Grammar School Hill development

Mon 21 Aug 2017, 19:51

Amazing news - lets hope that's the end of it.

Thu 17 Aug 2017, 16:31 (last edited on Thu 17 Aug 2017, 16:31)

That's great news Richard.

Thu 17 Aug 2017, 14:52

The appeal has been withdrawn.

Wed 12 Apr 2017, 13:52

The email I received about the Grammar School Hill Appeal stated that WODC has forwarded all the representations already made to the original planning application to the Planning Inspectorate & also to Vanderbilt. They said that these will be considered by the Inspector when determining the appeal, unless they are subsequently withdrawn.

So you only need to submit a representation if there is new material that you want to add, or something that you want to revise. If so, you can do so online at: acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk.

You can also contact the Planning Inspectorate quoting reference number APP/D3125/W/17/3170557: Via email : kerr.brown@pins.gsi.gov.uk
In writing (please send 5 copies): to Room 3/o Kite Wing at the Planning Inspectorate.

Wed 12 Apr 2017, 12:57

Thank you for the link Philippa.

Wed 12 Apr 2017, 01:24

Paragraph 5 (5.3-5.9) of https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/514295/taking-part_planning-written_April_2016.pdf explains the basics of a written representation. I intend to do mine this week.

Tue 11 Apr 2017, 16:11

The Beechcroft company rode roughshod over the local community, and it could never have been recognised that it was just a dress rehearsal for future decades of 'invasion' by unsympathetic builders and planners. Oh dear, leave me out this time. We are still reeling from the ongoing Elmstead devastation.

Tue 11 Apr 2017, 15:40

I also noticed in News section they are hoping to build 10 New Houses on and behind the Police Houses at bottom of Hixet Wood almost opposite the turn to Fisher's Lane.

Tue 11 Apr 2017, 15:17

Vanderbilt is appealing (there's a phrase with another meaning I didn't intend): reference is APP/D3125/W/17/3170557. "An appeal has been made to the Secretary of State against the decision of West Oxfordshire District Council to refuse planning permission for the development described. The appeal will be determined on the basis of an inquiry..."

Sat 21 Jan 2017, 12:51 (last edited on Sat 21 Jan 2017, 15:47)

This may surprise Liz but I expect we'd be on the same side in most cases, including this one. But agree with it or not, government policy is what it is and there is no doubt we have a severe national housing shortage that needs to be tackled somehow.

The 'arbitrary target' I was referring to was WODC's for the B/C sub-area, NOT the district wide figure. That is far from arbitrary, being calculated via an evidence based methodology. Blaming the Local Plan Inspector for the fact that WODC failed to convince last time round however is a bit like blaming the examiner if you fail a driving test.

The fact remains that work started on the new Local Plan as far back as 2007 (or even earlier) yet it only got to the Inspector in July 2015. I don't know why it took so long but again, hardly his fault. Enough said on that perhaps - except that the continuing delay with the Local Plan surely demonstrates the need for Charlbury to have its own Neighbourhood Plan. There's a lot of work still to do so any more volunteers are more than welcome to join us!

Fri 20 Jan 2017, 18:02

Liz, is your position then that the plan which went to the inspector in 2015 was OK, a plan which included no allocated sites for Charlbury, an assessment that significant development on the fringes of the town was unlikely to be acceptable and which omitted Charlbury from the settlements in the sub-area identified as having scope for additional development?

Fri 20 Jan 2017, 15:56 (last edited on Fri 20 Jan 2017, 16:06)

Well, actually, Rod, the reason we have no local plan is because the inspector turned it down as there weren't enough houses in it! Which is why Jefferson's Piece plus other less than totally desirable sites are in the plan now in attempt to get the numbers up so the inspector won't throw it out again and we won't continue to be plagued by the Vanderbilts and the Gladmans of this world. It is the inspector who is forcing these arbitrary targets, admittedly in the context of highly flawed government policy.

Fri 20 Jan 2017, 12:34 (last edited on Fri 20 Jan 2017, 12:37)

On the 'precedent' issue - the basic legal principle is that applications should be decided in accordance with the development plan 'unless material considerations indicate otherwise'. It's also a basic rule that every application has to be considered on its own merits. So in other words, in any given case…

Long post - click to read full text

Thu 19 Jan 2017, 13:09 (last edited on Thu 19 Jan 2017, 13:11)

Twenty years after being shafted by Beechcroft over the Old Primary School, is Charlbury once again going to be shafted by this Vanderbilt lot? I wonder how many of you remember that for the first few years afterwards, Beechcroft used to provide the prizes for the childrens' fancy dress competition at Street Fair. Call me cynical by all means, but I always have this image of the Beechcroft board at one of their meetings ... "OK, we've sweetened Charlbury enough now - we provided the Street Fair prizes for 3-4 years ... we can stop that now". I wonder what Vanderbilt will provide by way of bribery? Maybe some nice ivy to grow up the side of the new Community Centre?!
Let's tell Vanderbilt that they and their profiteering plans are NOT WELCOME IN CHARLBURY!!!!

Thu 19 Jan 2017, 09:41

I don't think it is just Rushy Bank that provides a precedent for granting planning permission despite contravening lots of local planning policies, Tony. I read the rejection notice for the current scheme that Richard helpfully reported and thought that every single word could have been written with equal justification about the Southill Solar scheme. So if there are other reasons to support a planning application we can't rely on agreed planning policies being followed in practice.

Thu 19 Jan 2017, 00:17

Liz, I have not said, ever, that there should be no development in AONBs and I am sorry that you think my post should be represented in that way. Please read again what i have said on this, which is just reporting national policy, not an opinion. To summarise in a sentence, in an AONB there is a strong presumption against development which harms the landscape regardless of the status of the local plan, but that does not mean that development can never be justified in the most suitable locations.

Wed 18 Jan 2017, 23:09 (last edited on Wed 18 Jan 2017, 23:37)

Wed 18 Jan 2017, 20:54

But as Tony highlights, your suggestion Liz that WODC would never recommend and grant a consent for a development that breaches policy doesn't stand up to too much scrutiny round here. The local plan status certainly won't help if Vanderbilt appeals but it will have far less impact if WODC acknowledges that the presumption in favour of development which normally applies when housing policies are out of date doesn't apply where there's harm to an AONB (or heritage). Even the Grammar School Hill assessment argued that this presumption applied but that the harms were too great. WODC can't blame planning inspectors if it has not properly framed its arguments to them.

Wed 18 Jan 2017, 09:37

That really doesn't follow in planning terms

Tue 17 Jan 2017, 22:03

Rusty bank provides a precedent for planning being granted against all normal 'rules' so an appeal could win

Tue 17 Jan 2017, 18:24

There is no doubt in my mind that they will appeal. Vanderbilt has a lot of financial backing and in fact there have been a number of similar cases in Oxfordshire where the decision was reversed on appeal by Vanderbilt.
However the rejection was on a number of well argued points. Nevertheless we should all be prepared to continue the fight especially as there is a lot more land adjacent which is also owned by Vanderbilt and success here would be followed by further applications.

Tue 17 Jan 2017, 18:04

There was never any question of this development getting approval as it contravenes so many planning policies. The planners knew this from the start but had to go through the correct consultation process. However it is still possible that the developers will appeal, thanks to the fact that we still have no local plan in place. I am not sure how long we will have to wait, but let's hope that if they do try this, the planning inspector makes the right decision for once

Tue 17 Jan 2017, 13:54

Hooray for some good news! It sounds like the ruling was very firm from WODC, but who knows if that will be enough to discourage an appeal.

Tue 17 Jan 2017, 12:38

That is very good news.

Mon 16 Jan 2017, 22:55

This application has been refused by WODC in particular on landscape and heritage impact grounds. The planning officers' report is on the WODC website. Thank you again to all those who helped fund the landscape and heritage reports. We will wait and see if the developer appeals.

Thu 24 Nov 2016, 08:09

I'm not sure those precedents are particularly relevant, Tony: both are from different council areas, and in each case the developments are entirely unlike the proposed one in Charlbury! One is mostly flats in a town centre; the other a smaller development of only nine houses. Much as it's satisfying to see success in at least one case of The People vs Vanderbilt, all planning cases presumably have to be heard on their own merits anyway.

Wed 23 Nov 2016, 20:50

It's great that independent landscape and heritage assesments have gone ahead, however I still can't see them at the WODC site.

Wed 23 Nov 2016, 10:13

and another one here where the objections of the Town Council were overruled on appeal
democratic.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/documents/s25520/P14V2829FUL%20-%2023%20Wallingford%20Stree_1
Lets hope that WODC planners show more sense

Wed 23 Nov 2016, 10:02 (last edited on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 10:08)

I have found out that Vanderbilt homes made an application in Chinnor where there were similar objections and where their appeal was dismissed see
connect-southoxon.public-i.tv/document/Planning_140911_P11E0166_Wheatfield__64_Lower_Icknield_Way__Chinnor.pdf
So it seems that they are used to operate in this way

Wed 23 Nov 2016, 09:27

The Quarry is not a suitable site for any development. It is a nature reserve which is developing very nicely and should certainly not be opened up. We do not need more urban sprawl east of Charlbury.

Wed 23 Nov 2016, 08:42

Thank you to everyone who donated to help fund the Friends of Evenlode expert landscape and heritage reports on this proposal. As expected they have concluded that the developer's consultants significantly understate the harms, which would actually be significant. We have submitted the reports with an objection to WODC and they should soon be available to view on the planning website. We wait to see WODC's final response to the application before deciding if we need to present the legal position, and continue to fundraise both for that possibility, to be able to support any appeal defence and for the charity generally. Consultation deadline tomorrow - don't forget to comment if you wish to.

Tue 22 Nov 2016, 13:30

If there were any doubts, the new banner at Fiveways says it all. Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Congratulations and well done to whoever obtained and hung that for all to see.

Wed 9 Nov 2016, 19:05

See the leaflet being distributed by Friends of Evenlode Valley and directions to contribute to the fighting fund.

Tue 8 Nov 2016, 19:22

Another development proposed in an unsuitable location. That Quarry really needs opening up and building on !

Tue 8 Nov 2016, 16:39

Comments for Planning application at WODC/Planning 16/03494/OUT. Comments are published and available to view on this web page. Send your comment via this system, it is simple.

Fri 4 Nov 2016, 11:41 (last edited on Fri 4 Nov 2016, 11:42)

I would encourage anyone who opposes the development to get in touch with The Friends of the Evenlode to support their proposed action, as they have access to good advisors

Wed 2 Nov 2016, 12:29

On behalf of the Friends of Evenlode Valley and West Oxfordshire Cotswolds.

Here we go again. Just as before (a development I won't mention) this application, supported by the developer's retained advisers, understates the harm to the AONB, Charlbury's Conservation Area and other heritage and overstates the case in national…

Long post - click to read full text