More housing development

Sun 14 Jun, 12:21

This thread was locked by Richard Fairhurst.

Sun 14 Jun, 12:20

Sorry, no Rushy Bank on this forum. Whenever it raises its ugly head then people start threatening lawyers and my inbox fills up with complaints. I recommend the bar of the Rose & Crown as a venue for further discussion.

Sun 14 Jun, 10:30

Romaine, there is a formal definition of 'affordable housing' for planning purposes in the National Planning Policy Framework (google NPPF).  You'll also find a lot about it in the West Oxfordshire Local Plan and our own Neighbourhood Plan.  

How it is dealt with in any particular case depends on the circumstances - and developers have a nasty habit of coming back after permission has been granted to say that this or that scheme is no longer viable unless the amount of affordable housing is reduced or even abandoned altogether. Sorry but I couldn't begin to answer your questions here on the forum!

And of course whether something is 'affordable' in the general sense depends on your resources...

Sun 14 Jun, 09:38 (last edited on Sun 14 Jun, 09:53)

Does anyone know about the specifics when a housing developer states “affordable” in a planning proposal, it seems a very woolly term and i would like to know more about it. 

• Are there caps/ stipulations on the developers selling price? If so, who ensures these rules are maintained?

• How is the affordable price determined? What is affordable for one person, isn’t affordable for another

• Can the buyers of an “affordable home” then sell it years later for a profit?

• How is the“affordable homes” scheme regulated? Does the local planning team /council do this, or the developers? 

• Can the council /planning teams trust the developers & their promise of supplying affordable homes & how do they keep them accountable?

Wed 10 Jun, 18:42

I see no evidence that GWR has withdrawn their objection - it is there on the planning site. 

Wed 10 Jun, 15:07

GWR have withdrawn their objection.

I’d much rather have affordable homes in Charlbury than a car park. Affordable homes bring children to a very underpopulated school, diversity, business to the shops, as well as providing affordable homes to those people who have family in Charlbury or want to move here. 

Good luck to the developer! 

Wed 10 Jun, 11:24

GWR make the very same point about car parking at the station in the version of 23/03071/FUL going to WODC Sub-Committee next Monday (15th June). 

The objection doesn't seem to have had much impact judging by the recommendations of the Head of Planning. See here for the agenda and the report. 

Wed 10 Jun, 10:12

GWR has stated that the only place the train station car park can be extended to is the site proposed for 23/03071/FUL. As a second floor on the existing site would not add much capacity (because of access requirements) and all other surrounding areas are flood plain areas and cannot therefore be used for car parking. There appears to be very much growing demand for car parking at the station and the car parking looks full most days Monday through Thursday. It is probable some train users still park in Charlbury town as they have no choice.

Tue 9 Jun, 07:54 (last edited on Tue 9 Jun, 07:58)

A significant percentage of the S106 that the council has been "hoarding" can't be spent until a certain number of homes in a development have been completed - for example when that funding is for a road, or for a school. The reason OCC has a lot of S106 on its books is because we have given planning permission for a lot of new homes in Oxfordshire compared with other counties so there is a lot of money waiting to be spent. And you are right, Alice.  WODC has imposed what are called Grampian conditions which means that the water company has to be able to demonstrate that there is the capacity in the sewage system for new homes before they are built but that is not covered by S106. 

Mon 8 Jun, 22:50

Interesting Emily but none of it goes to fund increasing sewage capacity.  Presumably since privatisation.  Some of it offsets “affordable” housing.  Small developments don’t pay any S106 at all. Some big new estates are made to build attenuation tanks but when it rains every day for the winter months they are useless.  The cost of every new house needs a levy to the water company to expand the capacity.  Happy for all the developers out there to correct me if I’m wrong. 

Mon 8 Jun, 10:05

It does Alice. Section 106.

Unfortuntaely, OCC has been hoarding all the Section 106 money it's been given by developers, which is why communities aren't seeing any tangible benefits.

https://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1893141/20-authorities-accumulated-unspent-section-106-money

https://www.hbf.co.uk/research-insight/unspent-developer-contributions/unspent-developer-contributions-2026/

Mon 8 Jun, 09:51

Wherever the development and however big or small, each new house needs to make a realistic financial contribution to the expansion of the local sewage works.  Let's start charging development with its cost.

Sun 7 Jun, 21:45

Thank you Christine.

Sun 7 Jun, 21:19 (last edited on Sun 7 Jun, 21:23)

The same chap also called on me on Friday, and has been calling on other households over the last few weeks. I couldn't quite work out what he wanted. He claimed not to know the name of the development company, but wanted to raise awareness of their plans. 

The proposal is WODC plan no 23/03071/FUL and is called Land South of Forest Road and is about to go to Committee again. I think it's pretty much the same plan as last time but the claim is that past legal objections have been overcome. It's a mix of self-build, social, and market housing, including some housing for the elderly. 

. 

Sun 7 Jun, 17:22

Concerning a different development, someone called at my house on Friday afternoon to show me the plans for Rushy Bank and ask for my comments. It wasn’t a good time so I gave it scant attention but I wasn’t aware that there was a new plan for that area? I don’t know if he was going door to door or just selecting random properties? 

Sun 7 Jun, 10:40

Thank you Janet. 
That's really good to know. The location I gave was directly from the Deanfield Homes website 

Sun 7 Jun, 10:17

Oh the joys of technology. I've just had a look and I think the what3words selected is misleading. For a development site not sure it works - which square should they choose out of several hundreds? 

Deanfield development is definitely on the left hand side going up Woodstock Road. There is actually a sign a bit above the entrance to direct contractors approaching from Woodstock direction, and that is where the activity has started. 

And the marketing by Deanfield will focus on the market price properties for sale with the affordable homes dealt with by Cottsway. 

The planning application started when I was on the Council. The successful application was 24/02171/FUL for a mix of market price housing and affordable. 

Sat 6 Jun, 22:32

Hi Janet, that is the development that Cottsway is involved in with pedestrian access via Hughes Close. It is on the left hand side of Woodstock Road heading towards Woodstock.  The Deanfield Homes, Clementine Gardens "Forthcoming Development', is located on the righthand side of the road. Their website states, Clemetine Gardens will comprise of 3 and 4 bedroom semi-detached and detached homes.  

Sat 6 Jun, 20:01

46% is a remarkable figure and the seller of this land must be a very community- orientaed person. 

Sat 6 Jun, 19:14

For information, the site is a paddock set off Woodstock Road between Four Winds and Kantara. 

Planning permission was applied for and it was eventually granted. From memory it took about 3 years to obtain approval. 

The application was made and obtained by another developer, not by Deanfield Homes. The development is for 26 dwellings with 46% being affordable. 

Sat 6 Jun, 14:26

Thanks for this, Christine.  The site they refer to as Clementine Gardens is on the opposite side of Woodstock Road. 

Sat 6 Jun, 13:53

Couldn't find it on the website, Jackie. But did find it here

Also, more significantly, see the Deansway mention here which links it to Cottsway social and affordable housing. 

Sat 6 Jun, 12:32

On the verge on Woodstock Road by Hydac is a sign saying no access for Deanfield Homes traffic. The Deanfield Homes website, deanfieldhomes.co.uk , states there is a forthcoming development on Woodstock Road in Charlbury called Clementine Gardens. I am not aware of any planning applications or notifications about this. Anyone on the council know anything?