Neighbourhood Plan policy NE5 (Debate)

Tue 12 Mar, 17:08 (last edited on Tue 12 Mar, 17:31)

I know you did Gareth - well done. No issue with that. My point is well put there by you. If I may quote "Neighbourhood Plans take a huge effort to bring into being, and it would be odd if all that work was then ignored."

There is also the matter of the neighbourhood plan being voted on with 97% of charlburians voting in favour.

Tue 12 Mar, 15:40

Hans, I think you need to be a bit clearer here.  There’s a difference between “a minority of town councillors” and “the town council”.

I voted with the majority who objected to the application specifically because of policy NE5, and again voted in favour of recommending WODC imposes an Article 4 Direction.  Neighbourhood Plans take a huge effort to bring into being, and it would be odd if all that work was then ignored.

Tue 12 Mar, 14:00

The point Philip and I are making Emily is clearly described in our posts, but again for the avoidance of doubt - three towncouncillors voted to support an application that would be in breach of stated policy. 

Equally baffling to my mind is what happened at the planning meeting 26/2/24, where the head of planning sought to put back the enhanced protection in conservation target areas by asking for an Article 4 direction in light of new permitted development rights that were not in place when the neighbourhood plan was approved. This time 4 councillors voted to object to the Article 4 - thus to my mind again undermining the stated aim of the neighbourhood plan.

Tue 12 Mar, 13:40

Philip, I assumed (wrongly) because you suggested that the council had voted against NE5 when it hadn't. Some councillors had but the majority hadn't, hence the application not being voted through.

Hans, I guess I'm just wondering why this is still up for discussion when the planning application you refer to was voted down by the TC?

Tue 12 Mar, 13:36 (last edited on Tue 12 Mar, 13:40)

Philip is correct in his observation Emily. He does not refer to Rushy Bank in this instance. I and many others came away from the CTC planning meeting 22/1/24 baffled that three councillors ignored policy NE5 by voting to support the application discussed which is for a proposed development in a conservation target area, where no development is supported as proscribed in the Charlbury Neighbourhood plan. I don't know how these things work but I have been told by the town clerk that councillors have the right to have their own opinion. Fine, but voting against clearly stated policy does not sound right to me. There is also the matter of the Nolan principle, which towncouncillors are bound by. 

Tue 12 Mar, 13:36 (last edited on Tue 12 Mar, 13:37)

Hi Emily, 

Where in my post is there any reference to Rushy Bank? I too was referring to the Spelsbury Road application.

Tue 12 Mar, 10:14

Hans isn't referring to Rushy Bank, Philip. He's referring to planning application on the Spelsbury Road, which was rejected by the TC.

The Council discussed at length the Rushy Bank development and the reason why the Council voted for it with regard to the Neighbourhood Plan and section NE5. 

Tue 12 Mar, 07:14

Gareth,

I think that the point Hans is making is that Charlbury has its Neighbourhood Plan. That plan, of which NE5 is an integral part, was created and promoted by the Council, yet certain councillors saw fit to support a planning application that clearly conflicts with NE5. Is there not a collective Council responsibility to support the plan or at least not undermine it?

Sun 28 Jan, 19:16

Bit confused Hans - the minutes of the meeting record that policy NE5 was the principal reason for objecting to the planning application you refer to.

Sun 28 Jan, 16:56

[Moved from the Quarry Lane thread. –Richard]

Sun 28 Jan, 16:47

Hans, om du vill prata om planering, skapa en ny tråd för det.

Sun 28 Jan, 16:42 (last edited on Sun 28 Jan, 16:45)

I did attend the Charlbury Town council planning meeting on 22/01/24. Biodiverstity and Charlbury Neighbourhood plan policy NE5 was debated at length. I noted that a councillor by the name David Green made a statement that did not seem to be compliant with policy NE5. I apologise if that is not you, however it would be strange if there are more than one David Green on the town council. The minutes of meeting also states that a councillor by the name David Green was present. I am concerned that it appears that towncouncillors do not pay sufficient regard to the Charlbury Neighboorhood plan, which was after all voted by 94% of us in Charlbury.

Sun 28 Jan, 16:32 (last edited on Sun 28 Jan, 16:37)

Hans, I am a councillor, but was unable to attend the meeting I believe you are referring to. I am a new councillor, not new to Charlbury though and trust in the councillors I stand with. This post is related to protecting biodiversity but not at all related to planning. Rather than a back and forth on a forum, please do attend one of the councillor surgeries or any of the council meetings where there is public time. In the meantime, I shall continue to collect litter.

Sun 28 Jan, 16:14 (last edited on Sun 28 Jan, 16:15)

Apologies if you are not the David Green of the Charlbury Town council.

Sun 28 Jan, 16:12

Thanks Hans, but I don’t see why your comment is relevant to this post or indeed me. 

Sun 28 Jan, 16:01

Hans, what has that to do with people picking up dog poo and chucking it in the hedge?

Sun 28 Jan, 15:25

It's baffling how some town councillors appear to be unaware of the Charlbury Neighbourhood plan and especially policy NE5 in relation to developments in Conservation Target Areas.