Council approves Swindon Oasis rebuild but scraps plan for flats
It was apparent that most of the public attending were opposed to the plans submitted by the centre's de facto owner and leaseholder, Seven Capital, the Local Democracy Reporting Service said.The owner's proposals, which had been recommended by planning officers for approval, would see the listed dome and pool kept, the sports hall demolished and a new "dry side" built, including a café, a gym, an indoor crazy golf course and a ten-pin bowling alley.The loss of the sports hall, which had also been used as a concert venue, was the sticking point for the protesters and some councillors.
Councillor Sudha Sri Nukana drew loud applause when she spoke against the proposal."It's hard to see what we will have to celebrate on the 50th anniversary – that makes people sad and angry. Do the right thing and refuse this application," she said.Steve Handley from Seven Capital said they had amended their plans after an extensive public consultation. "We can bring back to life the Oasis to benefit the community and Swindon," he said.
Opposition also came from the Wilts & Berks Canal Trust, Swindon Pickleball Club, and the Save Oasis Swindon campaign.Councillors Kevin Small, Emma Bushell and Marina Strinkovsky spoke in favour of the proposals.The council's decision to approve the plans now offer the faintest hopes that the centre might be open at some point in 2026.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
19 minutes ago
- Telegraph
How much Labour's foot-dragging is costing your retirement
Labour promised a wide-reaching pensions overhaul in its election manifesto to improve the nation's financial security in retirement. True to its word, just a month after its landslide victory, a comprehensive two-part review was announced. Eyebrows were quickly raised, however, as phase one rolled out and it became clear the overhaul was more about generating economic growth for the Government than boosting savers' returns. Even when phase two was finally outlined earlier this month, the review shunned any immediate action and instead set up a Pensions Commission. It will take around 18 months to report back on how to tackle key issues like savings rates and auto-enrolment – the mechanism that signs workers up for a pension unless they opt out. In the meantime, ministers have confirmed that a major pillar of the reforms – the amount which savers and employers must contribute – will not increase this Parliament. It's a decision that could cost workers six figures by the time they stop working. With a fifth of Britain's 15 million pension savers on course to retire in poverty, and reliance on the state pension increasing, Telegraph Money teamed up with Hargreaves Lansdown to explain how much Labour's delays could cost you in retirement. Workers Cost to pension pot: £106,000 Under the current rules, workers must be automatically enrolled into a pension if they earn at least £10,000 and are aged between 22 and state pension age. In return for a 5pc minimum contribution from the employee, their employer must add at least 3pc. There are widespread calls from experts to increase both minimum saving rates to 6pc. With any changes ruled out for this Parliament, however, this now won't happen for at least four years, and any eventual progress is expected to be gradual. According to Hargreaves Lansdown, a 22-year-old earning £23,500 and putting 8pc into their pension until age 68 would have an eventual pot of £213,000. But if the rates were increased to 12pc overall, they would have £319,000 – meaning they would miss out on £106,000. Self-employed Cost to pension pot: £160,000 Self-employed people are not currently automatically enrolled into a pension, leaving many to fall through the cracks and at risk of struggling in retirement. In fact, researchers Nest Insight recently found that just 18pc of self-employed people pay into a pension, despite three quarters saying they want to. If they were automatically enrolled, a self-employed person earning £23,500 would contribute the minimum 5pc, since there is no employer to pay in. If they did this from age 22, they would have £133,000 in their pot by age 68. If the rate was increased to 6pc, their pot would hit £160,000. Young people Cost to pension pot: £39,000 If workers aged between 18 and 22 were automatically enrolled, it could put tens of thousands more into their pension pot. The legislation for this change has already passed but has yet to be enacted. A young worker on the minimum wage working 40 hours a week would currently be paid £20,800 a year. If the age of auto-enrolment was lowered to 18, they would have an extra four years of pension contributions, meaning their pot would hit £7,000 by age 22. Given the long period it would be able to grow for, that amount would be £26,000 by the time they retired. If the minimum contribution rates were also increased to 12pc, this would be £39,000. Low earners Cost to pension pot: £4,000 Anyone earning at least £6,240 is allowed to join a pension scheme. However, they are not automatically enrolled, nor does their employer have to pay in, until their salary passes £10,000. This also hits people with multiple low-paying jobs, as they still wouldn't be enrolled into a pension for any roles paying below £10,000 – even if their combined earnings were higher. If someone earned £9,000 at age 22 and increased their earnings by 3pc a year, they wouldn't cross the £10,000 threshold until age 26. Missing those four years of paying in would leave them with a pension pot of £77,000, rather than £81,000. There are calls to remove this lower earnings limit, which was also included in the legislation passed and is yet to be put into effect. Susan Hope, of Scottish Widows, said: 'Lowering the age to 18 and removing the lower earnings limit could be absolutely transformative for young people. 'It would move them from a retirement of having no car, takeaways and foreign holidays towards one with more financial freedom and choice – without having to rely on other people.' Helen Morrissey, of Hargreaves Lansdown, said: 'Changes to auto-enrolment contribution levels have the potential to transform people's retirement outcomes. However, there is nuance – if the contribution limits are raised across the board there is potential for lower earners to put themselves in financial difficulties today because they are contributing more into their pensions. 'More widely, what the Pensions Commission has shown is that there are a lot of people under-saving for retirement and not heading for the income they want or need. The commission has the potential to have an enormous impact on these people's retirement security.' The Department for Work & Pensions said Liz Kendall, the Work and Pensions Secretary, had addressed the rationale behind the timings in a speech. She said: 'Cost of living pressures mean many workers are more concerned about putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their heads than saving for a retirement that seems a long, long way away. And many businesses face huge challenges in keeping profitable and flexible in an increasingly uncertain world. 'That's why we have already said there will be no change to minimum auto-enrolment contribution rates during this Parliament.'
BBC News
19 minutes ago
- BBC News
MPs call for A34 safety improvements
A cross-party group of MPs are demanding urgent safety improvements to a major roadThe group represent constituencies along a stretch of the A34 in the south of England and have written to the government over concerns about dangerous slip roads, poor junction visibility and inadequate merge joint letter is signed by Newbury MP Lee Dillon, Reading West and Mid Berkshire MP Olivia Bailey, Didcot and Wantage MP Olly Glover and North West Hampshire MP Kit Department for Transport has been contacted for comment. Dillon said: "The A34 is a vital transport corridor, but too many of its junctions are outdated and dangerous." He said the slip roads on the junctions at Chieveley and Speen to access the A34 were "perilously short and offer little time or space for drivers to merge safely onto a fast-moving dual carriageway"."We are deeply concerned that without urgent intervention, these junctions will continue to be the site of serious, and preventable, collisions," he added. Glover said the road's condition was also a "growing issue" in Oxfordshire, while the "extremely short slip roads" at the Highclere and Wash Water junction were raised by said the situation was "even more alarming" at Bullington Cross and echoed Dillon's concerns over the Speen junction. However, MP Olivia Bailey said she was "delighted" National Highways had been commissioned to undertake an assessment after making a case for it in parliament. She said improvements on the slip roads at East Ilsley and Beedon were "an important next step towards making the slip roads safer".The MPs are calling for the A34 to be prioritised in the Department for Transport's upcoming Road Investment Strategy (RIS3), alongside a full safety review. "We need a strategic, well-funded plan," said Dillon. "People's lives should not be at risk every time they access the national road network." You can follow BBC Berkshire on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram.
Telegraph
19 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Pay doctors more – by slashing the salaries of useless bureaucrats
British state dysfunction is so all-encompassing that working out where one problem begins and another ends is a time-consuming activity all on its own. Take the threatened resident doctors' strikes. It's not an unreasonable stance to point out that salaries are below their 2008 peak, and ask for a pay rise to make up for this. It is difficult to hand these out, however, when NHS productivity is down somewhere between 5pc and 11pc on 2019/20 levels, making pay awards hard to justify. This is particularly so when the Government is spending £111bn on debt interest this year alone, local council budgets have already been shredded and social care is a mess. If you're confused about how these things tie together, bear with me. Let's start with the doctors. The British Medical Association (BMA) claims that below-inflation pay rises means that resident (junior) doctors are worse off in pay terms today than they were 17 years ago. This is hard to dispute: whether you prefer to measure inflation with the Consumer Price Index or the Retail Price Index (RPI), the broad thrust is that prices have risen faster than pay for residents. In a market system, this would simply be how supply is matched to demand. In the UK healthcare system, however, there is no real market. The NHS is by far the largest provider of medical services in the country, which gives it an enormous degree of power over the wages of trained doctors. For those starting out, the deal is even worse. In order to qualify to practice in Britain, med school graduates must complete two years of training. This, in turn, takes place with NHS employers. It's not particularly difficult to see how this might lead to unwelcome compression of the wage premium for people who've just slogged through years of strenuous education: foundation year one doctors earn above median but below mean UK wages, with foundation year two still falling below the 75th percentile for the economy as a whole. That there could be a relatively straightforward way to raise the pay of doctors: abolish the NHS, and let the market work. Unfortunately, given that Sir Keir Starmer has insisted that he would never, under any circumstances, pay for a loved one to be treated privately rather than wait their turn on an NHS list, this option is probably off the table. This same opposition to reform and private sector involvement makes it hard to see a clean route to restoring lost productivity in the health service in the near future. In other words, if we're going to give doctors a pay rise, the money will have to come from other budgets. Quite a lot of money, as it happens. The BMA wants 'pay restoration' to 2008 levels. So do many others: it is a testament to almost two decades of economic mismanagement that private sector wages earlier this year were also below their 2008 peak. With the BMA increasingly aggressive in its negotiating stance, its critics are entitled to note that countries like Australia and Canada are far more stringent in restricting the ability of doctors to strike. Carry on in this vein, and they may well lose the sympathies of the public altogether. Assume for a moment though that we choose to grant this rise. The increase the resident doctors are asking for is enough to make up for a 21pc fall in wages, so a raise in the region of 27pc. According to the Nuffield Trust, each 1pc uptick in resident doctors' pay costs around £51m. The total cost of a 27pc rise would be somewhere in the region of £1.4bn. This is excessive, but it's a fair point that doctors may well feel undervalued relative to other jobs. It can't feel particularly good for resident doctors on £46,000, for instance, to see the NHS hiring in diversity commissars on salaries of £122,000. And it doesn't seem quite right for highly skilled workers who work long hours in unpleasant conditions, risking exposure to dangerous infectious diseases, to be paid less than unemployable Whitehall apparatchiks dialling into Zoom calls in their dressing gowns. Here, then, is a modest proposal. The total public sector pay bill was £270bn in 2023/24. If we can cut it by 0.5pc, then the doctors can have their pay rise. Figures from the Taxpayers' Alliance suggest that local government spending on diversity roles cost roughly £23m in 2023, alongside £13 million in the NHS. Thirty-six million towards a £1.4bn black hole is not a promising start. In fact, even taking the maximal savings implied by one estimate of public sector spending on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) jobs – £557m a year – would still only get us a third of the way towards paying for it. And not all of these savings would be free to spend. Local government finances are in a shambolic state, with real budgets down 9pc on their 2010 levels. The slow squeeze of rising social care, school transport and housing costs, meanwhile, is eroding waste simply by erasing discretionary spending. Any savings made on woke waste might have to go towards social care, or if it does go to the NHS, it may actually risk making it worse. How, you ask? The single biggest productivity challenge facing NHS executives is discharging patients on time. Blocked beds stymie the flow of patients through hospitals, in turn slowing the flow of patients off waiting lists. These delays are most often caused by waiting for support for the patient at home – often adult social care arranged by local government bodies scrabbling for cash. Spending more on social care might be better for NHS productivity than actually spending on the NHS itself. At this point, however, I have some good news: we can do this, and still restore doctors' pay in real terms. The BMA's calculation of the fall in doctors' pay since 2010 is fundamentally flawed. It uses the now discredited RPI measure of inflation which is known to overestimate rises in the price level (among other problems, when prices rise and then fall back to their starting level, the RPI can still show prices as having risen). This is obviously absurd, and after years of dragging its heels, the Government conceded as much. As a result, from 2030 onwards the RPI is set to simply mirror an alternative, better-calculated measure of inflation, saving the Government a couple of billion each year in the process. In other words, the doctors' pay demands seemed excessive because they were excessive. If the BMA had used better measures of inflation, they would be looking for a 5pc pay rise, or £255m – less than half of the estimated DEI spend. And this, in turn, gives us our desired outcome: we can give the doctors actual pay restoration, pay for it by cutting public sector jobs that shouldn't exist in the first place, and have some money leftover to ease the strain on social care into the bargain, improving NHS productivity – an all-round win for taxpayers.
