Proposed Parking Changes Hixet Wood & Fishers Lane

Fri 28 Jan 2022, 18:14

I learnt a couple of lessons from this matter. Firstly, I must pay more attention to things going on in Charlbury and not assume that others will take care of everything. I lodged my objection the evening before the deadline and similarly asked to speak at the last minute.  Starting to prepare my 'three minutes', I took on board what Charlie M had posted about something that happened 20+ years ago and the importance of not over-running. After several attempts at re-writing, I had got down to two minutes and 50 seconds. Shock and horror though, when I received confirmation that I could attend and speak - but with a limit of two minutes only. More chopping at my text. Lesson two; check procedures in good time.

Fri 28 Jan 2022, 13:58

I wonder how many shall we say "Planning Regulations Oversights" which developers then feel the need to rectify AFTER receiving planning permission, could be avoided by the council demanding significant financial penalties. Surely this would be a good incentive to ensure all realities of development are accurate and factual in the first place. 

Thu 27 Jan 2022, 19:28

This is great news, but how come the WODC officer recommended it for approval? As far as I could see there has been no planning variation submitted to move the bin storage area further into the development to trigger a requirement for the refuse lorries to enter the site. If there had been, then the loss of parking spaces would have needed to be considered. It should not be up to Cllr Tim Bearder to stop it at the final hurdle. Have there been discussions behind closed doors between the developer and officers that we have not been made aware of?

Thu 27 Jan 2022, 19:06

Hurray! 

Thu 27 Jan 2022, 14:13

Three cheers for Cllr Tim Bearder!

Thu 27 Jan 2022, 13:05

Excellent news.  We now return to trying to ensure planning conditions are adhered to.

Thu 27 Jan 2022, 12:55

A huge thank you to Clare, Brian & Liz & everybody that wrote in with their objections! Fantastic news!

Thu 27 Jan 2022, 12:37

This cannot be appealed

Thu 27 Jan 2022, 12:00

Wonderful news, and a victory for Common Sense and the "Little Man"!

Is there any way that this decision could be appealed? Do we have any experts in this field? If so, we need to keep our eyes open!

Thank you to the speakers. Sadly I was tied up and could not attend the function, but well done!

Thu 27 Jan 2022, 11:29

Thank you to both speakers – your points were excellent. and succinct. 3 minutes is short time capture all the issues. We missed the cut off time to speak and were hanging on to every word on the zoom call. 

Fantastic news for the residents! Parking around the town is never easy but we manage, don’t we? We don't need to lose any more. This was not a Hixetwood issue only. It would impact all surrounding streets, pubs, businesses and the elderly congregation to our two churches on neighbouring streets. 

I have a little more faith in our system so developers cannot back track on their conditions. We were also worrying they were future-proofing the development to allow more houses later. 

Thu 27 Jan 2022, 11:15

Common sense prevailed, a great result. The contractors argued that the bin lorry needs to go in the new development because the original plan to have the bin store by the main road is too far from the houses according to building regulations. But Cllr Bearder seemed to agree that it was unfair the impact on parking hadn't been raised at planning stage. 

Thu 27 Jan 2022, 11:10 (last edited on Thu 27 Jan 2022, 11:10)

Cllr Tim Bearder described it as “a sledgehammer to crack a nut”, refused to approve the officers’ recommendations, and so the yellow lines will not be going in!

Well done to Claire and Brian for speaking at the meeting, and to Liz for sending representations.

Thu 27 Jan 2022, 10:11

Good Luck and thank you to all the speakers today fighting against the removal of all the parking on Hixet Wood, I know we don't seem to have much hope as Blenheim Estate seems to own or run the council, but worth a try! Cars have been driving in and out of the police houses and garages for the last 40 years with no problems and now the entrance will be even bigger so there shouldn't be a problem at all, and on the passed plans there is a bin collection point at the front of the development, so bin lorries will never be driving in there either. It appears that the Duchess's son whose project it is, residing in Monte Carlo, obviously has no care for the  local residents it will effect, he will just be getting ready to collect the rental income from the 8 cottages! So if the double yellow lines go ahead, first dibs on parking in the visitors car park on the development or in front of the Duchess's gate at the top of Hixet Wood!

Sat 22 Jan 2022, 11:38

It hasn't gone through yet.  Because of the large number of objections it is going to the meeting on Thursday to be decided by the elected reps.  If noone had objected it would probably have been rubber stamped by the officer.  I agree it's frustrating that the officer's report doesn't seem to take account of the impact on residents - but it's not going to be decided until this meeting on Thursday. 

Sat 22 Jan 2022, 09:49 (last edited on Sat 22 Jan 2022, 10:38)

I'm up for it! But how do we protest? Maybe move all the cones (which have no official status, as far as I can see) and park our cars all along Hixet Wood so they cannot paint any yellow lines? I fear that the Marlboroughs' "Desecration Project" has gone rather further than the "putting sand in the bulldozers' engines" stage! 

The bottom line is that the objection percentage is documented as being greater than 95%, yet the council *still* let it go through. Is this democracy?

I would suggest not.

Fri 21 Jan 2022, 20:44

Anyone interested in a bit of community civil disobedience, a la Thoreau? Seems like it may be the only thing that will get any results. The usual routes appear to be either bound by red tape, or mocked, or just plain ignored.

Shocking suggestion, I know.

Fri 21 Jan 2022, 18:41

Just to clarify, while the initial planning decision was the responsibility of WODC, the current proposal regarding yellow lines is entirely the responsibility of the highways authority ie OCC.

Fri 21 Jan 2022, 18:37

Disappointing, yes, but not in the least bit surprising, when you look at the political make-up of WODC ... and who they are dealing with in this matter. Very sad.

Fri 21 Jan 2022, 18:05

Thanks Jenny, that's interesting and very disappointing. I did wonder when I had to prompt the said individual, whether she was quite as committed as she would have me believe.

I heard from a friend on Fishers Lane that a heavy lorry left the site today via Fishers Lane. Another contravention and with it an opportunity to remind WODC that they have responsibilities as well as the developers and contractors.

Fri 21 Jan 2022, 17:36

Brian,  'Write to WODC and complain. They will eventually act, ......'

I happened to overhear the interaction between the WODC rep & the site contractor a few weeks ago, following a complaint/s to WODC about mud on the approach roads. The WODC rep was pathetically apologetic about having to raise it with them. Interestingly, she had to remind the chap who she was! So, I assume site visits are rare! A desultory brushing of the road at the entrance to the site then started, which stopped once she'd gone. So, perhaps don't expect much in the way of  governance from WODC.

Fri 21 Jan 2022, 15:58

Karen, The intention is for the yellow lines to be permanent - regardless of the workers' vans being parked on the roadway. Incidentally, the WODC-approved Hixet Wood Traffic Management Plan, Para 3.7 states "All construction workers will be able to park their cars on site. Plot 3 towards the south of the site will be converted as temporary parking area location for construction workers and visitors and has been shown on the Construction Site Layout Drawing in Appendix C."

Mind you, it does say 'cars' on the site - which I suppose means it's OK for their vans to be out on the road. It is another example of the developers ignoring the regulations. Write to WODC and complain. They will eventually act, as they did when I complained about heavy trucks using Fishers Lane rather than the designated route which is Hixet Wood.

Fri 21 Jan 2022, 13:10

Given the limitations on the number of people speaking would it be worth getting signatures on a petition to represent the strength of feeling in the community about this decision.

One further point  if the OCC engineer mentioned about the highway code – if this was applied though the town we would lose another two dozen parking spaces or possibly more.

This issue does not just affect the people of Hixetwood as our cars will be displaced to other streets. Also people from other streets, such as Fishers lane as they are currently parked here too.  

I presume the double- yellow lines will not be imposed after the construction is finished and the contractors are no longer needing to park their white vans there themselves, which is currently the  situation every day from 645am.  

Thu 20 Jan 2022, 16:50

Thanks, Richard, very good points 

Thu 20 Jan 2022, 15:56 (last edited on Thu 20 Jan 2022, 15:57)

Looking back over this I think there’s one key point we might have missed, and that’s the one made by Stephen Andrews on 28 October: the refuse collection point is adjacent to the road so there’s no need for bin lorries to turn.

In OCC Highways’ own response to the planning application (17/00889/FUL), OCC themselves state “Due to the location of the refuse collection point, refuse vehicles will not need to enter the site.”

However, in the new proposal for the traffic order, OCC say the purpose is “including enabling bin lorries to enter and exit the site”.

So they’re proposing double yellow lines for something they themselves said isn’t necessary, and on which basis the planning permission was granted.

Thu 20 Jan 2022, 14:25

May I ask *ALL* those planning to speak to do one simple thing beforehand?

PLEASE TIME YOUR SPEECH!

This will avoid the farcical situation about 20 or so years ago when we were protesting the destruction of the Old Primary School at a similar meeting, and our main speaker was cut dead at the end of his three minutes while in mid-sentence, thus rendering what he said ineffective.

Of course whether the council committee had/have already decided whether to accept or refuse the proposal was - and is - another matter altogether...

Thu 20 Jan 2022, 09:32

Ive asked to speak at the meeting on behalf of the Town Council. 

Thu 20 Jan 2022, 09:04

This is being decided by the Cabinet Member for Highways on Thursday next week.  You can ask to speak at the meeting and you will need to get your request to do so in by 9am tomorrow.  You will have three minutes to make a case.  I shall be asking to speak to this and I think Andy is too.

Wed 19 Jan 2022, 19:39

What is the point in a public consultation if they take no notice of it?  Apart from 1 person showing support, all of the others comments were against as well as the town council also objecting. Can this be appealed against if the council officers give permission or is their word final?

Wed 19 Jan 2022, 14:59

As I previously said:
So when the Marlboroughs shouted "JUMP!", the normal response of local councils seems to be "How high?".

We now have the answer: About fifteen feet. 

This council should be utterly ashamed of itself. 

Wed 19 Jan 2022, 14:49 (last edited on Wed 19 Jan 2022, 20:32)

On the WODC Planning Application 21/02973/S73, (submitted on 1st September 2021) I can only see three 'Vs' not four visitor parking spaces. Note that there are two parking spaces each allocated for the 8 housing plots, these are more than adequate to accommodate 'visitors', so why not make it a condition that these three 'visitor' spaces should be allocated to the residents that have lost their on-street space as a consequence of this retrospective ruling.

Wed 19 Jan 2022, 13:27

What’s the point of have a planning policy when the developers can retrospectively override it afterwards? See Extract item 14 from the highways report :

Item 14: One factor raised within the responses was that the proposed waiting restrictions were not included as part of the planning consent for the development but only subsequently identified as being required by a road safety audit (carried out by consultants employed by the developer) for the junction of the new access for the development with Hixet Wood and expressing the view that assurances understood to have been given by the developer that the development would have minimal impact on existing residents had been negated by the current proposals

It has been a stitch up from the beginning - replacing one house with 8 new houses has never been a viable. Despite all the issues around the accessibility for churches, and local residents who do not have off-street parking (most of Church street and Hixetwood) we lose 6 parking spaces for 8 news houses and their 2 allocated parking spots each.

I look forward to using the parking provided by the developer within the cul de sac.  

Item 19:The developers of the site have stated there are four unreserved parking spaces within the development which while primarily intended for visitors would nevertheless also be available to existing residents

Lets hope the new residents don't object to locals vehicles and campervans parked in their driveways.

Wed 19 Jan 2022, 13:17

The report is here:

https://mycouncil.oxfordshire.gov.uk/documents/s59162/CMDHM_JAN2722R05%20-%20Hixet%20Wood%20Charlbury.pdf

There were 38 objections, 11 expressions of concern, 1 in support. The council officers have recommended that the double yellow lines go ahead.

Tue 18 Jan 2022, 13:31

Email sent to objectors just now:

Following objections received during the consultation process – the proposals you commented on (see list above) will be presented at The Cabinet Member for Highway Management decisions meeting on Thursday 27th January 2022 (at 10am). Papers for the meeting will be published on the Council’s website by the close of play on Wednesday 19th January 2022, and will be available here: https://mycouncil.oxfordshire.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=1167&MId=6680

Fri 19 Nov 2021, 14:59

I have responded on LetsTalk and also written to Mr Mauz, making the point that this parking proposal is primarily due to the Marlborough family's Hixet Wood development, and that they could help their own project by allowing access to the new estate (or whatever it is) via the land around Lee Place.

I do not expect in a million years that they will accept my proposal. As I also said, when the Marlboroughs shout "JUMP!", the normal response of local councils seems to be "How high?".

Fri 19 Nov 2021, 14:24

Today is the last day for objections and observations to be lodged, should you wish for your views to be considered.

Go to; 

https://letstalk.oxfordshire.gov.uk/charlbury_hixetwood_parking2021/survey_tools/hixetwood_parking21#!

or email christian.mauz@oxfordshire.gov.uk, quoting Ref CM/12.5.156

Please, let's not loose this valuable on-street parking.

Wed 10 Nov 2021, 17:50

This is another inappropriate case that deserves to be thrown out. This fragile little area of Charlbury old town can barely take yet another assault from second homes, etc. let alone another building site. As stated earlier, there are not enough parking spaces for existing householders. What’s not to understand in that?

Tue 9 Nov 2021, 21:03

Mr. Tatton, I refer the Honourable Member to the response I made on 26th October.

This is not a case of NIMBYism. It is much worse.

Tue 9 Nov 2021, 20:41

That steep hill past Dean and Terry’s garage is a constant thoroughfare for Mums and children on foot. My daughter in law and her three, Mel and hers, Gentleman Joe’s family, the nice Irish lady doctor etc etc…these little ones are extremely vulnerable and removing parked cars at the side will encourage faster traffic descent..of heavy, dangerous lorries. It is utter madness to not protect our families.I have written in to complain but…no reply…

Tue 9 Nov 2021, 20:20

I can’t for the life of me understand why the development proposed for Hixet wood was ever given permission , which will only make parking and access much worse in the vicinity.

They proposed a similar development in the late 1990’s, but the then West Oxfordshire District Council Uplands Planning Committee of which I was vice chairman, felt that there were considerable planning reasons and other consequences  to prevent the development proceeding. 

Failure to stop the development recently still has consequences such as parking as is now being discovered. Shameful. 

Mon 8 Nov 2021, 10:25

Parking will become difficult for many living, working and visiting in the new development area. In addition to the heavy vehicles, there will be the cars used by site workers, managers and other associated professions. 
Presently there is no provision or indeed right for anyone to park on a public road outside of  their house. However, there are no parking restrictions on Banbury Hill/Enstone Road heading into or out of the town? Perhaps overflow parking could commence there? That way the concomitant problem of speeding and parking could be solved?

Mon 8 Nov 2021, 06:06

This is a ridiculous and selfish idea as it will put more pressure on a part of town already creaking.

Sun 7 Nov 2021, 17:47

We have e-mailed christian.mauz@Oxfordshire.gov.uk - the technical officer in charge of this outrageous plan to strip us of all our parking in front of our home Melody House and all along its wall for 30 metres. The police house and garages opposite us for 15 years have never had a problem with access in and out of the site and they are making the entrance a great deal bigger anyway. Also cars parked on our side of Hixet Wood slows down any traffic speeding down Sheep Street and Hixet Wood (contrary to Blenheim Estates belief that it will be safer for pedestrians with no parking.) We have asked whether Blenheim Estate plans to give us and the residents from Fishers Lane and Sheep Street that all use Hixet Wood to park,  spaces on the new development instead (I presume not!). We definitely don't want to be forced to park in front of other peoples homes in Charlbury. Please e-mail Christian Mauz with objections!!xx

Thu 28 Oct 2021, 10:47 (last edited on Thu 28 Oct 2021, 12:09)

Back in April, an OCC officer emailed the Town Council with provisional details of this. I replied half an hour later (as Town Council chair at the time) with this:

I fear that if you were to propose losing six parking spaces from Sheep Street/Hixet Wood then we would be pleading with residents to put down the pitchforks!

Parking in central Charlbury is at an absolute premium - most houses have no off-street parking, particularly on roads like Sheep Street which is where the overspill down onto Hixet Wood comes from. (Sheep Street is very narrow so many houses don't even have on-street parking immediately outside.) There are several offices and shops around this area which attract parking too.

Generally we would prefer an unobtrusive access with a tight radius in a low-speed residential area anyway - we need to keep vehicle speeds low when turning, and maintain the character of the conservation area. We would expect (and want) residents in the new development to walk into town for shops/station etc. so any junction design should prioritise pedestrian access.

Fully agree with Stephen, there is no need for refuse lorry access to the development. 

Thu 28 Oct 2021, 10:36

These proposed double yellow lines are apparently to allow refuse lorries full access to the new development. 

As can be seen in the approved plan https://publicaccess.westoxon.gov.uk/online-applications/files/77875DC2AE008824E899768883A2A14C/pdf/17_00889_FUL-REVISED_PARKING_PLAN-601991.pdf

this is unnecessary, as the bin collection area is at the road junction. Have I missed something?

Wed 27 Oct 2021, 22:42

It would make charging your bev rather difficult if you couldn't park close to your house. Not very green centric this proposal.

Wed 27 Oct 2021, 14:53

This is a consultation, it is not a done deal.  So please go online and have your say (and by the way this is the first that I have heard of this so I will be having words.....)

Wed 27 Oct 2021, 13:05 (last edited on Wed 27 Oct 2021, 13:06)

Karen - if Highways was aware, it didn’t form part of any objection at the time.  (As you say, the Town Council objected on grounds including these)

Moreover, the proposed restrictions go well beyond the stipulations of the Highway Code.

Wed 27 Oct 2021, 10:54

Ridiculous. It means that Charlbury residents won't even be able to park outside their own homes.

The new housing development is a farce.

It all makes me extremely grouchy.

Wed 27 Oct 2021, 10:38

I disagree - this issue was identified by local residents, CTC and Highways from the outset. There has always been an issue of access / egress from the existing site (originally intended for 1/2 houses) for the proposed 20 + agreed cars on the proposal, and more importantly during construction for the HGV deliveries to the site.  Approval was granted with conditions to provide appropriate access. It was known in 2017 that this was not resolved. Hence why there were 3 versions of the traffic management plan issued to WODC by the developer. Where does that leave the rest of the houses on Hixetwood, Fishers lane, Sheep Street  w/o off-street parking obviously built before cars were the preferred method of transport. As residents we juggle about and make do with the existing conditions, it is accepted that folk from all the streets around the area  are parking up and down these streets. What about the visitors to the few remaining businesses on Sheep Street.  We shall all end up cluttering other parts of the town. This is further proof that our planning authority is not providing holistic solution to our town's growth. 

Wed 27 Oct 2021, 08:55

This is a County Council proposal that has come out of the blue, and tackles an issue it didn’t cover in the original planning application.

Wed 27 Oct 2021, 06:45

One question where will all the cars go,there already a big parking problem in Charlbury,

Tue 26 Oct 2021, 22:46

Agreed Karen, but we mere mortals must kowtow to the wishes of the Blenheim Megalith, pushed through by their friends on the local legislature.

How I wish it could be a case of VanderNOTbilt ...

Tue 26 Oct 2021, 21:45 (last edited on Tue 26 Oct 2021, 21:47)

So now WODC are proposing removal of all parking south of fishers lane . Due to the new housing development in Hixetwood  This is ridiculous, the housing development should never have been given permission in the first place. Please follow the link below to write your comments to WODC.

Thu 21 Oct 2021, 16:55

Please see the following Oxfordshire County Council Consultation on Proposed Changes to the Parking on Hixet Road and Fishers Lane.

https://www.charlburytowncouncil.co.uk/news/new-parking-restrictions-proposal-for-hixet-wood-and-fishers-lane/