komadori’s green corner

Today brings that rarest of rare events: Mr Montaut making a sensible and understandable suggestion. Here’s his utterance from that rare lucid moment.

We can keep the car park open and redirect people on to existing public transport. This will cut the costs to the council taxpayers while preventing the traffic nightmare that will be caused by completely closing the site. It would also support Thamesdown Transport through these tough times while supporting the administration in delivering promise 43.

Promise 43, for those that have forgotten, is

We will work with bus companies to increase the frequency and hours of operation. We will also work with parish councils to develop good rural transport links and increase overall the number of bus journeys by 13% by 2006 and a further 20% in the following five years.

There’s only one slight flaw in Mr Montaut’s argument. Currently there are no Thamesdown Transport services that pass by the Groundwell Park & Ride car park. The number 17 service does pass very close though, as it loops round Penhill before heading directly into town along Cricklade Road. It seems this isn’t good enough for the campaigners.

As a commuter, normal buses take too long to get to work, particularly for users living in village areas. It would just add to journey times.

Even with a loop round Penhill, would taking a bus service that uses the bus lanes really take longer than driving a car and joining the traffic jam? Is it really the journey time that bothers Ms Spinks, or is it the thought of having to share a bus with residents of one of Swindon’s more maligned estates?

In a contest, it’s important for the participants to know and follow the rules. Those that don’t know the rules tend to lose or worse, get disqualified. This basic requirement applies not just to sports, but to any contest: school exams, elections, mortgage applications, the list is endless. Somewhere in that list are planning enquiries.

As I’ve noted before, the Save Coate campaigners have admitted to being amateurs when it comes to planning enquiries. In their surprise at how the Coate Enquiry has been run, that amateurishness is apparent.

All of those signatures that took time and effort to get together were just counted as one complaint.

If they’ve read the guidance for participating in planning appeals, they should’ve known before they started that would be the case. It doesn’t take much effort to find a couple of examples on the Planning Inspectorate’s website that show how petitions have been treated in previous enquiries. Why do they think it is that many of the big environmental activist groups don’t bother with petitions but run mass letter writing campaigns instead? It takes less than a second and zero thought to sign a petition. They may be good for publicity; unless backed-up by submissions from others making a similar point, they’re almost worthless for winning a case.

I think Swindon Council really passed up a number of opportunities to challenge the developers, so it was left to us to do it.

Or perhaps Swindon Borough Council’s counsel was sticking to the rules, rather than raising issues that the law does not allow the inspector to consider.

I just hope that the planning inspector appreciates the views of the people of Swindon and will take those on board.

That’s very unlikely, as he’s not heard the views of the majority of the people of Swindon. All he’s heard are the views of the council, the campaigners and the developers.

I don’t wish there to be development in the area near to Coate Water, but neither do I wish to have a group of unelected environmentalists claiming to represent the views of Swindon.

Whilst reading about a councillor from Haydon Wick Parish Council bewailing the poor road access to the proposed Oakhurst School, it was difficult to come to any conclusion other than that he is totally out-of-touch.

The proposal is aspirational and assumes that everyone will be walking their darling children to school. That is just not realistic in this day and age. We would like better traffic management and allow for the fact that people take their kids to school by car.

The comments in the article from parents all suggested they would walk their children to school. Most of the comments posted said the same.

It was also difficult not to notice, at the top of the list of Student Adver articles one headlined ‘Look After The Environment’. Mr Pike should spend more time listening to the children — and, if he’s any sense, his parishioners.

I saw this bumble bee this morning and it spent a long time in this one flower, getting thoroughly smothered in pollen. This photograph was taken after it had brushed most of the pollen off.

It’s a couple of days since I read this now, but it still annoys me.

It is estimated that 38.3 per cent of Swindon residents are engaged in arts and the Government has set the town a target of reaching 41.3 per cent by March 2011.

Why? What I and any other person in Swindon, or anywhere else, do in their free time should be no business of the state. Provided what I do is legal, I don’t expect the state and its bureaucracies to be setting targets for what I should do for enjoyment.

The government has recently announced that it is giving Swindon Borough Council an extra £428,873.52 — yes, the figures are calculated down to individual pennies — of tax payers’ money (or more accurately, given the way the government has squandered our money, of tax payers’ debt). According to the government press release, there are no strings attached to this money.

Local Government Minister John Healey has today confirmed that 360 councils will receive their share of £100million within the next few days, to be used as they see fit to help meet local needs and priorities – particularly helpful in this difficult economic climate.

Naturally, the government’s representative in South Swindon, Ms Snelgrove, has been quick to comment.

I am calling on Swindon Borough Council to use this money to save Old Town and Walcot Libraries and look at how the Groundwell Park & Ride can be kept open…. I will be asking the Council for full details of how they intend to spend this money and to make sure it isn’t swallowed up within the Council.

’Tis an odd choice that. Now, as I’ve made clear, I’m no fan of the proposals to close the Park & Ride service. I don’t find Mr Edwards’ latest argument for not supporting the service convincing either, as it’s far better to seek a long term future for the service with it still running than with it closed. However, though both it and the library closures have received plenty of publicity, they affect relatively few of Ms Snelgrove’s constituents — particularly the Park & Ride service which is in Mr Wills’ patch. Something that affects far more of her constituents but has received far less publicity is the sharp increase in the cost of Residents’ Parking Permits. On that, Ms Snelgrove has nothing to say. And I say that as someone that neither lives in a Residents’ Parking zone nor owns a car.

It really shouldn’t surprise Ms Snelgrove that she’s known as the government’s representative in South Swindon when she chooses to support issues for their political point scoring value rather than for their impact on her constituents.

Now a landmark sports facility to replace the Oasis Centre would be a great move, but I can’t help but feel a little sceptical about the proposal to build a giant indoor ski-slope there. Perhaps it’s in part because the reporter seems to have swallowed the promoter’s publicity material.

The slope would be kept at room temperature but would pass through refrigerated fake mountains to keep the snow from melting.

Fake mountains? This is a building similar in size to the DMJ Tower, not to Ben Nevis. The technology (electro-magnets in place of a ski-lift) also seems rather fanciful.

As the council have said, the proposal is at an early stage and, in the current economic climate, is likely to be a long time coming, if at all. But if done well, it could be a great asset for the town.

I’ve been waiting for some reliable reporting of this week’s full council meeting at which the budget and council tax for Swindon Borough Council for the coming year were set. With only incomplete reporting available — the only aspect of the discussion reported was on proposals to cut the library service — there’s little information to go on. There are hints that a few minor changes to some proposals were made. After all the fuss over some of the proposals, it’s surprising that the outcome has received so little attention.

So what has been getting the attention of the Adver’s reporters? Today it has been the Richard Jefferies Museum where the concern is… well, nothing really. The headline:

Richard Jefferies’ home may be sold by council

The view of the councillor:

We’ve got no intentions of selling that site. That’s a worst case scenario. That’s a very long way down the line and that’s not going to happen. Clearly this is very much a cultural activity that we’d like to protect.

And the view of the secretary of the society that runs the museum:

We know that Swindon Borough Council do not want to lose it – this story is a bit premature.

Now whilst I don’t believe all that politicians say, when the group at risk also say there’s not a problem yet, that seems fairly clear evidence that there’s no story here, just a journalist’s wild imagination.

Mr Bluh seems to have some very basic misunderstandings of communication.

We said we would listen to them and that is what we have done, even if they didn’t like everything they heard.

Hint to Mr Bluh: if you’re listening, it’s you that should be doing the hearing, not the other way round. But then if, as has been reported, the staff at Groundwell Park & Ride have already been made redundant, the whole ‘listening’ exercise was a sham anyway.

I’m no fan of the proposals to develop the area to the east of Coate Water, but I still despair at the approach of the campaigners opposing the proposals at the current planning enquiry.

The campaigners admit to being amateurs.

We’re amateurs, it really is an unfair contest. It’s like playing rounders with your hands tied round your back.

It shows. They forget that they are not the only ones opposing the plans at the enquiry. Swindon Borough Council is opposing the plans too and, whilst they may not have as deep pockets as the developers, they’re certainly not in the amateur category.

If you’re participating in a quasi-judicial process like a planning enquiry, it’s worth sticking to the rules, not ignoring them. Not doing so tends to annoy those in control, and risks the valid arguments getting lost in an ocean of irrelevant dross. If one disagrees with the statutory bodies that have an obligation to express an opinion on applications such as this, careful argument is required to explain why.

David Richards, officiating, said: “My understanding is that the problems of the flood risk is that the Environment Agency has withdrawn its objections.”

Mrs Saunders responded: “So have a lot of people — it doesn’t mean they’re right.”

Hmm… not much evidence of careful argument there, nor evidence of a belief in democracy either. Arrogant dismissal: one; effective campaigning: nil.

With support like this, if Swindon Borough Council win this enquiry, I suspect it will be despite the campaigners, rather than because of them.