faringdon-online community web site home	talking points
	july 2005

---

Photos - Faringdon Arts Festival - 30/7/05 Great photos of the Arts Festival - Glenn Tilbruck, Peter Wentworth, Kiff, painting the underpass - and maybe you!! All provided by Al Cane Gene Webb

Storm in a tea/coffee cup - 29/7/05 I too was concerned about the problem with the 'public seating ' so contacted the Coffee Shop and received this reply...which should satisfy anybody !! Our apologises if the lady felt she could not sit on the public seating. This may have happened when the shop was being staff run on that day. All the staff have now been briefed to the fact that the stone seating MUST be kept clear of our tables and chairs. We now have a 7ft gap between the stone seats and our own so there shouldn't be a problem. If she still finds there is a problem then by all means she can sit at a table. Regards Darren HGM

Tables and Chairs - 29/7/05 As new visitors to Faringdon and being interested to discover more about the town, I was disappointed to read about the critiscism regarding tables & chairs outside the coffee house. This was one of the features that made the town look friendly,warm and vibrant. It is a unique place and good to see people enjoying the environment and the English summer sun. Please keep them!! Jenny Taylor

Tables and Chairs - 28/7/05 It has been a delight to see tables and chairs in the market place. However, I understand that the fuss started because Coffee Shop tables & chairs were placed in such a way as to block comfortable use of the Portwell stone benches which are intended to be available for anyone - not Coffee Shop patrons exclusively. Common sense must prevail lest petty jealouses and rivalries spoil a good thing. What about dealing with what CAN be done in harmony rather than petty complaining. Don't throw all your toys from the pram! Name Supplied

Arts Festival from the other side - 27/7/05 Many people have said how much they enjoyed the Arts Festival and I would like to add my view from the performers side. The audiences for the events, attendees at workshops etc all made a great contribution too and made performing a real pleasure. Thanks to you all for your enthusiasm and applause! Steve Wright

Tables and Chairs - 27/7/05 Harry, thank you for your vote of support. I sincerely hope my comments always make sense even if people don't always agree with them! I understand the petition is at the Coffee House. David Reynolds

Market Place - 26/7/05 Thank you to everyone for all their support in our campaign to save our tables and chairs outside. We have been overwhelmed by the support for them and it is great to see so many people enjoying them. Any additional support and names on our petition will help with our position in saving our outside seating for all to enjoy. Any comments or support can also be emailed to us at faringdoncoffee@aol.com. The petition is at the till in The Faringdon Coffee House and for those of you who cannot get into us during the day, The Portwell Bar have a copy for you to sign during the evenings. For dog walkers and 'ciggie consumers' we tend to keep our seating out for as much of the year as we can so we hope it provides you with a seat to be able to enjoy. Thank you. Tracy and Darren Rutter

Market Place - 26/7/05 People used to sit outside in the summer most specifically outside The Bell and The Volunteer. I heard that this was stopped (unintentionally I fear) by the ban on drinking in the Market Place. I always thought that this was silly as tables and chairs and people enjoying themselves makes the town alive. Jane Boulton

Market Place tables and smoking - 26/7/05 Congratulations to David Reynolds. This time his comments make sense. I agree completely with his remarks about the tables and chairs in the Market Place(I presume the legs are made different lengths to allow for the slope) but I feel that another aspect of this very pleasant addition to our Town Centre should be mentioned. As the anti-smoking lobby gains support we are seeing more and more nicotine addicts hanging around outside their shops or offices satisfying their cravings for 'ciggies'. The provision of an outdoor cafe scenario during the summer gives them somewhere to indulge their habit without appearing to be social outcasts. Perhaps someone could come up with a suggestion telling them where to go during the winter. Not even the teenagers who consider smoking makes them look cool can be happy with lurking in the car park toilets and the facilities for addicted mums to park their prams must be rather limited. Any suggestions as to where they can go ? Harry Mitchell

Tables and Chairs in the Market Place - 25/7/05 I agree whole heartedly with David Reynolds about the tables and chairs in the Market Place. It really looks like summer and one could pretend one was in a foreign town on a sunny day! Where can I find this petition to sign it? Name Supplied Ed: My guess is at the Portwell Bar and the Faringdon Coffee House

Tables and Chairs in the Market Place - 19/07/05 Since the refurbishment of the town centre one of the more attractive features for me has been the emergence of tables and chairs outside the Faringdon Coffee House and Portwell Bar. It is fantastic to see people soaking in the town's atmosphere outside on a hot summer's day. People outside talking, laughing, doing business just lifts the town and gives a feeling that "something is happening" here in this town. Now it seems this might be under threat! It is my understanding that due to ONE complaint about the tables and chairs outdside the Faringdon Coffee House it has now come under review and as a result it is possible that ALL establishments will not be permitted to put tables and chairs outside. In my view this a negative and retrograde step suggested by ONE negative perpetrator who lacks vision (or has another agenda!) and should be resisted. There is a petition to support the continuation of tables and chairs outside which already has dozens of names to it. If you support this please make your voice heard. David Reynolds

Faringdon Arts Festival - 18/7/05 A rather belated note to say a huge Thank You to all those involved in organising and performing in the Arts Festival - Clearly a massive amount of work went into it and I just want all those involved to know that it is very much appreciated! It was so lovely to see children dancing around the market square (my one and three year old included!)- long may it continue! Anna Marlow

Faringdon Arts Festival - 16/7/05 Again, just to echo everyone else's comments on the Arts Festival - a big thankyou to everyone involved in making it such a memorable event for Faringdon. It's taken me a few days to come off the Saturday night Junior school cloud, so I am a little late in adding this note to the many others !! Both the Arts Festival and MADD Fest have done a fantastic job in pulling in some great acts for Faringdon. Long may it live !!!! Sarah Allen-Stevens

Memorial Concert to celebrate the life of Betty Bleakley- 13/7/05 Saturday 6th August, The Abbey Hall, Guildhall in Abingdon 7.30pm. free admission, refreshments A well known soprano who lived at Kingston Lisle. She died aged 73 last month. She appeared at hundreds of concerts throughout the UK under her stage name, Elizabeth James. She studied singing with the famous baritone Fredrick Sharp, and served on the Wantage Music Festival committee. She was also a talented artist in watercolours and painted many commissions, exhibiting during the Faringdon Art Festivals. Betty's husband Mr Desmond Bleakley will be playing the organ, and many of her former pupils will be coming long distances to perform as vocalists. Those who have known Betty, those who have studied under her, and those who just enjoy music are very welcome. Enquiries: PGSAUND@aol.com

Folly Park dragonflies - 13/7/05 If you have not been to Folly park recently, try to go there have a look round the lake. We went there on the weekend and there were so many dragon flies and damsel flies there it was lovely. I think there is even a rare one there too if I identified it correctly. Stunning coloured ones, blues and greens. I have never seen more than one at a time but there are loads of them there, they are landing on the banks too, so you can creep up on them and get a good look. Name Supplied

Proposed Building in the Grounds of Sudbury Court Hotel- 13/7/05 It might be worth nipping down to the District Council Offices at the Corn Exchange to take a look at planning applications GFA/7366/31 and GFA/7366/32-LB (6th July 2005), which deal with a proposal to erect four dwelling houses in the grounds of Sudbury Court Hotel, in a corner adjacent to the footpath leading to the Folly and Stanford Road. To reach the development, part of the stone wall along the 'lay-by' in London Road would be breached and some trees and shrubs grubbed up so that a 'sinuous drive' can be constructed, which would run behind the avenue of 'overgrown limes'. RI Vanhegin

Faringdon Arts Festival - 12/7/05 If anyone would like to give some feed back with regard to the Arts Festival and/or would like to be involved next year please email julie.farmer@faringdonartsfestival.org The Management Team would like to thank everyone who attended the Festival and hope that you will be able to support us all next year Julie Farmer

Re: Road closure 12/7/05 A notice board has appeared today stating "No access via A4095 to Witney from Faringdon 25th to 30th July use A420 & a415 via Kingston Bagpuize" OK. So I understand that the road is closed BUT where? It is about 12 miles to Witney and there are several other venues en route. Could we please be told where the road works are as going to Kingston Bagpuize may not be the best route for other destinations Jane Boulton Ed: Have a look at press releases on this site. There is one that states 'The A4095 from Faringdon to the Thrupp turn, a route used by some commuters from Witney to Swindon, will be closed and repaired from July 25 for six days'

Faringdon festival - 12/7/05 As so many others have said a brilliant weekend made even better by the good weather. The concert put on by Glenn Tilbrook was a wonder to behold, I have seen some mighty fine acts in my years on this planet, Queen, Floyd, ( no, not Keith) etc, but I have never seen anyone work so hard, and enjoy the crowd as much as the crowd enjoyed him. I have to keep reminding myself that this happened in Faringdon! We all, and I include myself in this, are always moaning about one thing or another and putting a negative spin on the efforts of the few people that work hard for us in this town, but the last ten days ( and also the Madd festival in May)makes me feel proud to live in this fine town. So thank you to everyone involved. Jim Horton

Faringdon Arts Festival - 12/7/05 Fantastic festival; Saturday and Sunday were particularly wonderful with non stop fun and masses to do; my children ended up with personal lists of things to do and places to be in order we could all get to the various activities and experience the sights and sounds!!!!. Will there be any opportunity to feed back or make suggestions for future planning? A big thankyou to the organisers and to the stewards who were so helpful and encouraging. Alice Chenneour Randall

Faringdon Arts Festival - 12/7/05 To Echo it even more... A brilliant Festival with something for everyone. The atmosphere in the Market Square over the Weekend was superb. The highlight for me being the Saturday night gig at the Junior School with excellent local Band Cooper Black supporting a brilliant performance By Glenn Tilbrook. Seen a lot of live Music events and this was one of the most memorable, a great Evening! Many congratulations to the Organisers and all involved. Faringdon now has an annual event which should be the envy of Towns all over the Country. Graham Fletcher

Faringdon Arts Festival - 11/7/05 To echo Gene's comments, the Arts Festival was great. It's something for Faringdon to be very proud of. Congratulations to the organisers. Richard Edgington.

In case of emergency contact number - 11/7/05 Following the disaster in London East Anglian Ambulance Service have launched a national "In case of Emergency ( ICE ) " campaign with the support of Falklands war hero Simon Weston and in association with Vodafone's annual life savers award. The idea is that you store the word " I C E " in your mobile phone address book, and against it enter the number of the person you would want to be contacted "In Case of Emergency". In an emergency situation ambulance and hospital staff will then be able to quickly find out who your next of kin are and be able to contact them. It's so simple that everyone can do it. Please do. Please will you also forward this to everybody in your address book (or just tell your family and friends), it won't take too many 'forwards' before everybody will know about this. It really could save your life. For more than one contact name ICE1, ICE2, ICE3 etc Robert Sharp

Faringdon Arts Festival - 11/7/05 Congratulations and thankyou to everyone involved with the Arts Festival - the organisers, helpers and the performers- it was a super festival- enjoyed by all Hopefully, this is now an annual event!! Gene Webb

Re 18 Coxwell Road.- 8/7/05 I am sure I will not be the only one to point out to Mr Reynolds - 1.The Medical Centre had a one way system with separate entrance and exit, so no queues. 2.Visibility from entrance and exit was excellent. 3.Its busy times did not coincide with rush hour on Coxwell Road. 4.It had a big sign at the front saying "Medical Centre". 5.Traffic was generally much less then anyway. 6.Quite possibly location and access were among the factors in its decision to relocate somewhere better. Name Supplied

Le Mele-Libcany Twinning - 7/7/05 This is just a reminder about the up-coming 10th Anniversary of the Le Mele-Libcany twinning, which is planned over the 4 days from 4th-7th August. A small number of participants have already declared their interest, and we need to inform Claire Bresson at the beginning of next week of the numbers planning to go. Can you therefore please e-mail me by Sunday 10th July if you would like to go.Transport will be in own cars, so you would need to make your own travel arrangements. If we co-ordinate carefully,we should be able to minimise costs by filling cars. PS Please don't forget the AGM planned for Wednesday 20 July and photo/pictures of the May Peace anniversary trip. David and Mary Tutt tutt.faringdon@tesco.net

400 houses on the Old Nursery Site - 8/7/05 Does anyone have any information on how the public enquiry to the council's proposal to build 400 houses on the old nursery site is going? I believe there are 3 weeks still to run. I noticed today that some survey work is being carried out on the Jespers Hill site (flat large field between Nursery View and A420). The council couldn't give me any information about this. It looks like some kind of soil and ground survey. Thanks. Name Supplied

18 Coxwell Road. - 7/7/05 Dear Mr Reynolds, I'm sorry the old Health Centre closed. It's true, there was a constant stream of traffic going in through the wide, one-way entrance with good visibility, and coming out of the one-way dedicated exit which was also wide and had good visibility. The Health Centre was moved to improve service to Faringdon, by Doctors who live here. BIG DIFFERENCE. The proposed exit is narrow, ugly and offensive, does not meet minimum safety standards and is to be created to improve (at any cost to Faringdon) an individuals private wealth. I understand he will live abroad...... Mark Lawson

18 Coxwell Rd - 7/7/05 I think that Mr D.A.'s argument is absolutely correct. The safest proposal must be approved not the proposal that affects the least number of people, that just doesn't make sense. There's no doubt that the entrance discussed at the last Council Meeting is extremely hazardous and also clearly described as such by the speaker from the Town Council (who is also correct) and yet their wishes appear to be ignored. I firmly believe that if there's no safe proposal, and clearly this is not, the site development should not go ahead. It is a pity that this has caused such polarisation within the neighbourhood. There is a further option to access the site which was approved a few years ago but has not been progressed further and that is to access through the old Health Centre development and take out the physio's building. It was used for years and has wide viewpoints both up and down Coxwell Road and must be safer than access between 16 and 20. The overriding factor for Planners consideration in any of these proposals must be Road Safety regardless of the engineers views on width of roadways etc etc. I repeat, that if there is no safe proposal the site development should not go ahead, regardless of the developer's wishes. Name Supplied

18 Coxwell Road- 7/7/05 Great insults Mr Reynolds, I expected a more mature balanced response rather than the barrage of cheap shots. I'm glad you consider this as some sort of game, I am simply trying to raise the profile of an important issue which will affect (to different degrees) a number of people. Despite what you believe, I don't really care which of the applications is implemented, neither affects me, I have no interests emotionally or financially. I thought I made that quite clear, but obviously not clear enough. I said that in planning terms both schemes in my view were acceptable, my reservation was that the traffic situation and the amenity issues in relation to the Coxwell Road scheme were of greater significance and that if a choice had to be made between the two schemes then the best option in planning terms was the Orchard Road scheme. It would be much better accessed and it would enable a better form of development (in planning terms). Central Government advice is there for a reason and luckily for future generations it is. The approach which you seem to be advocating is that if there is an objection to a development scheme for whatever reason, then it should not take place. The problem is that in many cases local objections are not planning matters and are comments made through fogged glasses. If it was the case that spurious and biased objections were given overwhelming weight then very few brownfield sites in residential areas would be developed as there is always opposition. Similarly, no Greenfield sites would be developed because there would be more opposition.. In fact there would be no development what so ever anywhere. Now that would be constructive wouldn't it. (please do not insult me for suggesting that residents in this case have made spurious objections, I am not, I'm simply making a point generally which I trust you will understand) In the case of the 300 against 2 argument, do you genuinely believe that just because 300 is more than 2, that that would justify any decision. It may fall into the strict definition of democracy, but is it morally right. If 300 residents are not materially affected by a proposal but object to it anyway, but two are significantly and materially affected does this make it ok because of mob rule. (I appreciate that you take a different view about the materiality of the effect, but the point is the same). Personally I think not, but that's my view. Your memory has slipped a little and your knowledge of Coxwell Road is not that good. As a matter of fact, the access into the old health centre was one way with separate ingress and egress, hence there was no confict. The site is now served by a wider access which enable ingress and egress at the same time, so there is no conflict. The proposed application access is substandard in this regard, if a vehicle is egressing, any vehicle accessing the site will either have to wait on the carriageway or the egressing vehicle will have to reverse. Not an ideal or particularly safe solution. In terms of the material effect on the properties backing onto the site, that will be predominantly the same whichever development takes place, albeit that the numbers may be slightly different. The significant materiality relates to the effect on properties 16 and 20 Coxwell road, which has the substandard access immediately abuting their properties. In terms of constructive alternatives, my view is that there is probably not now one available, I thought I made this clear. However, my starting point is and has always been that there is nothing wrong with either of the schemes in planning terms anyway. I have simply put forward an unbiased comparison between the two implementable alternatives before us now. I'm not sure how I can be accused as being a bully by using the word NIMBY. I think you will find that you yourself said that the development is very much in your own back yard. In that case I would have thought NIMBY was the correct phrase. However, if that upsets you I unreservedly withdraw the remark. I again stress that the purpose of my input was to create debate and even up the weight of opinion. If you wish to trade insults then I'm afraid that I will not be drawn in. I accept that you may not agree with my view, and that's your right. However, because I do not agree with you, does not make me a bully, indeed neither does it make me wrong. If you are so committed to your democracy idea, I would have expected a more mature response and debate One thing I am right about, is that the site is suitable for redevelopment, this has been my approach all along and remains so. Indeed, permission has been granted for three alternatives. (the last subject to the safeguards about noise). There will therefore be three possible permissions to be implemented. I remain of the view that the Orchard Road development is the best option and it is my democratic right to make that point. If it is not and I am not allowed to make any comment then who is being the bully. Devils Advocate ps, any news on that poor cat anyone

18 Coxwell Road - 7/7/05 Since my last posting the application to access the site via Coxwell Road has been approved by the Planning Committee subject to a third party analysis of the acoustic fence issues. So still we all wait! However in the meantime let me respond to earlier comments. Okay Mr Advocate, let's play the game. Whoever you are you obviously have the time on your hands to write monologues and stand around on Coxwell Road all day! I'm not convinced that you're totally impartial but I'll take what you say at face value and respond as such. The problem with the planning system as it stands is NOT that the majority of the public do not give a fig...the problem is that the public's perception is that it has absolutely no control over the decisions. Yes, it is possible for local residents to lodge opinions to the powers that be but I'm afraid the reality is that if an application meets current planning guidelines and, more importantly falls in line with current (central) policy, it will go through regardless of whether it affects 2 people or 300 people. Incidentally, Mr Advocate YES the majority should prevail. That's what choice by democracy is all about isn't it?. Even more interesting to me are the comments about traffic on Coxwell Road. I have only lived in Faringdon for five years but that's long enough to remember when the health centre was open. Forgive me if my memory is slipping but I don't recall too many visitors to the centre arriving by Harrier Jump Jet or Helicopter...I do recall however a constant stream of cars turning in and out of the centre both ways into Coxwell Road all day long. Notwithstanding the many dozens of traffic movements per day, to my knowledge there were no great traffic disasters. So why should there be a sudden hazard surge with the introduction of 8 additional houses? I also continue to be puzzled by Mr Advocate's assumption that there will be "less significant and material effect on adjoining properties". Residents of Elm Road, Hawthorn Road and Beech Close all back onto the site. How exactly are they not affected? (also I refer to my earlier comments about the effect on the house that is a foot away from the house to be demolished in Elm Road!). Still no convincing argument or constructive alternative in my opinion. Oh! and by the way...in my book NIMBY is a word invented and used by bullies who prefer you not to disagree with them! David Reynolds 01367 243663

Make Poverty History parade photos- 4/7/05 Congratulations to all those hundreds of people who made it to Faringdon's Make Poverty History Campaign event on Friday 1 July. It was an uplifting couple of hours walking up the hill and wrapping the tower with the banner and a great community event. It was also the first event of the current Faringdon Arts Festival. For those who couldn't make it I'd like to share some of my photographs of the event. Please go to www.photobox.co.uk/album/1554263 and there you will find a public gallery of 50 photos from the day through a public folder in Photobox. You may need to register with Photobox (it's free) to view them. Al Cane More photos at http://www.faringdonfairtrade.org.uk/Events/MPH_PHOTOS/mph_photos.html Sjoerd Vogt

18 Coxwell Road - 4/7/05 For what its worth, this response will probably be too late to make any difference to anyone, but I feel it needs to be said. HGM, thanks for the positive comments about the role for anonymity, and for the right to debate. I simply do not wish to put my head above the parapet, however if anyone wishes to make comments about what I have to say either now or in the future, you can address me as Mr Devil's Advocate. My purpose is to create debate particularly about planning matters. My response to Mr Reynolds. The comments I make are my own, they are entirely independent, I have no connection with the owners of the site, the adjoining residents or indeed with any of the prospective developers. The development, in either form is unlikely to affect me in any material way. I therefore suggest that I can probably be considered as pragmatic, if indeed more so as I can deal with facts as they are in an entirely unemotionally way, and cannot be accused of being a NIMBY, nor will I profit or lose out. The purpose of my piece was to provoke a reaction. It has surprised me that it has provoked so little. The problem with the planning system as it stands is that the great majority of the public do not give a fig unless something affects them directly. Again, I ask the question, how many people actually objected (apart from those immediately surrounding the site) to the proposal to build 400 dwellings on the cricket/ground nursery site, but are of the view that no more houses should be built in Faringdon. As a community, we should be planning for ourselves, but we let others do it for us, in fact that's because we are actually incapable of doing it for ourselves. In this case the rational for decision seems to be that those that shout the loudest and who are in the majority should prevail, that simply cannot and should not be right. 300 against 2 is irrelevant, it is the planning merits which are important. For the record, I personally feel that 400 dwellings for Faringdon is right, but that the amount of social housing (probably 50%) will do little to balance the social structure of the Town, which has already had more than its fair share. Perhaps I should give my impartial views on the development proposals for 18 Coxwell Road more fully. Because I'm impartial, I can stand back and put any emotional attachments aside. It is irrelevant whether I live on the estate, or even adjacent to the site, the planning facts and merits remain the same. Compare the number of houses on the Orchard Hill Estate with those on the Canada Lane Estate. Notwithstanding, the nursing/old peoples home/hospital, the allotments and bustle at the entrance (Orchard Hill is obviously not affected by a school), there are approximately 20% more dwellings on the Canada Lane Estate. The roads are of a similar standard to Orchard Hill and the Estate was built as a cul-de-sac, in fact the parking requirements on the Canada lane estate are lower than for Orchard hill, so it was built for less cars. What does this tell you? Walk from one end or Orchard Hill to the other end of Canada Lane, there is no perceptive difference, either in terms of noise, traffic, distruption or most importantly safety. In my view, following the obvious temporary disruption during construction, the site will be integrated into Orchard Hill and everyone will be wondering why they made such a fuss. The site will be served by roads capable of additional traffic (they are the same standard as Canada Lane) and the immediate access into the site is two way and safe. By comparison, the access onto Coxwell road is far from perfect and will at some stage cause a fatality. The access from Coxwell road is simply not wide enough to enable a free flow of traffic in an out of the site. The disruption this will cause to adjoining residents with cars in laybys potential reverseing and reving of engines is much greater than in the Orchard Hill estate. Most important however is that the egress onto Coxwell Road is dangerous and will at some time cause a fatality. Because the access is too narrow into the site any vehicle coming down Coxwell Road, from the Highworth Road direction will indicate left, if there is a vehicle wishing to exit, then the vehicle wishing to enter will have to remain on the highway until the access is clear. Traffic behind the vehicle also coming down the hill will see the car in front indicating left, they will not be able to see why. Many will attempt to overtake, and one at some time will do so hitting the egresing car. No w, how well do residents of the Orchard Estate know the idiots who drive down Coxwell Road, the speed at which they do so, and their disregard for speed restrictions. Yes I know they are breaking the law, but the situation is real. Perhaps if you bothered to analyse the way traffic moves along Coxwell Road, particularly in the context of my scenario above you will also see that the Estate Road option is much safer. These are not emotional comments, but interpretation of fact. I would estimate that one out of three cars on Coxwell Road Break the speed limit. One out of 30 by ten MPH, one idiot out of a hundred does close to 60 MPH. Stand on the pavement in Coxwell Road for a whole day, make that judgement yourself. You cannot make judgements about safety unless you have bothered to experience the situation in reality. So you see, simply supporting an alternative scheme, without knowing the facts yourself is Nimby'ism in the extreme. In terms of providing an alternative solution I would be more than happy to do so. In fact there is an ideal solution which would suit everybody, however, it costs, and to be honest, it probably is no longer economically viable. If there is anyone out there who will buy 18 Coxwell Road, and stump up an extra £750,000-£1,000,000, I will have a good go at finding a solution to suit everyone. The trouble is however that the land value has now been realised and the alternatives much more difficult (an probably impossibly) to implement. Everyone now knows that there is a pot of gold to be had and everyone potentially will want their share. I'm afraid we now have to live in the real world, there are two potential alternatives, and in my view, there is only one safe alternative, and one which will have less significant and material effect on adjoining properties. That is the scheme served Via the Orchard Estate. Residents of the Estate will not like this analysis I'm sure, however, it comprises the view of an independent, unaffected, busy body who felt it was time to give an unbiased view. Devil's Advocate

Welcome to the Folly Cat - we can use a bit of humour - 2/7/05 I liked the poem from Folly Cat, despite its dig at me, I hide my name because I feel that an-on-im-ity Ensures I don't get targeted - for it's an even bet That some of those I mention might sometimes get upset. I use the local website to air my point of view I find it therapeutic and it's something I can do To highlight local issues that others seek to hide Some folks might not like it but most are on my side. So Folly Cat, let's hear your views, I'm sure we'd get along I don't claim that I'm always right.. But I'm hardly ever wrong. HGM

Lands End to John O'Groats for Cycling Safety - 2/7/05 The health and environmental benefits of cycling are undeniable. Cycling to work is an efficient way of keeping fit and reducing road traffic pollution. However we cannot expect people to consider cycling to work without a network of safe cycle routes. We are celebrating our silver wedding anniversary by cycling on a tandem from Lands End to John O'Groats to raise money for the cycling charity Sustrans, and to highlight the importance of safe cycle routes to work. We are starting from Lands End on Friday 1st July and if all goes to plan, we will reach John O'Groats on Friday 22nd July. We are hoping to start a campaign for a dedicated cycle route from Faringdon to Swindon. One proposal is to use the path of the old railway line from Faringdon to Uffington and then along the line of the old Wiltshire-Berkshire canal through Shrivenham and into Swindon. We are very happy to accept sponsorship for Sustrans. The easiest way is via our website www.justgiving.com/lejogwilliamson. As the local transport plans are being formulated in both Swindon and Oxford, we are hoping that others will take the opportunity to write in both councils in support of safe cycling. The contact in Swindon is the cycling officer Mr Philip Martlew (01793 466369) and in Oxford is Mr Craig Rossington (01865 815575) . The issues they have to consider are traffic congestion, road safety, air quality and accessibility to services. If anyone is interested in taking this project forward and has time, energy and experience to lead to this project, please contact us. If you share our views, now is a very good time to write or phone the cycling officers. David and Lyn Williamson

Paws for thought: "In Defence of Anonymity" -2/7/05 Miaou! - I am the Folly Cat, and appositely named at that , by HGM (or AKA); anonymous, I slip away. 'Name supplied' but not revealed I wear my false face like a shield, fending off the angry slights that anonymity ignites. For in this town, I've varied roles in furtherance of many goals. I might be neighbour, child or spouse in bungalow, or flat, or house. Professional, or artisan; hermaphrodite, or woman, man. But, truth to tell, tho' rage be vent I merely relish argument. No disguised agenda, me who pens my case in secrecy. So, just recall when next you write with scorn, and irony and spite - 'He who writes and runs away may live to write another day' NS27. AKA The Folly Cat n.b. I am not 'Devils Advocate', by the way; just a former 'Name Supplied' mentioned in dispatches.

Exercise Class for Mums and toddlers - 1/7/05 DO YOU WANT THE CHANCE TO KEEP FIT & TONED BUT DON'T HAVE THE TIME FOR EXERCISE CLASSES? Why not join a new fitness group with mums of toddlers & pregnant women in mind? Easy-to-do exercises with qualified (& pregnant!) instructor Meet 10.00am Tuesdays at the play park on Volunteer Way throughout the summer holidays. Babies & toddlers in pushchairs more than welcome. Please call 07843 761 286 to confirm your place (£2 per session) and if weather is uncertain- free drink & snack for toddlers Mairi Clare Dunlin

18 Coxwell Road - 1/7/05 My response to "Devil's Advocate" (no name again I notice!). Firstly, I must point out that the comments below are mine, David Reynolds (I do put my name up there!) I am not arrogant enough to suggest I speak on behalf of every resident on the Orchard Hill Estate. However, being a very pragmatic sort of chap I tend to deal in facts rather than emotions and these seem to be blatantly obvious to me. I reiterate: "That this land will be developed is now beyond debate". It's been Approved! Passed! Accepted! How many other ways can I say it? I don't like it any more than Mr/Mrs Advocate and likewise feel for the occupants of the immediately adjacent houses in Coxwell Road. However, if it must proceed does it not make sense to support an option that has the least adverse impact on the community as a whole? I'm not convinced that Mr/Ms Advocate knows the area that well as he/she would know full well that for some residents of the Orchard Hill Estate it is "very much in their back yard". Furthermore for the residents of the house in Elm Road whose property is less than one foot away from the house to be demolished, who is going to tell them that they will be only "marginally affected"? With reference to "protection of investment", in my conversations with residents on the Estate I have NEVER had a single comment about the affect on the value of properties. This is about quality of life, safety and comfort. No one is "selling out". Mr/Ms Advocate I half expected someone would make this response. No doubt you have our own reasons for taking your stand. However I notice also that you present no viable alternative. Now, wouldn't that be constructive? David Reynolds 01367 243663

top