|
11th
November 2004
Press release
Conservatives' secure rethink of Faringdon sewage plans
On the back
of the visit by Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment Mr Richard
Ottaway MP organised by Councillor Matthew Barber and Wantage
Conservative Spokesman Ed Vaizey a meeting was held between Faringdon
Conservative County Councillor Judy Heathcoat, Tim Fane of Faringdon
Environmental Action Group John Sexton Managing Director of Thames Water
and Ed Vaizey regarding Thames Waters plans to build a new sewage
treatment works in Faringdon.
The outcome
of the meeting was a decision by Thames Water to re-think their original
plans. Speaking in the Abingdon Herald Thames Water spokesman Andrew
Boyd said “We have decided to call a temporary halt to our plans and
re-evaluate them. We listened to the debate at the Council meeting and
in the last few months have held several meetings with local people as
well as receiving a petition from residents opposed to proposals. As a
result of the various discussions we feel it best look again at peoples
concerns and the project as a whole”.
Speaking
after the meeting Wantage Conservative spokesman Ed Vaizey said “We are
delighted that Thames Water has listened to us. Thames Water could not
have been more open and frank. They have agreed to a full review looking
at all the options and we look forward to working with them But the
campaign must continue Faringdon still remains as one of Thames Water’s
proposed sites we must not drop our guard.
August 2004
Faringdon Folly
Letter to the Editor
Sir,
The saga of
Faringdon's Pump House has gone on for many years now, and shows no
signs of improving. The Town Council is determined to push through the
redevelopment of the Pump House despite its questionable financial
basis. The Council are continuing to pour money into this project.
I would
love to see the Pump House restored to its former glory, but it is not
worth the financial burden that the town are being loaded with. Not only
are local taxpayers already contributing £77,600 to the Pump House
(almost a third of the Town's precept) but the Town Council has also
taken out a loan of £150,000, burdening the Town with the debt until
2028.
I am sure
that most residents are unaware of the cost of this project, and would
be as concerned as I am that this is not the best way to deal with the
problem. It is true that returning the building to Lord Faringdon will
have a substantial cost, but it will not present the Town with a loss
making building.
The Town
Council's own consultants reported that anything except returning the
building would lead to an annual loss of between £13,200 and £33,780 a
year, and that is without interest payments! I have not seen a
satisfactory business plan that shows that the Council can even break
even on running costs. It is my fear that if this project continues
Faringdon will be famous for having two follies!
August 2004
Faringdon Folly
Councillors accused of misconduct
Faringdon
Councillors Matthew Barber and Roger Cox have been accused of misconduct
by fellow town councillors over a visit to Lord Faringdon.
They have
been accused of "going behind the Town Council's back" and undermining
the relationship between the Council and Lord Faringdon, owner of the
Pump House.
The issue
of the future of the Pump House has been a matter of controversy in the
town in recent years. The Town Council has agreed to fund a
refurbishment programme in order to return the disused building to
community use. In addition, one possible option is for the Council to
move its offices to the Pump House if it were to vacate the Corn
Exchange, which is owned by the Vale.
The Town
Council voted to report Cllr Barber and Cox to the Standards Board which
is responsible for overseeing the behaviour of local councillors.
An
unrepentant Matthew Barber said they visited Lord Faringdon "primarily
as district councillors and also as concerned residents".
"I do not
need permission from anyone to meet whomever I choose. We are concerned
by the way the Town Council are going ahead with the Pump House project,
despite huge costs and local concerns. Our conversation with Lord
Faringdon did not disclose anything that was not already in the public
domain. We have a duty to local residents, and it is about time they
realised what was being carried out in their name."
August 2004
Faringdon Folly
Concern
grows over plans for more homes
Opposition
is growing to plans to build an additional 400 homes in Faringdon on the
old nursery and cricket ground area, as concern is being raised over
insufficient public consultation over the Local Plan process.
Both
Faringdon Town Council and the Faringdon Chamber of Commerce have driven
the proposals which aim to boost the town's economy by increasing the
number of jobs and homes in the area.
Tuckers
Road resident Stewart McIntosh told the Folly that he had discuessed his
concerns with Councillor Alan Hickmore, chairman of the Town Council
planning and highways committee which backed the proposal.
"His stance
was very much that he fully supported this initiative and irrespective
of our concerns he will be supporting this plan at the next stage.
"This
proposed development has massive implications on the whole town and not
just the surrounding area," said Mr McIntosh. "Mr Hickmore stated that
when the original first draft plan was presented there were no
objections. What has not been clearly communicated is that the massive
changes made at the second draft phase, do indeed raise many objections.
The main objection being that between the two planning phases, the
proposed development has grown from some 60 houses to 400, an increase
of over 500%.
"We as
residents must ensure that the many questions that this size of
development raises, will be honestly and thoroughly investigated and
answered before it's too late, as it would appear to the people I have
discussed it with, that this comes as a very "covert" way of pushing
through a plan that raises many issues for the whole of Faringdon."
Cllr
Matthew Barber said: "Efforts were made to inform local residents and to
consult with them on the proposals, but these have clearly been
inadequate. Local residents were angry after a meeting with the Town
Council's Planning and Highways committee chairman as they felt they
were being marginalised. I originally supported these proposals, and I
still see merit in the expansion of the Town, but we cannot afford to
ignore the concerns of local residents."
August 2004
Faringdon Folly
Vale
offers new terms for Corn Exchange
Faringdon Town Council has overturned its earlier decision to vacate the
Corn Exchange.
It has
agreed to negotiate a new lease with landlords the Vale after the
District Council offered new terms. These include the setting of a
peppercorn rent, instead of introducing an annual rent.
Although
some town councillors suggested that the decision to vacate had been a
negotiating tactic, Cllr Mathew Barber said he was concerned that it had
caused unnecessary worry to the many local groups who had made advance
bookings at the Corn Exchange.
August
2004
Faringdon Folly
Ways to
solve parking crisis drawn up
Over 50
people took part in a meeting to discuss a raft of proposals that have
been drawn up by Faringdon Town Council's working party on parking.
One new
suggestion is a compromise between free parking, as many have requested
in the town centre car parks, and paid parking. This would offer a first
hour of free parking, followed by a sliding tariff up to a maximum of
charge for the day.
"This
would indicate that revenue is important but would also provide
encouragement for people to "pop into" Faringdon shops in place of
others nearby," said Town Councillor Tim Evans, who chaired the meeting.
The
meeting discussed many short-term solutions to ease the parking squeeze
in the town.
One idea
being put forward is to expand the Gloucester Street car park along its
length through the trees below the Town Park.
The
meeting also suggested that the Vale of White Horse District Council
should be asked to assess the parking situation when considering new
developments, or building conversions.
The
working party has produced a detailed report with seven pages of
detailed suggestions for improving the parking situation in Faringdon.
These include providing improved signage to existing car parks and a
review of the yellow lines and other restrictions.
A list
of suggested improvements to London Street include a short term parking
layby outside Threshers, and another outside the Viceroy restaurant.
Give way signs should be installed at both ends of the narrow section of
road linking Marlborough Street, Gloucester Street and London Street.
The
parking restrictions in the Market Place should be extended from 30
minutes to an hour.
The
report outlines a range of longer term options including increasing the
size of Gloucester Street, and extending the Southampton Street car park
by purchasing the land next to Barclays Bank.
The next
meeting of the working party is on 9 September.
August
2004
Faringdon Folly
Sewage
plant 'will go ahead'
Thames
Water will be able to go ahead with plans to create a new sludge
treatment works near Faringdon as it is "permitted development" under
current planning rules.
This is
because there will be no new building, nor any major environmental
impact, says Thames Water.
The
proposed new plant will take in sewage sludge from Witney, Abingdon and
Wantage, as well as Faringdon. A new treatment process is required in
order to comply with new standards under which all sewage will have to
be treated with lime before being spread on fields.
County
Councillor Judith Heathcoat has questioned officers at Oxfordshire
County Council about the proposals, highlighting the issues of heavy
lorries brining in loads along narrow country roads. She is concerned
about the effect on local residents and farms.
Carol
Camping, head of Faringdon Infant School, has raised fears of unpleasant
smells from the plant, situated around half a mile away.
Hamish
Wood, of Manor Farm, Lechlade Road, says that residents have been unable
to see a full report into Thames Water's plans. Work is due to start in
January 2005.
"This
proposed development is bad news for Faringdon and the people who live
here," he said. He called on the Town Council, Vale and County to help.
"This will be a hard battle, but one worth fighting."
17th
August 2004
Press release
Swan
Lane gets go ahead
After a
long battle, developers McCarthy & Stone are to be granted planning
permission for a sheltered housing development in Swan Lane, Faringdon.
After several months of wrangling at the Vale of White Horse District,
the development control committee finally voted in favour of the
development at last night’s meeting (16th August).
The issue
of contention was the lack of parking provided on site, and serious
local concerns that the development will add to the already poor parking
situation in Faringdon town centre. An independent report was
commissioned by the Vale to look into the parking provision. The
conclusion of this report did not rule out an overspill from the
development into the surrounding streets, but claimed that there was
adequate capacity.
Faringdon
Councillor, Matthew Barber, who is a member of the Vale Development
Control committee said “It is simple not true to claim that there is
adequate parking in Church Street and the surrounding area.” He also
raised grave concerns that, “the Vale seems incapable to taking the
necessary enforcement action to protect out local communities.” The
development on site has been underway for some time now, but the Liberal
Democrat controlled Vale Council has refused to take action to stop the
work. Conservative members of the committee fought the proposals by
voting against the development last night.
A members
of the Liberal Democrat Executive dismissed Faringdon Town Council’s own
report on parking to be irrelevant. Councillor Barber pledged, “We will
not let this issue drop. Parking is a huge problem for Faringdon and the
rest of the Vale, we cannot allow the Liberal Democrats to turn a blind
eye to the problem.”
2nd August 2004
Press release
Lib
Dems give go ahead to new store
At
tonight’s Vale’s Development Control meeting (Monday) the Liberal
Democrat Chairman used his casting vote to grant planning permission for
a new Co-Op store in Abingdon’s West Saint Helen Street. Conservative
objections to the unsuitability of the design in a conservation area
where described by local Lib Dems as “architecturally reactionary”, and
their concerns over inadequate parking in the area were disregarded. The
development which provides only one parking space for a three bedroom
flat, was allowed to proceed despite local concerns that the design,
although modern and exciting, would cause long-term damage to an
historic part of Abingdon.
Conservative Spokesman, Councillor Terry Cox said, “We are disappointed
that local concerns over both the design and impact of the proposal have
been disregarded.” He described as “reckless” the decision of Liberal
Democrat, Jerry Patterson, to recommend that the Co-Op should appeal
against the Council if they were refused permission.
20th
July 2004
Press release
Fighting for locals earns charge of misconduct
At the
Faringdon Town Council meeting held last Wednesday (14th July)
Councillors Matthew Barber and Roger Cox were accused of misconduct by
fellow Town Councillors and reported to the Standards Board for England.
It was alleged that the Town Council should have sanctioned a private
meeting between the Councillors and Lord Faringdon.
The
meeting was arranged by district councillor Alison Thomson, as a
consequence of two decisions taken by the Town Council. The first was to
spend hundreds of thousands of pounds to refurbish the Pump Rooms,
considered by many to be a white elephant. The second decision of the
Town Council was to vacate the Corn Exchange and look for a new location
for the Town Council offices; one option was the Pump House. Both of
these decisions have caused grave concern to local residents.
Councillor Matthew Barber commented:
“We visited Lord Faringdon primarily as District Councillors, and also
as concerned residents. We felt that the future of the Pump House of
which Lord Faringdon is landlord, directly affected the future of the
Corn Exchanges, which is owned by the District Council. We owe it to our
community to ensure that we are well informed.”
The
Councillors were accused of going behind the Town Council’s back and
undermining the relationship between the Council and Lord Faringdon. It
was asserted by others members of the Town Council that Matthew Barber
and Roger Cox should have had permission from the Council in order to
meet with Lord Faringdon.
An
unrepentant Matthew Barber said:
“I do not need permission from anyone to meet whomever I choose. We are
concerned by the way in which the Town Council are going ahead with the
Pump House project, despite huge costs and local concerns. Our
conversation with Lord Faringdon did not disclose anything that was not
already in the public domain. We have a duty to local residents, and it
is about time they realised what was being carried out in their name.”
Both
Matthew Barber and Roger Cox are confident that there is no case to
answer at the Standards Board. Matthew Barber seconded the proposal to
take the matter to the Standards Board, commenting later that, “I
maintain that we have done nothing wrong, except representing local
people to the best of our ability. By taking the issue to the Standards
Board I hope that it will be resolved once and for all. I will not
apologise for doing what I consider to be in the best interests of
Faringdon.
20th
July 2004
Press release
Concern
over additional housing
Local
residents are up in arms about the proposed additional housing in
Faringdon. There is grave concern about not only the proposal itself but
also the lack of information during the process.
Faringdon
Town Council and the Faringdon Chamber of Commerce have driven the
proposals. Efforts were made to inform local residents and to consult
with them on the proposals, but these have clearly been inadequate.
Local residents were angry after a meeting of the Town Council’s
Planning and Highways committee chairman as they felt that they were
being marginalised.
Councillor
Matthew Barber stated, “I originally supported these proposals, and I
still see merit in the expansion of the Town, but we cannot afford to
ignore the concerns of local residents.”
The period
for responses to the second deposit draft of the local plan closed last
Thursday (15th July). It is no longer possible to submit formal
objections to the Vale, but local District Councillor Matthew Barber is
concerned that residents should still have a voice. “Simply because the
formal period for objections has closed does not mean that as
Councillors we can ignore our residents. I want to talk to as many local
people as I can on the issue, I have a duty to represent them”, said
Matthew Barber.
The Town
Council advertised their plans in the What’s On, The Faringdon Folly,
and the Council’s own publication, Focus on Faringdon. They also
commissioned a costly telephone survey. The fact that efforts were made
to consult residents is indisputable, but what is also clear is that
they failed in that task. Increasing numbers of people are coming
forward, who were until recently completely unaware of the plans.
Councillor Matthew Barber commented: “We all know the Town Council made
efforts to consult, but we cannot be complacent. These efforts failed.
As a member of the Town Council I personally apologise for this failing,
and hope the Town Council will follow. We must ensure that this failing
in communication is not repeated.
20th
July 2004
Press release
Hope
for Corn Exchange
Concern had
been sparked in May when Faringdon Town Council decided to vacate the
Corn Exchange, rather than negotiate a new lease with the Vale.
Fortunately at the Town Council meeting held last Wednesday (14th July),
it was announced that the Vale had offered new terms, and the Town
Council overturned it’s previous resolution to vacate the building.
Some
Councillors suggested that the decision to vacate the Corn Exchange had
been a negotiating tactic. Councillor Matthew Barber replied that it was
the bluntest of negotiating tactics and those members of the public who
had been worried about their bookings in the hall would strongly
disapprove of such a tactic.
Councillor
Barber later commented, “We must get over this notion that the Town
Council is running the Corn Exchange on behalf of the Vale. We run the
Corn Exchange ourselves, and keep all of the proceeds from bookings. The
Vale are simply our landlords.”
20th
July 2004
Press release
The
public should know
The saga of
Faringdon’s Pump House has gone on for many years now, and shows no
signs of improving. The Town Council is determined to push through the
redevelopment of the Pump House despite its questionable financial
basis. Councillor Matthew Barber, a member of the Town Council since
February this year is concerned about the direction of the project.
“The
Council are continuing to pour more money into this project. I would
love to see the Pump House restored to it’s former glory, but it is not
worth the financial burden that the town are being loaded with.” he
commented.
Not only
are local taxpayers already contributing £77,600 to the Pump House
(almost a third of the Town’s precept) but the Town Council have also
taken out a loan £150,000, burdening the Town with the debt until 2028.
Councillor
Barber said: “I am sure that most residents are unaware of the cost of
this project, and would be as concerned as I am that this is not the
best way to deal with the problem. It is true that returning the
building to Lord Faringdon will have a substantial cost, but it will not
present the Town with a loss making building.”
He added:
“The Town Council’s own consultants reported that anything except
returning the building would lead to an annual loss of between £13,200
and £33,780 a year, and that is without interest payments! I have not
seen a satisfactory business plan that shows that Council can even break
even on running costs. It is my fear that if this project continues
Faringdon will be famous for having two follies!”
19th
February 2004
Abingdon Herald
Council tax up 5.5%
Liberal
Democrats on Vale of White Horse District Council pushed through their
new budget with a comfortable majority - despite a vigorous attack from
Conservatives on the inflation-busting rise in council tax.
As reported
by The Herald last week, Vale residents will have to pay an extra
5.5 per cent on their bills for local district services. A typical Band
D property bill will rise by £4.59 to £88.19. County council, town and
parish, and police demands have to be added.
County
councillors last week agreed a 6.25 per cent rise in council tax, giving
estimated Band D figures (not including parish precepts) of £1,134 for
the Vale and £1,159.14 for South Oxfordshire.
The new
precept was approved at the Vale council's budget meeting in Wantage by
23 votes to 16.
Tory
finance spokesman, Richard Stone, said there was an imbalance between
income and spending - and, to remedy the situation, the Lib Dems
proposed a four-year raid on reserves and general balances.
"The
cumulative impact is that our constituents will see the council's
reserves spent and at the same time their council tax rise by 20 per
cent over the next four years."
Terry Cox
mocked a "Walter Mitty" budget increased at twice the rate of inflation
and Tory group leader Melinda Tilley described it as "laughable".
Matthew Barber said: "Year on year, we see taxpayers' money being
wasted, targets missed and promises broken, yet every year they take
more money from the taxpayer."
There will
be increases in charges over a wide range of services provided by the
council - and car parking charges will rise, mostly by 10p an hour, but
some as much as 70p an hour, depending on length of stay. The cost of an
annual season ticket for the Queen Street car park at Abingdon will rise
between £100 and £200 a year - "Outrageous" chourused the Tories.
But deputy
council leader, Jerry Patterson, defended the rises.
"The
charges have increase by tenpence simply because that's the lowest coin
size that the ticket machines will accept," he said. "The choice we
faced was between increasing car park charges and cutting discretionary
fares. We have improved car parks; charges must reflect this extra
cost."
In his last
budget speech before stepping down as council leader in May, Paul
Bizzell said the Local Government Association had calculated that
council's needed a four per cent increase just to stand still.
"With the
changes to funding even keeping to a 5.5 per cent increase won't be
easy, but we have been able to fund the pay and grading review, and
other increases to costs, without increasing beyond previous forecasts
or breaking our manifesto promises."
18th
February 2004
Press release
Matthew Barber joins Town Council
Councillor
Matthew Barber, Conservative District Councillor for Faringdon & The
Coxwells Ward has now been elected to Faringdon Town Council. A vacancy
arose on the Council after the sudden death of Cllr Mike Ilott just
after Christmas. Matthew Barber was elected unopposed to the Town
Council on Friday 13th February 2004. A District Councillor since May
2003, Matthew has been working to raise local issues in Abingdon and
ensure a fair deal for local residents. He hopes that he can act as a
link to improve coordination and communication between the Town and the
District. Matthew has raised vocal objections to further proposed
increased in local Council Tax. Not only are the Liberal Democrats on
the District increasing their share, but the Town Council have agreed to
increase their precept by over 10%. Faringdon residents now pay more to
Faringdon Town Council than they do to the Vale of White Horse District
Council. Councillor Barber commented:
“At the
recent Town Meeting the Council completely rejected any idea of looking
for savings in an attempt to reduce the amount of waste in the Council.
I hope as a member of the Council to gradually change the attitude to
spending public money.”
January
2004
Letter to the Faringdon Folly
Letter
to the Editor
Sir,
We write in
response to your previous correspondent, Dr Williamson, who invited us
to account for our decision in rejecting the planning application for
the proposed wind farm at Watchfield. I thank Dr Williamson for her
comments, and understand that she is not alone in her sincerely held
view that the decision to reject the application was the wrong one.
We are
sorry that Dr Williamson seems to suggest in her letter that the
granting of planning permission was a foregone conclusion. It is true
that there was much support for the project, but there was also much
opposition both in Faringdon, and also in villages such as Great Coxwell,
and Coleshill that would be much closer to the wind farm. As district
councillors for Faringdon and the surrounding villages we must take into
account the views of all residents, particularly those who would be
affected directly by the proposal. When planning applications are so
controversial it is important that the decision is made on the facts
presented at the meeting and not simply by weighing the support for and
against.
The
evidence presented was by no means overwhelmingly convincing on either
side of the argument and we think it would be difficult to find any
member of the planning committee who did not find the decision a
difficult one. Most of the matters that where discussed were ones of
subjective judgment rather than simply fact and this is a view asserted
by the experts on the night. After a meeting that lasted nearly four
hours it was decided that the committee was mindful to refuse the
application on the basis of the harmful visual effect on the area of
High Landscape Value, and particularly individual properties that would
be very close to the site; also on the basis of the possible harmful
effects of low frequency noise on local residents; and that the turbines
would prevent the safe operation of the nearby gliding club.
We have no
objection to the erection of wind farms in appropriate locations, but
when faced with wind speeds that are at the low end of the levels needed
to make the project viable; the absence of a guarantee from the experts
that there would be no harm to the local population; and the potential
dangers to aircraft that fly from the nearby airfield, we could not have
voted in favour with a clear conscience.
The
disappointment of some local people is understandable but we are happy
that presented with the information we had on the night the correct
decision was reached. |
