Sturt Close Development Plan

Mon 8 Aug 2016, 21:19

If it's an exception site the local allocation applies though

Mon 8 Aug 2016, 19:24

S106 is part of the planning regime and requires developments over a certain size to make contributions to infrastructure development for the town such as the school, playgrounds and other facilities. The town council is aware that certain developers put their planning applications in in separate chunks to avoid making these payments out of what are very often large profits. We aim to ensure that all developers in Charlbury pay their fair share.

Mon 8 Aug 2016, 17:49

Unless these homes have a "local connection" requirement (Section 106 planning for sites that would otherwise not attract planning permission) then the Local Authority acting at the District level have the obligation to allocate according to overall priority for all applicants. Hopefully these much needed Social Housing homes will support local families with an option, as did those built by SOHA in Lees Heights to rent or buy as shared ownership. I hope the Town Council have made the case for the S106 so that at least a proportion of potential residents are from Charlbury. Please never argue to allocate all homes only to local people as that short sighted approach means that every town & village seeks to support only their own residents, reducing mobility for people wishing to move around the District for work & family needs. School places need addressing but the roads are not overcrowded.

Fri 5 Aug 2016, 19:36

I understand that this housing will be for anyone on West Oxon's list, with no preference for Charlbury residents. So although there could be some Charlbury families, the chances are they will at best be a minority. These are all two-bedroom houses, so may well be taken by young families, adding pressure onto school places, which by the sound of it are scarce enough, and other existing infrastructure. Building the homes on an existing play area, albeit one that is relatively unused, will deprive current Charlbury children of green space. And can Woodstock Road safely cope with a new access road to these houses joining it? Surely it's already busy enough.

Fri 5 Aug 2016, 15:22

Not every year in the school is full and those that are full are not necessarily full with children from within the catchment area. It has been oversubscribed for the last two years, but the levels of children needing places does vary over time.

Fri 5 Aug 2016, 14:00

Can someone explain how many people are in need of more housing as is often said about Charlbury. As the local school is full already has any thought been given to making the school larger otherwise it would appear that if the school is full then we have enough housing?

Fri 5 Aug 2016, 11:21

Hopefully they will be allocated initially to young families from Charlbury who are either having to rent privately or had to move away from their home town as they've not been able to find affordable housing.

Thu 4 Aug 2016, 21:24

If Charlbury is to receive further housing then it ought to reflect the facilities, demographics, employment provision and infrastructure offered within the town. The need for more social housing is clearly a national imperative, but there's little value in any particular town if there's very limited demand, employment provision, school places, nightlife or public transport (to Witney, where the jobs are) available.
It would be useful to understand the type of housing that people in Charlbury desire. One of the themes mentioned in the town survey was that Charlbury is a great community to live in - the people who have moved in to Charlbury are an important contributor to this inclusive community feel. If we want to continue to benefit from this feelgood factor then it's vital that others in future will also want to move here.
We may well find that new housing should be biased toward more 'aspirational' type properties that those already on the housing ladder wish to move up to. Maybe more bungalows should be built thus freeing up the family size houses.
A more holistic approach to what has long(very) term consequences needs to be taken here.

Thu 28 Jul 2016, 22:19

Thank you Liz, Christine, Richard, and Jackie. There seem to be so many issues here!
As my Wife and I only travel to London, Oxford, Chippy or Witney we gave up our cars a couple of years ago and relied solely on public transport. Local buses, and the trains. It's not hard to do.
However, when I got a job in Wallingford it really was necessary to get a car for the daily commute. Now, with the anticipated reduction of bus services, and the unreliability of the trains, we are thinking of getting a second car.
It's a sad indictment of some party's policies at whatever level - local or national.
I really don't know how people who can't use public transport, e.g. the elderly, or the young, are going to be able to get to shops or work.
I tried to set up a local car share scheme, but didn't get one taker.
Politics - possible? I'm not so sure, but I embrace the sentiment!

Wed 27 Jul 2016, 19:21

Yes, I was delighted!

Wed 27 Jul 2016, 17:54

Liz - pleased to see that WODC approved the grant!

Wed 27 Jul 2016, 09:21 (last edited on Fri 29 Jul 2016, 15:39)

Thank you Liz! Actually Liz it seems strange no.35 Sturt Close was singled out as when looking at Site Plan in Documents it shows be behind several of houses, as it would.

Wed 27 Jul 2016, 08:47

The way this has been managed has been very confusing with notices in all the wrong places - the officers admit this and they are changing the notices and putting them up in the right places now. The patch of land in question is behind 35 Sturt Close, and the proposed access to the site is off Woodstock Road, at nos 15/16, which they are proposing to demolish.

Tue 26 Jul 2016, 17:35 (last edited on Tue 26 Jul 2016, 18:33)

When I clicked on 35 Sturt Close in News section
it took me to the Planning Applications and it said in summary what I've put. That's all I can say, sorry. I then don't know what we are looking at can be different?
I usually read the Documents as matter of interest and somewhere I saw drawing of the site with access road being some distance along Woodstock Road which I assume is where no's 15/16 are.

Tue 26 Jul 2016, 17:24

Hi Pearl, the list of planning applications in the News Section of the Charlbury website gives the address as 35 Sturt Close as does the Application Form Personal Data included in the Planning Application Documents though the Application Summary does refer to Land to the rear of 15/16 Woodstock Road.

Tue 26 Jul 2016, 16:28 (last edited on Tue 26 Jul 2016, 17:16)

I see Barton villagers have set up their own community-led service called 'Bus Bartons' goes round all local villages even out to Chipping Norton Health Centre this way. Starts in August.
Returning to the previous subject on the actual application it says 'land to the rear of 15/16 Woodstock Road, Charlbury with no indication of Sturt close/road that I could see.

Tue 26 Jul 2016, 14:38

Regarding buses, following the County's short-sighted decision to cut subsidies, I am one of a small group of people who have taken matters into their own hands, and are setting up a co-op to commission bus services in the future. It's very early days, and I have asked WODC for a small grant to get us going. Cabinet will decide on Wednesday whether to support this or not. As Richard says, politics is the art of the possible!

Tue 26 Jul 2016, 00:10

It should absolutely go hand in hand with more buses and improved broadband. But politics is the art of the possible, and you have to ask where the funding for the buses would come from.

Oxfordshire County Council has decided to remove all its bus subsidies, never mind paying for improved services. West Oxfordshire District Council prefers to subsidise car parking in Witney and Chipping Norton, and is not interested in supporting Charlbury residents so we can get to the Witney shops without paying £5 for the bus. Charlbury Town Council is legally prohibited from subsidising bus services, even if we wanted to. All I can say is - remember this when you cast your vote at the next election!

Mon 25 Jul 2016, 23:08

Well, we do need more houses, but doesn't someone take into account the strain on the infrastructure? Shouldn't it go hand in hand with more roads and buses? And is the broadband capable of absorbing the inevitable increase in volume?

Mon 25 Jul 2016, 13:21

Yes, those are the ones. Brand new roofs under two years ago, but now planned for demolition. In the place of one there will be a new road discharging vehicles from 22 parking spaces onto Woodstock Road. Seems more of a Woodstock Road development than Sturt Close.

Mon 25 Jul 2016, 13:02

Would this mean the demolition of the 2 houses on Woodstock Road that have very recently had their roofs totally re-tiled?

Mon 25 Jul 2016, 12:21 (last edited on Mon 25 Jul 2016, 12:24)

I thought it seemed strange.

Mon 25 Jul 2016, 11:04 (last edited on Mon 25 Jul 2016, 12:17)

The developer is being disingenuous using Sturt Close as the address for the development. The proposed access to the land situated to the rear of houses on Woodstock Road, Sturt Road and Sturt Close, calls for the demolition of 2 houses on Woodstock Road not Sturt Close.

Mon 25 Jul 2016, 10:04

In News section it says they are to demolish 2 semi detached properties at 35 Sturt Close to allow for access, is that as well as 2 in Woodstock road?

Sat 23 Jul 2016, 16:52

There putting in a new play park for the kids as it's going to be behind my friends house. And yes there are knocking 2 houses down on Woodstock road as someone I know lives in one of them and has to be rehoused by the council.

Sat 23 Jul 2016, 16:51

It is for social housing, and it does involve loss of the children's play area as the plans stand but Andy Graham is in discussions with Cottsway to see if the play area can be retained.

Sat 23 Jul 2016, 15:34

It looks like the road will be coming off Woodstock Road - so 15 and 16 proposed to be demolished with new houses build where they currently stand ... Is that correct?

Sat 23 Jul 2016, 15:19 (last edited on Sat 23 Jul 2016, 15:22)

Hannen posted in the forum under the discussion of noisy traffic a query about a proposal to build 13 houses off 35 Sturt Close & behind nos 15 & 16 Woodstock Rd.

Here's the link again: publicaccess.westoxon.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=O9VYF2RKG2O00

I am signed up to to receive planning notifications for Charlbury, but have not received this. Nor did I spot it under news items. It's social housing which Charlbury badly needs, but the plans do need looking at carefully. It does, for example, seem to involve the permanent loss of the previous children's play area, and it is sited a long way from any alternatives. August 18th is given as the cut-off date for comments.

I find the map linked to the proposal very confusing, so thanks to Hannen for flagging this up.