Pooles Lane development

Sat 18 Jun 2016, 10:37

Jim. You are right to point out that the conservation question has been brushed under the carpet (my words, not yours). Why, I wonder, could it be that officials appear not to have dischargd their duties properly?

Fri 17 Jun 2016, 19:17

Sorry they weren't there when I last looked. There was no committee discussion about what weight should be given to the Conservation Area impact, in fact the minute is very brief. No change in my comment.

Fri 17 Jun 2016, 15:56

Actually the draft minutes went up yesterday: bit.ly/pooleslane The agent's arguments are in one of the appendices.

Fri 17 Jun 2016, 15:40

Loathe as I am to revive this thread, having just seen Dave's post on 6th if Dave or anyone else wants to start another thread and debate on the difference between NIMBYism and standing up for the conservation rights of protected towns and countryside, in the context of Rushy Bank or otherwise, I would be happy to contribute as I am sure would "a small handful" of others.

On the Pooles Lane development I can see that the process has been followed and the outcome may be the right one, but that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone has discharged their duties properly. The law requires that harm to a Conservation Area, regardless of whether substantial, is given 'considerable weight and importance', rather than just being balanced against the public benefit, because the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that "special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area". It is hard to see that the officer did this in reaching her conclusion. The committee's minutes aren't yet available.

Sun 12 Jun 2016, 04:40

Richard, if that's your opinion I respect your right to say so. Take my comment down if you want to, it matters not.

Sat 11 Jun 2016, 13:51

I think that's a little strong, Rosemary. We can disagree with people's opinions without caricaturing them as sycophantic or sterile.

Sat 11 Jun 2016, 13:24

Interestingly, all the lastest comments, bar Charlie's, are from people who made no representation to the planning department when they had the opportunity to be taken into account. This link now appears to be nothing more than a reprehensible exercise in futility, and reminds me of the spectre at the feast. I think that most of the comments are sterile and therefore meaningless, but if the sycophantic babble has to continue, please go ahead. Some of us who have been bothered to be involved in the debate care very deeply about the environment, the safety of young children and the elderly, and the future prospects for young Charlbury families.

Sat 11 Jun 2016, 12:25

Phil I too endorse your entry. Due process has been followed and the balance come out in favour of the applicant.

Sat 11 Jun 2016, 09:51

And another like button.

Fri 10 Jun 2016, 13:31

Like Button

Fri 10 Jun 2016, 12:48

Like Button

Fri 10 Jun 2016, 11:59

With respect to all previous posters on this topic, everybody just has to get over it.
A landowner has applied for development permission. Officers and Councillors have approved it. End of story. We pride ourselves in upholding the principles of democracy. We elect the Councillors to make decisions on our behalf. If we disagree, we can show that at the next ballot.
Every planning application inside or outside the 'town envelope' will attract protest - always has and always will - just look at any edition of The Oxford Times.
My point is this: democracy always comes at a price - we jump up and down when we "win" and we howl and scowl when we "lose". Just the way it is.

Thu 9 Jun 2016, 17:08

I wonder why these people did not submit their approval of this scheme?
The 24 letters of opposition and the comments of the Charlbury Conservation Committee were a genuine attempt to preserve a valuable asset that the town of Charlbury has, and, as mentioned in a previous posting, contained carefully considered opinions, collective knowledge and expertise, unlike the letter of support for the first application suggesting that the Planning Application should be approved because the Applicant had provided allotment facilities to some residents for many years without and cost.
Friendship, like love, is blind.
I fear the Grease Pit is approaching, so I will quit this posting now.

Thu 9 Jun 2016, 13:48

I would like to thank the numerous people who have come up to me and thanked me for my post, just sorry that no one else felt able to add a post expressing how pleased they are that this development has got the go ahead

Wed 8 Jun 2016, 16:16

It is clear that you did not read the 24 letters of objection and the reservations that the Charlbury Conservation Committee had!

Tue 7 Jun 2016, 15:37

Can someone explain why the building in Pooles Lane will be more disruptive than three houses in Market Street and three houses off Market Street and why more disruptive than the building of Hone Court and the buildings already opposite Hone Court?

Tue 7 Jun 2016, 12:39

I would just like to say I feel extremely sorry for the residents of Pooles Lane whose lives will become unbearable.

Mon 6 Jun 2016, 12:50

It amazes me how this can have gone through with some many objections ignored. This is a development that will have a massively detrimental effect on the people that live next to it and provides no affordable housing or benefit to the community. Interestingly, Rushey Bank, which will provide affordable housing (almost all of which is earmarked for local acquisition)and a valuable charitable resource in terms of the Young Dementia Centre is still under threat from a small handful of locals, none of which are DIRECTLY impacted by the development. Is this a perfect example of nimbyism??

Tue 31 May 2016, 17:48

So pleased Janet to see your planning application has been approved.

Sat 28 May 2016, 19:19 (last edited on Sat 28 May 2016, 19:24)

www.lawcom.gov.uk
A "right to light" is an easement that gives a landowner the right to receive light through defined apertures in buildings on his or her land. The owner of land that is burdened by the right cannot substantially interfere with it - for example by erecting a building in a way that blocks the light - without the consent of the benefiting owner.
Rights to light are valuable: they give landowners certainty that natural light will continue to be enjoyed by a property - increasing its utility, value and amenity. The right may enable landxowners to prevent construction that would interfere with their rights or, in some circumstances, to have a building demolished. Where a development has taken place, but a court does not order its demolition, the court may award substantial damages. It may not be clear which remedy the court will order and landowners may succeed in preventing development even if they raise the issue after building has commenced. Rights to light will usually (and much more commonly than most easements) arise by long use (prescription) rather than any express agreement between landowners, and in many cases those burdened by and benefiting from rights to light will be unaware of their existence. The planning system does not take account of private rights of this sort, and so rights to light can impact on development even where planning permission has been granted.

Fri 27 May 2016, 08:25 (last edited on Fri 27 May 2016, 08:40)

Thank you for clarifying the situation, Liz, and thank you for offering to go to the Committee meeting.
I was surprised that the listings in the papers that go to the committee were misleading in that the number of objections, set against the only one in favour, was evened out to indicate relatively equal weighting. That is not the case. If each of the objections had been given equal weighting the document would have been very much longer and more detailed.
The fact that the one letter in favour, from the people who are angling to buy one of the houses, contains untruths comes as no surprise. For example: 'Careful attention has been paid to the design and repositioning of the houses which are sympathetic to the Conservation Area...". I'm happy to be proved wrong here, but I think that this attitude goes against the grain of everything that the conservation area stands for, and I would hope that the committee would note that. In fact, CCA minutes include the word 'deplorable' when considering that there is no so-called affordable housing in the plan given that the location is so close to the medical centre and co-op.
I do understand what a summary is, but I can also see how the factual matter can be enhanced or diminished in one way or the other, which in essence is manipulation.

Thu 26 May 2016, 19:32

Hope your application is successfull on Tuesday Janet, good that the Planning Officer has reccommended approval.

Thu 26 May 2016, 17:10 (last edited on Thu 26 May 2016, 17:19)

The plan has not been approved yet. It has been recommended for approval by the planning officer. Final approval lies with the planning committee.

The objections have not been ignored, they are listed in the papers that have gone to the committee and will be taken into account by the committee. I will be making a couple of points that I consider to be important, but I will not be summarising the views of residents. Anyone who wants to speak at the meeting can do so, you have to register by midday tomorrow. To do that you need to call 01993 861523

Thu 26 May 2016, 15:26

The plan has been approved by the planning officer. The final decision will be made at the committee meeting on 31 May, I think. It is possible for us to have someone to represent the many various views of the objectors at this formal meeting, and Helen has asked Liz Leffman to go and speak for us, which she has agreed to do. I don't know how this all works, but Liz might be able to find out why every single objection has been ignored whilst the only one in favour (who seems to have lots of details about the plan, given that he doesn't live anywhere near Charlbury) was given every possible consideration, obviously.

Wed 25 May 2016, 16:43 (last edited on Thu 26 May 2016, 08:36)

So.....Why does it say the actual committee date is 31 May , sure what read on application 'Important dates'.

Wed 25 May 2016, 15:16 (last edited on Wed 25 May 2016, 15:31)

The decision to allow the proposed development has been approved, but who exactly is taking any notce of the arguments against it? There are a number of 'facts' on the detailed council paperwork that are not correct. For instance:
the applicant believes that the development will be an enhancement to the site, so just how does that work then, and the environment officer thinks that the site is of low ecological value, and the loss of trees is of no consequence. Right. So that's all ok then..... but I have to say that I am just wondering why the environment officer is being paid out of our taxes to make this kind of decision without even a nod towards the reality of the situation....
It will not be an enhancement, it's very far from that, and it is an ecological disaster already, before they even start digging.
And, the worst thing is, there is no possibility of any normal (i.e. not wealthy) local families being able to buy any of them. Well done.

Mon 23 May 2016, 19:07

Thanks for this information Andrew.
Having read some of the correspondence between "Dear Mike (WODC) and Dear Jayne (Edgars)" it is little surprise that approval has been recommended. Let's hope the 24/1 swings a decision the other way!
As for the Watlington support; the gentleman appears to have a remarkable knowledge of building and development for someone who works outside the construction industry. Clearly, he has connections with Edgars!

Mon 23 May 2016, 14:44

Those following this potential development might want to know that it will be discussed at the West Oxfordshire Planning Subcommittee on 31st May. The agenda is online via cmis.westoxon.gov.uk/cmis/Meetings.aspx and there is a detailed discussion of this development in the PDF at bit.ly/1TqGgUN - the planning office, Michael Kemp, has recommended that this application is approved. There have been 24 letters of objection, all from local residents, and one letter of support, from someone in Watlington...

Thu 19 May 2016, 16:13

Thanks, Helen, you've reminded me to lodge a comment before tonight's midnight deadline.

Sun 8 May 2016, 12:30

Once again I would personally like to thank members of the CCA for bringing all their collective knowledge, expertise and carefully considered opinions to this application.
Here are some comments from the Minutes of the last meeting of the Charlbury Conservation Area Advisory Committee.
With reference to: 16/01318/FUL Elmstead Crawborough…

Long post - click to read full text

Sun 8 May 2016, 12:04

Thanks Helen.

Sat 7 May 2016, 17:59 (last edited on Sat 7 May 2016, 18:00)

The Pooles Lane development is up for planning permission again. Comments have to be in by 19th May. publicaccess.westoxon.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=dates&keyVal=O5ZAXIRK01C00