Development of 40 houses on land north of Jefferson’s Piec

Wed 21 Dec 2016, 17:03

Thanks Rod for that clear statement
For anyone interested this will be an item on the Town Council's Agenda for tonight (7.30) and a member of the public will address us on this particular point on the Draft Local Plan.
Just a bit more background the Local Plan was originally submitted last year but the inspector turned it down (along with those of other districts) as he said it did not address the need for extra accommodation in Oxford and it has been ruler, whether we agree of not, that West Oxfordshire has to find more homes for this purpose.
A sting in the tail is that so long as the Local Plan has not been accepted then developers, as we have seen in several cases in Charlbury say 'as there is no adopted local plan or agreed housing target then all they are doing with speculative developments is to meet this need'
In my view their main motive is to make more profit by building the biggest possible houses which bring in the greatest profit for them which is not what we need in Charlbury
We will certainly take issue with this in our neighbourhood plan and it could in face theoretically be adopted without the Local plan however it would be best for the plans to agree and be both adopted .
Of course as Rod says it is up to anyone to make an objection which will be recorded and put to the inspector but you must do this before the 23rd December in order for it to be considered.
Finally a proposal for development would still have to go through the usual procedure as a planning application in due course so you would also be able to make representations then.

Wed 21 Dec 2016, 13:26 (last edited on Wed 21 Dec 2016, 13:32)

Re Christine's last post, it may help to clarify the roles of some of the bodies she mentions.

The Neighbourhood Forum was set up by the Town Council with a view to preparing Community and Neighbourhood Plans. The 2 types of plan serve different purposes, the Neighbourhood Plan being concerned predominantly with planning issues such as land use and built development. Hence the sub-division of the Forum, following the town questionnaire etc, into 2 working groups which are both now working on their draft plans.

Members of the Forum are volunteers, not elected representatives - so it would not be appropriate for the Forum or the NP Working Group to make any collective objections to the Local Plan Modifications (even if they could agree on them). That's especially so for the NP Working Group where they are still at the evidence gathering / early consultation stage in what is, for better or worse, a lengthy process. Whether the Town Council will make any objections is of course for them to decide.

None of that prevents anyone making objections in their own right, whether as interested residents or otherwise - I've stopped at 7! They weren't on the website this morning (21st) but having spoken to an officer, the team putting them up is understandably a bit swamped as the 23rd deadline approaches.

Wed 21 Dec 2016, 10:21

I received a letter from WODC "because you live near to a site that has been allocated for potential development". The letter was dated 16 November but it arrived on 19 December! The closing date for comments is 23rd. After experience of news being buried by government spokespersons and education consultations starting at the end of July and closing at the start of September, I'm left wondering is this conspiracy or -------?

Tue 20 Dec 2016, 17:17 (last edited on Tue 20 Dec 2016, 17:19)

If commenting directly on the 2031 plan in the way suggested by Diana (see below), people might also want to comment on Appendix 3 where Jefferson's Piece also appears at BC1c. This is where infrastructure issues are dealt with, so I put objections about schooling there. (Again use the search facility to find Jefferson's Piece.)

I had hoped to be guided as to where to put objections by Charlbury Town Council's contribution. But I could not find anything from them by searching the comments on the document as a whole. And neither could I find anything from the Neighbourhood Plan team. Let's hope he objections have gone in, and are simply not showing up on the site! There are lots of other things, as well as questions relating to Jefferson's Piece, that deserve a response.

Looking at the legality of the consultation process, I decided that I thought there had been an insufficient time for consultation to make it legal. Others might wonder also about objecting on those grounds -- I was following Burford's lead on this.

Tue 20 Dec 2016, 13:28

I also just put in a comment (objection). It is, as Christine says, not the simplest form, and you do need to register, but once you get to the right place it's okay. You need to go to Section 9, then I just did a search (ctrl-F) for 'Jefferson'to navigate further, as it's a really long document! Using their navigation it's West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2031 - Main Modification Section 9 - Strategy at the Local Level Burford Charlbury Sub Area MAIN 194.

Tue 20 Dec 2016, 12:03 (last edited on Tue 20 Dec 2016, 12:21)

Objections to the Local Plan 2031 have to be in by this Friday 23rd Dec (5 p.m.). In the run-up to Christmas, I hope people don't forget. The website for objections is here: www.westoxon.gov.uk/localplan2031 It's a complicated form to fill in. It looks as if the Jefferson's Piece proposal counts as MAIN27 5.30b.

Tue 20 Dec 2016, 11:17

Christine, it is true Cotsway Housing own the garages, the garages are let to tenants who pay rent and wish to remain. I agree with Sharon and James opening up access via Jefferson Piece should be out of the question not only for the reasons stated but also the right of the garage tenants
to remain where they are.

Mon 19 Dec 2016, 23:56

I'm afraid I don't agree with Rosemary; there is some point in objecting though it is certainly true that this government has altered the rules so it is more difficult to get development stopped. However it is not true to say WODC has never modified or refused planning permission. There was a project to develop the field between Hixet Wood and Tanners Court and that was turned down after much objection. Also the new houses up Little Lees were going to front onto the road and the hedge was going to be cut down and we managed to save the hedge and get the houses set back.

Mon 19 Dec 2016, 20:27 (last edited on Tue 20 Dec 2016, 13:42)

The deadline for comments on the proposed building of 40 houses off Jefferson's Piece is this Friday 23 December 2016. If you want to have your say now is the time. We hope there will be plenty of feedback/objections to the council.

Sat 3 Dec 2016, 08:23

Totally agree with you James. The route planned via Jefferson piece will take away the safety of our children playing in the estate. All children meet up of all ages in this area as the main play area or meeting place. After school and weekends the children walk, run, or ride bikes around the estate feeling safe but if traffic for 40 more home owners and visitors this will be gone. When you drive around the estate you will notice the parking of cars is a issue where most houses have more then one car and cars are parked on the roads. I some days find neighbours cars parked outside my house from two streets away due to the parking issues, even the dustcart has trouble some days getting round so what happens to our parking in Jefferson piece as we will not be able to park here if the entrance went via the garages. I have lived in the green all my life and I know this will make a big impact on our estate. I do believe we need to think like James and come up with a road solution to connect the field to a road that doesn't affect the areas struggling with problems to start and allow or children to stroll freely and happy playing in areas made safe by the community of our estates.

Fri 2 Dec 2016, 16:19

I think that any development should include how children, assume 2 per household of school age (5-18) will be accommodated; this means schools outside Charlbury eg Chippy (where more houses are being built). Input from all the utilities ie. can the physical infrastructure support it eg. water supply/pressure. I also think that we now need serious traffic management in the town as a whole. It's become a busy through route for Witney-Banbury traffic, coupled with an increase in local population, people drive too often and far too fast. Thus traffic calming measures should be integral to any plan. There's probably a lot more things of a similar nature I could think of, but WODC seem to blithly approve such plans without ensuring the developers have a complete development plan ie. not just a site plan. What about development around the isolated houses in Cornbury and Ditchley? They'd be ideal satellite developments and there's plenty of space I understand, although the present occupants might not see it that way....land value tax may just put right the history of land enclosure.

Thu 1 Dec 2016, 16:13

Note that Milton did not have a neighbourhood Plan but are now asking our advice on getting started

Wed 30 Nov 2016, 19:16

Rosemary, I totally agree. Milton under Wychwood fought 70 new houses to be built on the edge of their village, it went down to 60 and after lengthy meeting and planning, this has now gone through. Access is right through the centre of the village, the plot is a raised plot. The village school is at it's maximum, the surgery is working flat out, and still planning was given.

Wed 30 Nov 2016, 18:39 (last edited on Wed 30 Nov 2016, 18:52)

I don't really see the point of all of this debate. If you were to look at the history of WODC, you would see that nothing is ever stopped in Charlbury. I don't want to sound just like a grumpy old woman (which obviously I am), but I have lived here for a long time, and during that time have made objections to several inappropriate proposals. They were all accepted. So, my thinking is this; if even the most objectionable proposals get through, an ordinary run-of-the-mill estate is bound to get through. These are the types of proposals that are an absolute gift for the planning department. They will never be turned down, official governmental statistical requirements wouldn't allow for it.

Wed 30 Nov 2016, 11:39

Christine, thanks for the reply. We will be objecting as well. It seems to me that most if not all of the arguments against the grammar school hill development apply in equal measure to this development if not more so. The high elevation of the green field north of Jefferson's piece mean that any development will be highly visible from the surrounding houses and footpaths especially those that the planning office insisted on being dug in to their plots. I can't imagine they would want to dig all 40 houses in to this plot but it would be rather hypocritical of the planners to do otherwise.

Tue 29 Nov 2016, 23:11

Andy, WODC was obliged to revise the original Local Plan given the Inspector's claim that the need for new housing had been severely underestimated. It is now scratching around to try & find the extra sites for housing. Any sites selected at this stage are ones that WODC originally rejected as unsuitable (& for very good reasons).

I meant only to suggest that this probably looks a more attractive option to WODC than some of the other possible sites that they have considered, like Grammar School Hill, for example. But the problem is schooling and access, & these are not minor issues. I will be objecting, & encourage others to do the same.

Tue 29 Nov 2016, 21:54

Christine... In what way is it ideal exactly? And ideal for who?

Tue 29 Nov 2016, 16:28

John, Compulsory Purchase Orders are used when owners of property don't volunteer to sell up. Once the area is accepted as potential housing in the Local Plan, I am sure that ways will be found around objections. In any case, it looks as if Cotsway Housing owns the garages, & they would probably agree to the sale.

In some ways, this looks like an ideal development site; but not if issues of access and of schooling remain as described in the Local Plan.

Tue 29 Nov 2016, 11:45

Presumably the owners of the garages could block the development if they refuse to sell up?

Tue 29 Nov 2016, 07:51

Well you have to drive from the top end of Milton down through the very congested High Street, where people park on both sides of the road, down past the co-op which is a nightmare at the best of times and then on towards the village school. Access it might be but congestion is already bad now.

Mon 28 Nov 2016, 22:13

'I don't see how Charlbury, being bigger than Milton, can argue any more than Milton did.' But is there vehicle access to this 60-home site at Milton under Wychwood?
The site at Jefferson Piece looks good on paper (probably orgasmically so if you are a property developer - are we OK with this term, Richard?) but is effectively inaccessible. The suggested route via Jefferson Piece would mean routing hundreds of cars a day via a quiet estate where kids play out and where parking reduces the roads to single carriageway. I am not aware of a way to connect the site to Ditchley Rd, already narrow enough as it is. Hundley Way to the south is a private lane, single carriageway and unpaved, and as a bridleway a popular walking route out to the countryside, with an already dicey junction where it meets Enstone Rd.
Maybe I'm being too negative. Perhaps a bridge could link the proposed estate over fields to Woodstock Road, where the developers can build the second primary school that the estate would need.
The best bit of the text highlighted by Lucy is: 9.6.34v 'With regard to the Conservation Area, a careful design-led approach will be required to ensure that any development of this site preserves or enhances the character of the area. Given the presence of the existing relatively modern development to the south this should be entirely achievable indeed the potential redevelopment/removal of the existing single storey
garages is likely to have a positive impact.' What a cheek! Presumably not a 'positive impact' if you park your car in one of them or if you are lucky enough to look onto or live next to this new junction serving hundreds of vehicles a day.
I'm all for social housing but really this looks like antisocial housing to me.

Mon 28 Nov 2016, 18:38

As I saId earlier, Milton under Wychwood, has had 60 houses granted permission on the outskirts of the village the village school is at bursting point and our surgery, which is excellent, will be stretched. Again planning was given. I don't see how Charlbury, being bigger than Milton, can argue any more than Milton did.

Mon 28 Nov 2016, 12:35

Richard, yes, sorry, I should have typed cannot, and will now change my post!

Mon 28 Nov 2016, 12:27 (last edited on Mon 28 Nov 2016, 12:37)

"Given that the primary school can handle all existing families..."

Did you mean "cannot"?

I also hope that many people will point out the school places issue - given that in recent years families living on, for example, Nine Acres and Hixet Wood missed out due to proximity rules a development closer to the school would push out even more applicants from properties that ALREADY exist and who ALREADY live in the town but perhaps haven't got school age children....yet.

...and yes, totally agree with your comments re. access/traffic on an already busy road.

Mon 28 Nov 2016, 12:20 (last edited on Mon 28 Nov 2016, 12:36)

The question of education is addressed in the WODC documents, but in an utterly inadequate way. Of the Jefferson Piece development it is stated: The site is approximately 800m from the central area, and around 650m to Charlbury Primary School. As a result, the site is considered to have excellent…

Long post - click to read full text

Mon 28 Nov 2016, 11:15 (last edited on Mon 28 Nov 2016, 11:33)

On a topic as fundamental as school places, Miles, you'd think it'd be stated in 'the plan'...but I couldn't see it.

Although "pressure" on school places in West Oxfordshire is generally acknowledged, there's no specific reference to the situation in Charlbury. The shortage of primary school places in other towns/villages is mentioned many times with a stipulation for some developments that a brand new school WILL be built.

Incidentally, I notice that in this draft version of the plan the "Availability of primary school capacity" indicator for the East Chipping Norton area has actually been removed, which is odd, I'd have thought.

Mon 28 Nov 2016, 10:44

I good point is raised about the school. Is there an official number of houses that, if built, would trigger and new or expanded school or more money and resources?

Mon 28 Nov 2016, 10:07 (last edited on Mon 28 Nov 2016, 11:00)

Unless I've missed something I can't see any reference made to the impact on, for example, local school places nor the detrimental effects (safety, pollution, noise etc.) of increased traffic through a small rural town.

I do note a couple of things in the document though:

"The development of this…

Long post - click to read full text

Mon 28 Nov 2016, 07:12

The same is happening in Milton under Wychwood, same issues, same problems, but planning was granted.

Mon 28 Nov 2016, 01:14

There are a lot of planning issues being aired on the Forum as Rod says, and perhaps if were in a larger area there would be no problems ... however our school cannot cater for those children already living in Charlbury let alone even more houses - I reckon there are about 150 houses planned at the moment, if you take into account Rusty Bank, Little Lees, the area by Fiveways, area off the Slade and now these. That could potentially be an extra 300 children! Until the school is made larger or relocated to another site we cannot consider house building on this scale unless they are all retirement homes!

Sun 27 Nov 2016, 23:01 (last edited on Mon 28 Nov 2016, 11:07)

There seem to be a lot of planning issues being aired on the forum just now so as a member of the Neighbourhood Forum, no apologies for sticking my oar in again...

If land is formally allocated for development under a Local Plan, it probably will be developed at some point. If objections are made to this proposed allocation, they and the site should be considered by the Inspector when the examination of the Local Plan resumes next year. But as Lucy Robertson points out, there's a limited time to make representations.

As yet I have no personal opinion about it but I do believe in a full and fair hearing - so would urge those who feel they may be affected by it or otherwise have concerns about it to see if they can get some professional advice - and here's a good place to start www.rtpi.org.uk/planning-aid.

Sun 27 Nov 2016, 11:58 (last edited on Sun 27 Nov 2016, 12:13)

The West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2031 has been revised and now proposes a development of 40 houses on the field north of Jefferson's Piece. This is a greenfield site within the Cotswold AONB and the Charlbury Conservation Area. The field is also home to an abundance of wildlife.

This number of homes on a relatively small site will have a huge impact on the environment and neighbouring houses. Many people are very concerned about the effect this development will have on those living in the surrounding area.

There is a map and further information on page 295-298 of this document: www.westoxon.gov.uk/media/1504821/Local-Plan-2031-Proposed-Modifications.pdf

There is a consultation period until Friday 23 December 2016.

You can respond online at planningconsultation.westoxon.gov.uk or email planning.policy@westoxon.gov.uk