Campaigners' joy as Cogges Link Road scheme is rejected (From The Oxford Times)
When It Happens Panel Get involved: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting 'OXFORD NEWS' to 80360 or email
Campaigners' joy as Cogges Link Road scheme is rejected
9:00am Saturday 16th June 2012 in News
By Ben Wilkinson, Crime Reporter. Call me on (01865) 425427
CAMPAIGNERS have claimed victory in a 27-year battle after the Government rejected controversial plans for a £20.5m relief road in Witney.
The Department for Transport has refused a compulsory purchase order for the land Oxfordshire County Council needed to build the Cogges Link Road.
Instead, Secretary of State for Transport Justine Greening agreed with the inquiry inspector that a four-way junction on the A40 at Shores Green was a better option.
The decision follows a lengthy public inquiry that ended in November.
The council spent £1.4m on the public hearings and will now have to pay the inquiry costs of its opponents.
Last night council leader Ian Hudpeth said the news was “bitterly disappointing”.
He said: “There has been lots of legal debate in recent times and that has to a large degree obscured what the council’s aim has always been in proposing this road, to bring relief to the traffic issues in the town of Witney.”
But in a letter to the council, the DfT said the authority had not made “a sufficiently compelling case” for the link road and the Shores Green option had “clear advantages”.
The council has not yet made a decision on whether it will proceed with that cheaper alternative but Mr Hudspeth said: “Those (traffic) problems will not go away and it is the council’s duty to work on ways of dealing with them.
“We must now review our options and work hard with all stakeholders to come up with new ways forward to tackle the central issue of traffic through the centre of Witney.”
Opponent James Mawle, who owns land needed for the link road scheme, said: “There is no real way back for the council now.
“This is a complete and total vindication after almost 20 years of work by a whole range of people who have all constantly opposed the road.
The Secretary of State said the council should pay the Mawle Trust’s costs for the inquiry which Mr Mawle said could be about £700,000.
He added: “They should never have put the people of Witney through this.
“Millions of pounds have been wasted.
“They have spent more money on legal and professional fees then it would have cost to build Shores Green.”
And he said last night that the Mawle Trust would never sell the land to the council.
He said: “We will never sell, at any price, for the Cogges Link Road.”
Campaigner Alex Kinchesh, of Cogges, in Witney, said: “The report was spot on and the Secretary of State has done right thing. Thank goodness for common sense.”
But she added: “The fact that it went this far without listening to the public is shocking and we will be looking for answers.”
David Condon, chairman of Witney Campaign to Protect Rural England and the anti Cogges Link Road group Witney First said: “This has been one hell of a battle against the county council and quite correctly they have lost.
“This is a crushing defeat for them.”
Prime Minister and Witney MP David Cameron backed the controversial scheme in 2010.
Comments(11)
K. Darke
says...
10:58am Sat 16 Jun 12
Mrs Arcanum
says...
11:39am Sat 16 Jun 12
K. Darke wrote:As the footbridge is part of the planning gain for Jacobs Mill/Woodford Mill I cannot see any conflict. Although the will to build the WEL is somewhat "sometime never". So we will end up with no link ever as some idiot future planner will allow houses instead. Much as they did with Newland Mill houses scuppering the road over the river there.
The West End Link would certainly ease congestion in both West End and Bridge Street but have the council been working against this by building the over-engineered footbridge across the Windrush behind Woodford Mill? Now is the time for the West End Link in conjunction with Shores Green.
bodchris
says...
1:32pm Sat 16 Jun 12
bodchris
says...
1:43pm Sat 16 Jun 12
thehistorian
says...
2:05pm Sat 16 Jun 12
K. Darke
says...
3:40pm Sat 16 Jun 12
thehistorian wrote:I thought from the Inquiry that the land required for Shores Green was owned by another party?
The article does not mention that James Mawle also owns the land that will need to be purchased for a Shores Green junction. He can now sell land for development that would have been covered by compulsory purchase. So it is not just the NIMBY's, wishy washy pinko save the newt brigade that have their own way it is the local 'moneybags', hiding behind a Trust, as well. And he has the cheek to ask for costs. When Council Tax goes up to pay for this ongoing fiasco we can guess who will complain the loudest, the NIMBY's, wishy washy ect
Porphyro
says...
7:46pm Sat 16 Jun 12
bodchris wrote:bodchris, you have posted two very silly comments. Try reading the inspector's report before you humiliate yourself further.
What now? A "Say No to Shores Green!" campaign?????
Porphyro
says...
8:04pm Sat 16 Jun 12
thehistorian wrote:A good historian makes sure of his facts before he gives us his opinions. A good historian does not give vent to childish invective if he wants to be taken seriously. A good historian build a careful argument that stands up to scrutiny. "the historian" is not a historian, not even a bad one.
The article does not mention that James Mawle also owns the land that will need to be purchased for a Shores Green junction. He can now sell land for development that would have been covered by compulsory purchase. So it is not just the NIMBY's, wishy washy pinko save the newt brigade that have their own way it is the local 'moneybags', hiding behind a Trust, as well. And he has the cheek to ask for costs. When Council Tax goes up to pay for this ongoing fiasco we can guess who will complain the loudest, the NIMBY's, wishy washy ect
livedhereforyears
says...
10:42am Sun 17 Jun 12
Dr bob is my hero
says...
7:50pm Sun 17 Jun 12
livedhereforyears wrote:The ClR was a vision for the future as further housing will be needed. It was campaigned against by people that already have their homes and have the "i'm alright jack" attitude. I fear your prediction will be correct lived here, and we will have more houses and no roads to allow for them.
Well at least finally a decision - the council should not allow any further development in this town until some sort of road / junction is built to prevent further traffic in the town - but I predict that we will see development of land for houses etc around Cogges before any road is built as usual. This is a victory for wealthy land owners not for the town. This town needs a further crossing of the Windrush to allow flow of traffic but all we will now see is fields being dug for building houses. The way forward is to object to any planning proposals until the infrastructure promised for nearly 30 years has been completed. So sort out the traffic before any building can take place!
Mrs Arcanum says...
10:06am Sat 16 Jun 12