Council forced to hand back £4.8m after Cogges Link Road bid is blocked

7:00am Monday 24th September 2012 in News Photograph of the Author By Tom Jennings, covering Witney and West Oxfordshire. Call me on 01865 425403

WITNEY residents will not get a new road scheme to cut town centre congestion in the near future, County Hall has said.

And £4.78m of funding for its failed Cogges Link Road scheme looks set to be returned to developers.

Oxfordshire County Council had hoped the link road would reduce traffic , but it was rejected by a planning inspector earlier this year.

The council is now drawing up alternative schemes.

County council leader Ian Hudspeth said: “There is an awful lot of backroom work needs to go on.

“We have got to go through all the process of how the schemes stack up against each other. We are not looking at delivering a new scheme in the near future. It is as frustrating for me as it is for anyone who lives in Witney.”

The council had £17.23m budgetted to pay for the road, including £8.24m in secured infrastrcture contributions from developers and £4.62m from council funds. It has already spent an estimated £4m on the scheme, including £1.4m on the public inquiry.

The developers of the 1,500-home Madley Park estate put in £4.78m, but this will be returned because under the original agreement this money could only be used on the link road and no other project.

Related links

Mr Hudspeth said the council had learnt lessons from the issue, adding: “In the future perhaps the council might link development of infrastructure schemes more closely to the housing development.”

Landowner James Mawle, of the Mawle Trust, which gave 75 per cent of the £4.78m, said: “We offered to change the agreement in 2002 and 2005 but they (the council) consistently refused our offers to make changes.

“The council would have to get agreement from all parties to the section 106 money, not just the Mawles, and there is no reason for those developers to sign up for that.”

He said the council spent more money before the public inquiry than it would have cost to build an alternative “Shores Green” option.

A Government inspector refused to allow County Hall permission to compulsorily purchase land needed for the link road earlier this year and said creating a £3.8m four-way junction on the A40 at Shores Green, was a better option.

Alternative schemes being looked at include improvements to Ducklington Road/Station Lane, Bridge Street and Downs Road junctions, Mr Hudspeth said.

Comments(14)

someguyfromhereandthere says...
7:24am Mon 24 Sep 12

That will be a nice little packet that the developers can now use towards the new Cogges development. Looks like there was a win/win for some...

Report this post »

Phian says...
7:58am Mon 24 Sep 12

someguyfromhereandth
ere wrote:
That will be a nice little packet that the developers can now use towards the new Cogges development. Looks like there was a win/win for some...
not for the people affected by the congestion in town which will get even worse when all those houses are built on what should have been the CLR.

Report this post »

the wizard says...
8:51am Mon 24 Sep 12

The council should look inwardly and sort out its own gross incompetence in this affair and faces need to change. Their handling of this whole affair is shoddy and disgraceful. A lot of money has been wasted and we are still no further forward.

No further planning permission to build any further houses in Witney as a whole should be given, whether its Cogges or elsewhere. We are often in gridlock and enough is enough.

I find it hard to believe that the council had no Plan B, I think its time we got somebody here who is a bit more dynamic and thinks on several planes, as opposed to the narrow minded incompetents we seem to be stuck with. I suppose we will have to wait another 20 odd years for a solution, probably when we are painted into a corner and have to take what is left, a very poor alternative.

Report this post »

Mrs Arcanum says...
9:14am Mon 24 Sep 12

Wonder if the developers of Cogges will give anything back to the County Council for allegedly building part of Manor Road in the wrong place.

Perhaps the County will learn to build vital infrastructure before housing estates are completed.

Report this post »

H.J.Harris says...
3:36pm Mon 24 Sep 12

For nearly twenty years the democratically elected Councillors tried to build CLR. A vociferous minority managed to convince the Government Inspector by means of excellent publicity to refuse the plan.
I see little incompetence on the part of the Council when they were trying to go ahead with what the voters appeared to support.
The leaders of the anti-CLR campaign now stand to make a great deal of money from increasing the problem before any alternative traffic strategy can be implemented.

Report this post »

Richard Martin says...
3:51pm Mon 24 Sep 12

the wizard wrote:
The council should look inwardly and sort out its own gross incompetence in this affair and faces need to change. Their handling of this whole affair is shoddy and disgraceful. A lot of money has been wasted and we are still no further forward. No further planning permission to build any further houses in Witney as a whole should be given, whether its Cogges or elsewhere. We are often in gridlock and enough is enough. I find it hard to believe that the council had no Plan B, I think its time we got somebody here who is a bit more dynamic and thinks on several planes, as opposed to the narrow minded incompetents we seem to be stuck with. I suppose we will have to wait another 20 odd years for a solution, probably when we are painted into a corner and have to take what is left, a very poor alternative.
No doubt our salty Wizard will now stand for election to the council. A chap of such clear and enlightened vision is just what we need.
The Wizard is exactly the 'thinks on several planes' kind of fellow that he correctly describes we are looking for.
No need to wait twenty years, Mr Wizard, for you are for sure the Saviour for whom we are crying in the wilderness.
Please, take up the cudgels on our behalf, and save us, oh mighty Wizard.

Report this post »

the wizard says...
5:07pm Mon 24 Sep 12

Richard Martin wrote:
the wizard wrote:
The council should look inwardly and sort out its own gross incompetence in this affair and faces need to change. Their handling of this whole affair is shoddy and disgraceful. A lot of money has been wasted and we are still no further forward. No further planning permission to build any further houses in Witney as a whole should be given, whether its Cogges or elsewhere. We are often in gridlock and enough is enough. I find it hard to believe that the council had no Plan B, I think its time we got somebody here who is a bit more dynamic and thinks on several planes, as opposed to the narrow minded incompetents we seem to be stuck with. I suppose we will have to wait another 20 odd years for a solution, probably when we are painted into a corner and have to take what is left, a very poor alternative.
No doubt our salty Wizard will now stand for election to the council. A chap of such clear and enlightened vision is just what we need.
The Wizard is exactly the 'thinks on several planes' kind of fellow that he correctly describes we are looking for.
No need to wait twenty years, Mr Wizard, for you are for sure the Saviour for whom we are crying in the wilderness.
Please, take up the cudgels on our behalf, and save us, oh mighty Wizard.
Sarcasm always been your strong point has then Richard. Twenty odd years ago the idea was, Cogges Link road. Twenty odd years of stumbling around and letting opposer's gather an argument and gain enough momentum to hood wink the government inspector, instead of getting on with it in the first place. But oh wait, let us see who is going to build a supermarket, and maybe we'll get it for free, oh let us wait, for this, for that, for the world to stop spinning because Witney is the centre of the Universe. Oh do come on, grow up, chance after chance after chance has gone begging, and now Madley Park has been built, all on an assumption. An assumption is not fact, and nor did it become one. The council sat on the fence and got painted into a corner because it dragged its feet, didn't take the opportunities as they arose, and FAILED to mount a strong enough case for the three legged horse it was backing, and sat back still thinking Witney is the centre of the universe. Pathetic, and these people are paid out of the public purse. Had a private company fluffed up like this over 20 odd years heads would have rolled. incompetent doesn't come close in my opinion. Twenty years WASTED, what cost, just look at our congestion, pollution and no way forward, and its taken twenty years to get in print what everyone already knew . Now instead of following the inspectors recommendations, they are looking elsewhere, just don't learn from the mistakes already made. You don't need a saviour, you need a bully in office to kick butt and wake up or ship out the under performers that have sold this town short over the last twenty odd years and a few more to come. It a disgrace, and NO despite their vision Witney isn't at the centre of the universe, its become polluted and grid locked through their gross incompetence over a sustained period of time. The guillotine should beckon.

Report this post »

Angharad12 says...
5:51am Tue 25 Sep 12

I don't think it was publicity that convinced the Inspector- it was the weight of technical evidence. He was a Chartered Civil Engineer and he wrote a very good report explaining his decision. That technical evidence had been available for some time and I think the lesson if anything, is that councils need to carefully consider evidence submitted by the public or interested parties during consultations. I think things have changed since Cogges Link started and they do realise that now. At the same time, developers are commercially switched on and ear marking Section 106 money for one particular scheme gave the developer a loop hole from the start, where just allocating it to wider public projects would have been best. Having said that I have read that the Mawle Trust made it clear some time back that it wanted to build houses on the Cogges Link land and offered to reallocate the section 106 money to the Shores Green scheme, which it had evidence to suggest was cheaper and would work just as well. The risk was always there that if the Cogges Link scheme failed, the money would have to be returned and I suppose the blind spot was thinking that would never happen. I feel sure however that OCC and WODC are doing their best now to come up with the best alternative and salvage as much of the money as they can. The alternative might be a great deal cheaper, so let's hope things work out fo the good of the town in the end.

Report this post »

tk_leys says...
10:56am Tue 25 Sep 12

"Mr Hudspeth said the council had learnt lessons from the issue, adding: “In the future perhaps the council might link development of infrastructure schemes more closely to the housing development.”"
About bloody time!!!!!

Report this post »

GarbyCasLad says...
11:52am Tue 25 Sep 12

This whole saga shows that councils have to take account of new evidence and not pursue an untennable scheme regardless. Consultation is not just about inviting views - it’s about taking account of them and facing up to it if it seems the Council is going down the wrong path. That’s much easier and less expensive than leaving it to chance and depending on an Inspector being astute enough to second guess all the issues

Report this post »

Angharad12 says...
12:20pm Tue 25 Sep 12

I found an informative letter on the internet from James Mawle to Ian Hudspeth from back in 2010, outlining all the issues with the CLR and explaining the merits of SGSR. He highlighted a past Local Plan Inspector's conclusions that the CLR should not be pursued until the cheaper and less environmentally damaging SGSR had been properly considered. He also promised to allow Mawle Trust funds earmarked for the CLR to be used for SGSR and offered a good deal on the land for SGSR. He indicated his desire to build 450 houses on the Cogges Link site, so at least he was open about it. John Tanner, an OCC councillor also argued in favour of SGSR, but Ian Hudspeth said his figures were wrong, as reported by Tom Jennings. The warning signs that the CLR scheme might go belly up were there and it's a shame they were ignored. However, I do agree with Mr. Hudspeth about linking housing with appropriate infrastructure in future. This would include considering the costs. Although this all looks embarassing, we have to move forward and hope that lessons learnt will lead to a better way of working in the future. I hope Mr. Mawle will honour his promise on the transfer of funding to the chosen alternative even if the deadline (which is surely too close now) ends up being passed. After all the money was for development that he has already benefitted from. If he wants future goodwill and co-operation from locals and the council in the PM's constituency, I am sure he will see the merit in not taking full advantage of his get out clause. I hope too that the council won't take too long over deciding which way to go. The Inspector said SGSR would relieve traffic as effectively as the CLR and he is an expert, so mindsets and long held beliefs need to change.

Report this post »

GarbyCasLad says...
12:43pm Tue 25 Sep 12

Yes it is a bit of an embarrassing start for Ian Hudspeth as leader. He did seem to champion the CLR and maybe didn’t take too much notice of evidence he didn’t like. He once replied to me stating that he wouldn’t thank me for sending him any more emails and that decisions would be made based on facts. That was probably true, but perhaps only the convenient facts. I hope he now presses ahead with the SGSR option, which the expert Inspector endorsed.

Report this post »

livedhereforyears says...
3:18pm Wed 26 Sep 12

It is quite simple - those who own the land want the most for it - there is no charity and they are not interested in the people of the town only themselves - that is fine as alot of people would do the same - however the only way to prevent further houses which will only lead to more congestion is to rightly oppose any planning application for development on the basis of lack of infrastructure and safety for the the half of the town that lives the other side of the river to the police and fire brigade. I will be objecting so I hope others will too.

Report this post »

spinkle says...
2:21pm Fri 28 Sep 12

It just shows how dishonest are council is that they never said they were planning to develop the site just build a road to ease congestion no one in their right mind would invest that kind of money into a road unless they could get a return on it some how they deserve just what they have got when will the learn not to keep telling lies and being deceitful and tell people the truth

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree