay for one. On the other hand there is a far better and safer site where the developer is quite happy to pay for a much needed school. So why are the SODC not choosing that site – because it backs on to the conservative and affluent area of Wallingford that’s why. It stinks. So it means we the taxpayers have to fork out for a new school just because the conservatives don’t want to upset their chums. There really out to be an investigation into the SODC behaviour.

So what happens if the developers win their appeal at Winterbrook? Will SODC still allow houses to be built at Slade End?
If they then change their minds again, (how many times have they done this?) will Pruprim just back off, or will the taxpayers have to foot the bill if they sue the SODC?
What's the current in phrase "You couldn't make it up!"

Sorry about this, but I have another query. The Winterbrook developers would BUILD a new school. The Slade End plans only make provision for a site - no building. So who pays for that school to be built? I thought that the economic restraints have reduced spending on education and a number of school projects/improvement
s have been scrapped.
Ah, hang on a minute, a school at Winterbrook, noisy kids, school run mums, not quite the image for such a "select" area. Of course, the kids already in Winterbrook would go to private schools. Perhaps that accounts for Madam Ducker preventing a democratic decision being made, she needs to keep her Tory voters happy, therefore there is a three-line whip on her party's Councillors to prevent a development which would include, horror of horrors, a new desperately needed school for Wallingford.
Shame on you.

old lady wrote:
Sorry about this, but I have another query. The Winterbrook developers would BUILD a new school. The Slade End plans only make provision for a site - no building. So who pays for that school to be built? I thought that the economic restraints have reduced spending on education and a number of school projects/improvement s have been scrapped. Ah, hang on a minute, a school at Winterbrook, noisy kids, school run mums, not quite the image for such a "select" area. Of course, the kids already in Winterbrook would go to private schools. Perhaps that accounts for Madam Ducker preventing a democratic decision being made, she needs to keep her Tory voters happy, therefore there is a three-line whip on her party's Councillors to prevent a development which would include, horror of horrors, a new desperately needed school for Wallingford. Shame on you.

Tory stitch-up?! You johnny come lately's with your conspiracy theories make me laugh. Remind me which party Lokhon and Harris represent? And who is seen as Ed Vaizey's right hand man on his visits to Wallingford? Where were they when Wallingford Town Council recommended Site B for development in the core strategy consultation? Short memories...

Wallingford Matters wrote:

old lady wrote:
Sorry about this, but I have another query. The Winterbrook developers would BUILD a new school. The Slade End plans only make provision for a site - no building. So who pays for that school to be built? I thought that the economic restraints have reduced spending on education and a number of school projects/improvement s have been scrapped. Ah, hang on a minute, a school at Winterbrook, noisy kids, school run mums, not quite the image for such a "select" area. Of course, the kids already in Winterbrook would go to private schools. Perhaps that accounts for Madam Ducker preventing a democratic decision being made, she needs to keep her Tory voters happy, therefore there is a three-line whip on her party's Councillors to prevent a development which would include, horror of horrors, a new desperately needed school for Wallingford. Shame on you.

Tory stitch-up?! You johnny come lately's with your conspiracy theories make me laugh. Remind me which party Lokhon and Harris represent? And who is seen as Ed Vaizey's right hand man on his visits to Wallingford? Where were they when Wallingford Town Council recommended Site B for development in the core strategy consultation? Short memories...

I assume you were not at the meeting on Thurs. If you were you would have seen Lokhon and Harris defying the conservative whip and working hard to get this development to the right site – E! You would also have seen a sight that most councillors never have. That is a chairman in the most undemocratic manner refusing to allow ‘on a legal point’ an amendment to move the sites. This is unheard off, all amendments are allowed and they stand or fall by the vote. Not on Thurs they were not going to risk it. A conservative stich up. One liberal councillor who has been there 12 years expressed his disgust at such blatant attempt to make sure the conservatives got what they wanted.

Wallingford Matters wrote:

old lady wrote:
Sorry about this, but I have another query. The Winterbrook developers would BUILD a new school. The Slade End plans only make provision for a site - no building. So who pays for that school to be built? I thought that the economic restraints have reduced spending on education and a number of school projects/improvement s have been scrapped. Ah, hang on a minute, a school at Winterbrook, noisy kids, school run mums, not quite the image for such a "select" area. Of course, the kids already in Winterbrook would go to private schools. Perhaps that accounts for Madam Ducker preventing a democratic decision being made, she needs to keep her Tory voters happy, therefore there is a three-line whip on her party's Councillors to prevent a development which would include, horror of horrors, a new desperately needed school for Wallingford. Shame on you.

Tory stitch-up?! You johnny come lately's with your conspiracy theories make me laugh. Remind me which party Lokhon and Harris represent? And who is seen as Ed Vaizey's right hand man on his visits to Wallingford? Where were they when Wallingford Town Council recommended Site B for development in the core strategy consultation? Short memories...

You don't seem to have understood the question - land for a school but no school - who pays? Presumably the residents of Winterbrook and their SODC buddies will have a whip round?

Always residents with homes complaining about 'more homes'.

Sorry I don't get your point.

What I am asking to be clarified is, if the houses are built on whichever site it is clear that the local schools would not be able to cope. A new school is imperative. So who pays for the school to be built on the site where the developer is only providing a building plot?

The SODC having dismissed the site where this facility would have cost the taxpayers nothing in favour of a site where funding will be required to build a school.

Oh, by the way, I don't live near either site, so don't shout NIMBY. I object to my taxes being wasted by a Council that patently has no consideration for Wallingford at all. Sadly the residents of Winterbrook are only concerned with their little "hamlet" on the edge of Wallingford. As long as they can hang on their little enclave the kids of Wallingford can go hang.

Any chance that brown paper packets were handed out or rather behind

If these developments are so unsiutable make the councillors that voted for them relocate there at their expense. Could it be a case of somewhere else to a nimby

Whatever guess they'll be very expensive properties so profit only for the developers as usual.

Thought that housing need quota whatever was supposed to have been cancelled or re-examined on a case by case basis

old lady wrote:
Sorry I don't get your point. What I am asking to be clarified is, if the houses are built on whichever site it is clear that the local schools would not be able to cope. A new school is imperative. So who pays for the school to be built on the site where the developer is only providing a building plot? The SODC having dismissed the site where this facility would have cost the taxpayers nothing in favour of a site where funding will be required to build a school. Oh, by the way, I don't live near either site, so don't shout NIMBY. I object to my taxes being wasted by a Council that patently has no consideration for Wallingford at all. Sadly the residents of Winterbrook are only concerned with their little "hamlet" on the edge of Wallingford. As long as they can hang on their little enclave the kids of Wallingford can go hang.

Old Lady, you seem to forget about all my neighbours in Hurst Close, Brookmead Drive and Barley Close. All in Wallingford and often forgotten in this little debate!

Sorry, what about you and your neighbours, what about the schoolchildren? Do you not think that Wallingford needs another school? All the junior schools are struggling, more houses will mean more pressure on them. By choosing Site E the developer would have provided a brand new school, by choosing Site B there will be more houses, more children and NO new school. OCC have already stated that there will be no funding for new build schools in the current economic climate, so what do you suggest is the solution to the education of these children?

They would also provide more accommodation for the elderly, closer to the town and the medical centre, not a taxi or bus ride away. (OK maybe that is me being a bit selfish!)

Oh, yes and what about the proposed dangerous junction onto the by-pass from site B, accident blackspot in the making.

If a new housing estate is to be built in Wallingford, forget Nimbys, just look at the plans, for both sites, even my somewhat elderly brain can see that there are more problems to solve for Site B than Site E. The Council decided right at the start of this some years ago that site E was best. So why have they changed their minds so often. Frankly I think they are totally incompetent. They denied knowledge of gravel on Site A, yet they had the information long before it appeared in the Studio Real report. So they would have happily allowed a gravel pit on the Shillingford Road. The councillors say they rely on their officers for guidance. So what happened when the officers recommended refusal of the proposed glass monstrosity for a celebrity, then ignored their advice and approved it!!!

Wallingford was a lovely market town when I moved here over 40 years ago. Not much has been done to the infrastructure in that time. We are told the town centre is dying for want of more residents, sorry the town is dying for want of affordable shops. Where do you suppose the new residents on Site B will shop? Once they find they can't park in the town, or Waitrose car park, they will nip up the by-pass, turn left and head for Didcot, great help that will be!

Once last thing, how likely is it that these new residents will go round the by-pass to get to Oxford. They will either try to cross the bypass from the proposed t-junction and use the Wantage Road, or use Hithercroft Road both much shorter than the by-pass.

Of course, if the developers win their appeal on site E, a lot of taxpayers money will have been wasted on this latest exercise not to mention what Pruprim will do! Or will SODC allow those houses to go ahead as well and completely swamp the town!

Better book my plot in the cemetery before they commandeer that land too!

Old Lady, Belgarion - I heard your Councillors defy the whip last week whilst also saying that had the plans been for 1250 houses they would have backed Site B for development. Crikey! Someone also needs to confirm what 'deliver' or 'facilitate' means? I'm not convinced it means 'we will pay for the building of a new school'. However, Miles Thompson did confirm that any approvals for housing will include a requirement for appropriate schooling?

Wallingford Matters wrote:
Old Lady, Belgarion - I heard your Councillors defy the whip last week whilst also saying that had the plans been for 1250 houses they would have backed Site B for development. Crikey! Someone also needs to confirm what 'deliver' or 'facilitate' means? I'm not convinced it means 'we will pay for the building of a new school'. However, Miles Thompson did confirm that any approvals for housing will include a requirement for appropriate schooling?

Indeed the two councillors did say they would support site B if the requirement were for a high number of houses. However they have NEVER said they backed a high number on site B ALONE. As you will recall the two councillors have always backed a split site option when the numbers were high. However as they explained with the current requirement of around 400 houses split sites is no longer an option if infrastructure requirements from the developers are to be met. So now they are backing site E. Why? Because it can easily accommodate the number of houses now required and all the evidence ie, location, access, etc points to it being the best site. Site E (unlike site B) also makes ‘provision’ for a new school which has been defined as building one, whereas the developer for site B says they can’t afford to build a school as part of the infrastructure if they are only building 400-500 houses. I would give councillors Lokhon, Harris and Atkins credit for checking what was being provided before they publically talked about a new school being built on site E. Indeed, I’m sure if there was any doubt about what the developer on site E was providing other conservatives opposed to site E would have quickly used it questioned this very strong reason, amongst many, for building on this site.

Thanks Belgarion, couldn't have put it better myself!

Hold on aminute……..so this council chap Thompson says they will want a new school but the council then back a site where there wont be one when they could have backed a site where there would be one and Thompson would have got what he wanted. Now I call that plain bonkers there has to more to this than mets the eye like who is handing out the brown envelopes.

penny256 wrote:
Hold on aminute……..so this council chap Thompson says they will want a new school but the council then back a site where there wont be one when they could have backed a site where there would be one and Thompson would have got what he wanted. Now I call that plain bonkers there has to more to this than mets the eye like who is handing out the brown envelopes.

Penny - read the PruPim newsletter November 2010, back page .

belgarion wrote:

Wallingford Matters wrote: Old Lady, Belgarion - I heard your Councillors defy the whip last week whilst also saying that had the plans been for 1250 houses they would have backed Site B for development. Crikey! Someone also needs to confirm what 'deliver' or 'facilitate' means? I'm not convinced it means 'we will pay for the building of a new school'. However, Miles Thompson did confirm that any approvals for housing will include a requirement for appropriate schooling?

Indeed the two councillors did say they would support site B if the requirement were for a high number of houses. However they have NEVER said they backed a high number on site B ALONE. As you will recall the two councillors have always backed a split site option when the numbers were high. However as they explained with the current requirement of around 400 houses split sites is no longer an option if infrastructure requirements from the developers are to be met. So now they are backing site E. Why? Because it can easily accommodate the number of houses now required and all the evidence ie, location, access, etc points to it being the best site. Site E (unlike site B) also makes ‘provision’ for a new school which has been defined as building one, whereas the developer for site B says they can’t afford to build a school as part of the infrastructure if they are only building 400-500 houses. I would give councillors Lokhon, Harris and Atkins credit for checking what was being provided before they publically talked about a new school being built on site E. Indeed, I’m sure if there was any doubt about what the developer on site E was providing other conservatives opposed to site E would have quickly used it questioned this very strong reason, amongst many, for building on this site.

So, how many houses would you have been happy for your Councillors to recommend for Slade End?

Did I say I was happy for ANY houses to be built at Slade End OMG I am more senile than I thought. Did I not say that I am concerned about the lack of a school at Slade End, did I say I was worried about the aged having to travel by bus or taxi to the Surgery - forget taking the car, the car park is always full now! I thought I said the most appropriate place for these vulnerable residents would be Winterbrook. Should I call for the men in white coats? Did I dream all this?

Wallingford Matters - I do not have a copy of the PruPim letter nor indeed the PruPrim one! Perhaps you will enlighten me to what it says.

Also what's all this about how many houses for Slade End. The answer is none because its the wrong site even I can figure that out.