Letters to the Media

30 April 2004

Economical with the truth?

From Anne Toft, BSc (Hons), MSc, Dip Comp Sci (Cantab), MBA, MCIWEM. Peatmoor

To The Evening Advertiser

Your lead article on Wednesday 21 April, regarding the proposed development of a 'Sports Village' in West Swindon, quoted Mark Devlin, STFC Chief Executive, as saying "some of the views expressed have been based on raw emotion so far". I take issue with this remark.

I am a qualified environmental scientist and have, since the proposal was announced, done some research on this scheme. For the record it should be noted that the site of the proposed stadium, was redeveloped as a community forest some 10 years ago and renamed 'Shaw Forest Country Park'. A masterplan for Shaw Forest Country Park was drawn up in 1994 with public consultation. Since then the area has been gradually planted with thousands of trees and the area now has growing communities of deer, great crested news, barn owls to name but a few.

Furthermore, Shaw Forest Country Park is designated "as an area of countryside or open space providing opportunities for recreation and for wildlife conservation" (Policy SR37 of the Swindon Borough Council Adopted Local Plan 1999). In the revised deposit draft of the Local Plan 2011 the same area of land is also designated as a "strategic green corridor" (Policy ENV20). For the Council to even suggest breaching all these and other policies, too many to mention in this letter, should be viewed as a betrayal of trust by the whole Swindon community.

The Council's own policies mean that any proposed development of Shaw Forest Country Park will have to go through a detailed and lengthy planning process that includes the preparation of an Environmental Impact Assessment. The nature of the development is also of a scale that a Public Inquiry is likely to be required. To comply with the statutory planning requirements is likely to take many years and be a financially expensive exercise for whoever pays for it.

Thus, whilst this proposal has generated a lot of emotion amongst West Swindon residents and businesses it is the spread of misinformation that should be the focus of attention. Needless to say the Developer, STFC and the Council all refer to the redevelopment of an old landfill site. What they repeatedly fail to mention is that the site is now Shaw Forest Country Park and inhabited by wildlife. Their particular 'spin' is not really surprising, as the headline "Shaw Forest Country Park destroyed for Stadium" would not do their Public Relations images much good even though it is true.

The question that residents and STFC fans should be asking is: "What else are they not telling us?" Football fans and residents alike should question everything they are told about this proposal and not take anything on face value because they are clearly not telling the whole story!!!



3 May 2004

Shaw Forest not up for grabs

From Swindon's Environment Citizen of the Year Marilyn Beale

To The Evening Advertiser

I cannot see why the discussion on the new stadium continues. Shaw Tip is NOT up for grabs, it already has a use, has already been planned and created and no place more so created than by the people of Swindon who turned out in their thousands over the years to ensure that the country park grew and flourished ­ they spoke with their spades!.

Any Councillor who has fallen in with the developers ideas, or indeed pointed them in the direction of this land, has obviously not been keeping his mind on the plot/local structure plan/agenda 21 strategy etc., and should not be in any position of power in our town and should resign immediately for bringing the Council more claims of incompetence, more shame. I am surprised that the Adver should write editorial comment in favour of it, it shows a lack of understanding of all the issues.

The Council owns this land, has already agreed and designated it as a Country Park, has used it as an example of how they are meeting their statutory obligations to Agenda 21, received awards for a brilliant bit of regeneration on it and more importantly people from all over Swindon, not just West Swindon, have volunteered to ensure its future. The future funding of the whole of the Great Western Community Forest could be brought in danger.

So go away Mr Developer and Swindon Town Football Club ­ find somewhere else, this is not up for grabs and if you persist in pursuing OUR country park site, your councillor friends won't be getting voted in next time! And we the people who planned it, planted it and live around it will give you the hardest ride through the planning process any developer has ever had ­ and we are well practised now and have unpaid experts at our disposal to do just that. Oh and any councillor still for it ­ do the decent thing and fall on your sword.



3 May 2004

Biased journalism from Swindon Link magazine and at swindonlink.com

From Phil Allen

As a resident of West Swindon for many years and a Swindonian born & breed, I write to complain regarding the obviously biased views your magazine has taken regarding the new stadium proposal. Whilst I recognise you are free to publish any material you wish, I believe you are doing a great disservice to your readership.

Only indicating the possible negative points of the development and attempting to give the impression that the vast majority of residents are against the proposal, surely goes against the values and the whole basis of a community magazine, which I assume is to represent all views in said community.

Without exception, the friends and neighbours I have spoken to have either been for the stadium because of the much needed sporting & leisure facilities it will bring for the whole town, or are simply indifferent to it, seeing it as another development in West Swindon along with Cell Ops, Skurrays and the recently completed warehouses in the area.

Whilst there are always positive & negative views on any development in any location, I find the coverage you are giving the opponents of this brown-field development in strange contrast to your silence on the green-field' development in northern Swindon. In fact your web-site even contains advertising from the developers in Priory Vale.

I wouldn't wish to accuse anyone of hypocrisy, but I would suggest your continued bias stance on this issue will only alienate or annoy a large number of your potential readers even further.

My personal view is that if we only have to sacrifice an area which is currently used as a rubbish tip in order to gain a state of the art sporting resource the whole town can enjoy, then we should grab it with both hands.



Reply from Roger Ogle, Publisher/Editor

Thanks for your comments which will be added to the web site. They are the first and, so far, only accusations of bias I have had.

As you say, I am in a position to take a view on the proposal and make it well known, which, to reinforce the article in the May edition and the articles I have written on this web site, is entirely in opposition. STFC is considering such a profound change which will effect the lives of a huge number of people and their proposal has no positive merit at all.

Nobody is against a new stadium for the club but because STFC have suddenly said they want the forest site for it does not make the proposal acceptable, however much they dress it up with fancy ideas of a sports village. They won't be paying for it, now will the developer.

Moreover if it means the council tax payer is expected to happily let a failing council do deals with a bankrupt football club which results in greater profits of a development company worth multi-millions, then there are many, many questions which everybody has to ask.

I should like to hear more from your neighbours. Ask them to look at the site and mail their views. The 'for the stadium' page is a bit thin in terms of numbers and rational comment.

With regard to the North Swindon development, there is no comparison - the battle was lost many years ago. The debate took place during the 1980s and planning permission was granted in the early 1990s.

From the turnout of objectors at the consultation on 29 April and the protest on 1 May I would suggest The Link is voicing the views of the majority that the stadium proposal is ill considered. As more information emerges, I believe this number will grow.

Is The Swindon Link and www.swindonlink.com afflicted by bias and distortion?



3 May 2004

From Dr Richard Pagett, Chairman, Purton Ps & Qs

To Mark Devlin, Chief Executive, Swindon Town Football Club

Dear Mr Devlin

Proposed New Stadium, Shaw Park, Swindon

We write to express our concerns about the news, reported last week by the press, television and radio, following a press release made by Swindon Town Football Club, of the intention of the Club to build a new stadium, sports village and potentially a hotel on the Shaw Tip.

The first issue concerning this news is that there has been no public consultation or application to the planning authority for such a proposal. The first we heard was the announcement that the Club 'will' build the Stadium on the landfill site.

Having the news broken to the residents of Swindon and the neighbouring rural area of north Wiltshire, and in particular to the people who live in the proposed area, in the way it was, must have been disturbing. Not everyone understands the planning system and some may be under the impression that, due to the terminology used in the press release, that this project has already, received the necessary permission.

We realise that the Club will have to apply for planning permission, normally a lengthy procedure to allow for any objections. These objections are a valuable asset to any planning application as they sometimes bring forward factors not considered by the developers, so that if such factors are surmountable they can be considered and form part of the development. Sometimes objections are such that developments do not go ahead.

The most important factor with regard to any development, including this proposal, is the matter of sustainability. The proposal as reported in the press is not sustainable.

Factors with regard to noise, light and traffic pollution are some of the main issues that will affect all the residents in the neighbourhood, as well as the local residents in villages nearby. The road systems to the west of the site are mainly country lanes in the neighbouring north Wiltshire district, or residential estate roads within the borough of Swindon. To access the site from north Swindon and Moredon it is necessary to leave the borough and enter north Wiltshire on a road which would be difficult to upgrade, due to the existing railway bridge. The issue of litter could be a major problem in the immediate area around the site up to potentially a 5-mile radius. Currently there is littering from cars in the rural areas from people leaving the borough, which is a problem to the rural dwellers especially as the clearing up is paid for by NWDC and not by SBC.

Public transport is non-existent in this area from North Wiltshire, due to the narrow country lanes and weight restrictions, and limited to only buses within the Swindon Borough Council area. Parking is not a strong point on Swindon Borough Council's agenda, and their past record proves they do not allow sufficient parking for car users, therefore there will be the nuisance of parking in the neighbouring areas. This could overspill into north Wiltshire.

The issue with regard to the environment and wildlife in the area is also an important factor. The potential impact on the air quality for Swindon, once the trees are in maturity, is a strong argument to retain the site with its tree coverage.

The site presently forms part of the Great Western Forest, an area of community land set aside for the public to use freely. It is known, as Shaw Park Forest, and was heralded by Swindon Borough Council as its only 'Urban Forest'. It has been planted out with trees, bought with public money, with many of these trees having been planted by members of the public. The landfill site, we believe, is part of an ongoing government study to monitor the behaviour of a "capped landfill site when planted with trees". The designation of brownfield site would only apply to the immediate area used as a landfill, as the remaining area is predominately virgin land used for agricultural, amenity land and the river Ray flood plain. It is possible that the landfill site has already been redesignated for community use when it was earmarked as part of the Great Western Forest.

Swindon has built to its western boundaries, therefore if Swindon people lose part of their 'Urban Forest' and want rural recreation within the borough they have to travel to the other side of the town or migrate out to the rural communities in a neighbouring district.

Building onto landfill sites causes many inherent problems from the contaminations of the land, methane gases and possible subsidence to buildings. The location of the nearby sewage works and flood plains for the river Ray all add to the total unsuitability of locating a leisure complex and hotel in this area.

The site is predominately elevated, thus any development would be a prominent feature in the skyline and visible all around Swindon. This would include rural areas looking towards Swindon. Due to its elevated nature, noise pollution would therefore carry on the south and south west winds which predominate in this area, a factor which will affect not only to the residents of the newly built north Swindon, but also the rural villages and communities.

Locating the proposed stadium on this site puts all the major leisure facilities in one place, with the Oasis and Link Centre all nearby. There exists already, sporting facilities, private gyms, fitness centres and the Greyhound Stadium located around the town, giving good access to all, rather than channelling everyone to one place.

We understand that the Club has 11 practice football pitches near to Wanborough. Would this not be a far more suitable location for a new stadium, so that all the Club's activities are within one site, with nearby major arterial roads such as the M4 and A419, away from large groups of residential homes, and where it will not be a major feature in the landscape yet prominent enough for visitors as they enter Swindon? There is also the added benefit that this then would be more centrally located in the Swindon Borough so as Swindon continues to expand, the facilities will be more readily accessible for all.



In response to the swindonlink e-newsletter of 4 May

From: Mike Jarvis

To Bill Oliver, Managing Director of St Modwen Properties PLC.

Please explain the following to me:

• Why propose to move STFC at all? Why not re-develop the site?
• What are all the financial implications for STFC?
• What are all the financial implications for St Modwen?
• What are all the financial implications for Swindon Council Tax Payers?
• What are all the financial implications for Swindon Council?
• Does St Modwen Properties PLC have any ownership or proposed ownership of STFC?
• To the best of your knowledge, does the Nationwide Building Society support this proposal?

If you are unable to answer any of the above questions, please advise who, in your opinion, can.

I am one of many thousands of people who have every intention of escalating this potential environmental disaster to national level, and to ensure that your proposal does not go ahead.

I look forward to receiving your personal reply in the near future.



4 May 2004

From Professor Brian Toft, Peatmoor

To The Evening Advertiser

I wish to take issue with a remark made by Bill Oliver, chief executive, of the development company proposing that the a stadium and sports village be built on Shaw Forest Country Park (Your front page story - Stadium Protest draws Big Crowd, 3 May).

In that article Mr Oliver is reported to have said, 'People may be protesting about things they do not necessarily fully understand.'

Question: 'Will the construction of a stadium and sports village result in the wholesale destruction of Shaw Forest Country Park and the work that has gone into that project for ten years?

Answer, 'yes'.

Question: 'What is the community protesting about?

Answer: 'The destruction of Shaw Forest Country Park.'

What is there to understand Mr Oliver?

---

Stadium Proposal Index | SwindonLink Home

---