website address planning permission

Sun 31 Dec 2023, 00:57

Building houses is a difficult and contentious subject these days. On the one hand, we need to build more houses for a growing population (people have children that need to live somewhere/net migration through the roof). On the other hand, you have to opposite oppinions like opposing a very simple solution of building more houses, with the notion of not in my town or no more building on greenbelt land. Opposing progressive thinking rather than coming to the table with possible solutions to a growing problem, like creating green spaces amongst buildings and not overcrowd the ground space to allow for this, would be more welcome. We all want what's best for our environment and wellbeing, working day and night and living in a flat because the asking price by the developers is extortionate is not the way forward. Why can't affordable housing be smaller houses on larger parcels of land? Surely this would improve mental health as well as general aestetics and prevent extra stress on the NHS. One thing however is certain, and that is that houses will be built, and previously green land will disappear to make space for a growing population (unless of course we build underground). We do, however, need to ensure that there is infrastructure built to support developments and that houses are to a certain standard. I think I'm not alone in thinking that one primary school is not enough. One surgery is not enough. We seem to have 5+ catering establishments but no appointments to combat their after effects like having appendixes removed or irratible bowel syndrome sorted, and unless you live within 0.4 miles from the primary school, your child will have to waste study time to travel to a school on the moon. Not to mention the extra traffic new developments bring when we already have people ignoring double yellow lines when parking in the town centre.

Fri 29 Dec 2023, 14:48

It seems strange to me that there should be specific policies aimed at major developments with no indication of what might qualify as a major development.  However, I do wonder whether there can be any arguments behind a development of 37 new dwellings NOT being a major development other than pure sophistry.  (Arguments about exceptional circumstances are a completely different matter, of course.)

Fri 29 Dec 2023, 14:19

Why did the Town Council oppose the application for mixed housing off Woodstock Rd recently? Had they already had their meeting with the Rushy Bank developers?

Thu 28 Dec 2023, 16:43

Reg, I think Rushy Bank falls into the criteria of exceptional circumstances “therefore only permitted in exceptional circumstances and where they can be demonstrated to be in the public interest” given that it is providing 51% of affordable housing, which goes above what is set out in the Neighbourhood Plan.

“For example, new developments should provide social rented housing, with a particular emphasis on properties accessible by older people or those with disabilities, shared ownership housing and other types of housing available at lower cost in perpetuity.”

Rushy Bank does this.

Thu 28 Dec 2023, 16:14

This Rushy Bank planning application in my opinion goes against several WODC planning policies but as it is in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty I think WODC policy 8.4 is crucial to the consideration. I believe that this proposal constitutes a "major development". It should be noted that at the Uplands Planning meeting which gave the permission for the earlier scheme, the planning officer stated that the scheme was NOT a "major development". I hope this time round our councillors WILL classify it as "major development". WODC policy details below:

8.4 In accordance with national policy and guidance, major developments within the AONB will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated that they are in the public interest and meet the specific tests set out in policy and guidance. Importantly, there is no singular definition of major development and the Council will consider each case on its merits having regard to relevant factors including location, scale, context and design. In some instances, even relatively small-scale developments will be classed as major development and therefore only permitted in exceptional circumstances and where they can be demonstrated to be in the public interest.

Thu 28 Dec 2023, 11:28 (last edited on Thu 28 Dec 2023, 11:33)

Well said, Emily.  

The money for the assisted living accommodation is in the County Council's budget and will continue to be next year.  The original proposal was for a care home for people with early onset dementia.  Back in 2015 (yes, 2015) when the first planning application was submitted,  there was need for this type of accommodation which was quantified by the charity Young Dementia UK, but things have changed over the last 8 years.  First of all, the number of people with early onset dementia no longer justifies a unit entirely dedicated to their support. And secondly, the way in which we support people, including those with dementia, has changed.  We now help people to live independently for as long as they can in their own homes, rather than using care homes as a default.  However, restricting the use of this accommodation to people with early onset dementia could lead to some of the units being empty for a time, so it makes sense to widen the availability to people with learning disabilities who have the capacity to live independently with support, which will be available on site.

The County Council have no plan for these units to become homes for general rent, as implied by some of the stuff that is being circulated.

Wed 27 Dec 2023, 19:43

As Claire has said, everyone is entitled to their opinion on Rushy Bank. However, what would be helpful is if those opinions were grounded in fact. All the objections I've read both on this forum, and on the WODC page, are sadly based on misinformation and out of date information. 

It is clear that all those people who have raised objections have not read the extensive new planning documents nor have they read this council's comments related to the new applications. 

The objections are brief, inaccurate and bear all the hallmarks of a copy and paste job.

For example:

There is the continued mention of the development encroaching on 'ancient woodland', which is false - there is no ancient woodland to encroach on. However, if the application is approved, the developers will be planting a mixture of indigenous trees. 

There is the assertation that the development will destroy local ecology - there is an extensive ecology survey, which disproves this but which the majority have not read.

There are a few objections that mention the lack of affordable housing.... there will be 51% of affordable housing!

And, of course, the young dementia care argument... unfortunately due to the delays to this application, we will never know if the young dementia care facility would have been successful. 

The present application includes homes that are suitable for not only those with dementia but those with other disabilities. These homes can be adapted and changed based on the needs of the person living there. 

If you are going to object, which is within your right, please do so after reading the planning documents rather than relying on hearsay.

Wed 27 Dec 2023, 15:22

Those who have read the Town Council’s response (a minority here, I suspect) will be able to read the areas in which this new application may conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan, and where those conflicts need to be resolved.

As planning permission was granted for development at Rushy Bank a year before the town voted to adopt the Neighbourhood Plan, the Plan acknowledged that, as it has to in law and to be accepted by the planning authority.  The untruth that claims that this is not the case is what should be withdrawn and an apology forthcoming, for all who received the misleading, semi-anonymous communication.

Clearly anyone is entitled to an opinion, but some of the recent posts on this subject on Christmas Eve, Christmas Day and Boxing Day cross the line.  That applies to more than one side on this divisive topic.  I shall now get back to enjoying the holiday, and the apology (when it comes).

Wed 27 Dec 2023, 15:08

The question of whether Rushy Bank conflicts with the Neighbourhood Plan is not straightforward, the development supports some aims and policies but goes against others. It's not a simple "yes" or "no" question. The question of whether it is "baked in" to the Neighbourhood Plan is also complicated - but personally I don't think it is. I was very sorry not to be present at the Town Council planning meeting as I have a slipped disc and I'm off work.

If we want to live in a democracy we need to listen respectfully to all opinions - even those that disagree with the Town Council. I'm not sure if Gareth is using the royal "we" in his post but I'm certainly not asking anyone to apologise for disagreeing with the Town Council.

Everyone is entitled to air their views and to try to influence the decision which will be made by WODC.

Wed 27 Dec 2023, 13:30

Jim, I'm not the person who personalised this, or sent out misinformation on Christmas Morning.  Please cease being so unpleasant.

Meanwhile we await the apology.  There has been activity at Rushy Bank since the 2020 planning consent.  The Neighbourhood Plan was voted and enacted with Rushy Bank already having planning consent.  You can't erase that from the map or turn back the clock, however much you may wish to.  

Similarly, you can't deconstruct the executive housing built on greenfield sites elsewhere in Charlbury in recent years, to no benefit for the town, and on which the "Friends of West Oxfordshire Cotswolds" were notably silent.

As the information cannot be found on their website, and for public information, I link to the contact information for the "Friends of West Oxfordshire Cotswolds".  Perhaps they could add it to their website, and set out to local people how they might be able to join?

Wed 27 Dec 2023, 13:10

Gareth, the names of any organisation’s trustees/councillors /directors are a matter of public record.

I am very sorry that there seems to be so much desire to personalise what is surely just a significant planning decision for the town.

By law planning consents expire after three years. There is an existing consent on the site which had an expiry date in January this year. There is a dispute heading to the High Court next month as to whether this consent has in fact expired or been extended by the developer's efforts to start building.

This is a new application for a new consent. Therefore it stands to be assessed against the policies of the Neighbourhood Plan which is now part of the town’s statutory Development Plan. The Town Council has acknowledged this and acknowledged that this application does not comply with those policies so I am not sure what the dispute with the statement in the letter is. Regardless of this non-compliance the Town Council has supported the application, and stated that this is because the Neighbourhood Plan was based on the assumption that this development would go ahead. The Town Council is of course entitled to its interpretation but my reading of the Neighbourhood Plan is that it contemplated the impact on its goals if this development did or did not go ahead, nothing more. Ultimately I understand the meaning of a plan and its policies is one for legal brains, but in the first instance it will be up to the Planning Officer and the Local Planning Authority to look at the policies and the application.

In the meantime this is a public consultation and I hope anyone who wants to feels they can engage with it without being personally singled out for their views.

Wed 27 Dec 2023, 12:05

I am very reluctant to engage with the divisive and personally nasty debate that sprung up over the Christmas period.  However……

I have just received through my letterbox an anonymous letter from the “Friends of West Oxfordshire Cotswolds (no names, no address: unusual for a group of “Friends” not to allow people who are about this beautiful area where we grew up to join them).

It contains some very misleading statements.  The most obvious is the slur that the Town Council has ignored its Neighbourhood Plan: a document agreed when Rushy Bank had already received planning permission.  I am sure that the authors know that Neighbourhood Plans cannot overturn planning consents already granted; so perhaps they might identify themselves here, apologise for their misinformation, and correct the record?

Wed 27 Dec 2023, 08:03

Rachel, thank you for taking the time.  

You can email as Hans says, or this link should take you direct to the application and then you just need to go to the Comments page.

Sat 23 Dec 2023, 15:57

You can email planning@westoxon.gov.uk with your comments, and it will be published. Use the planning reference 23/03071/FUL in the email subject line.

That way you can avoid telling everybody where you live. 

Sat 23 Dec 2023, 14:53

Thank you Christine, that works.  Now I've just got to decide about the issue

of 37 dwellings beyond the station...

Sat 23 Dec 2023, 08:29

Try: https://publicaccess.westoxon.gov.uk/online-applications/

Sat 23 Dec 2023, 08:05 (last edited on Sat 23 Dec 2023, 08:09)

I thought your problem might be thr typo in "wesroxon" which is what you wrote but the correct "westoxon" doesn't work either. 

Can you get to where you want by simply searching the planning section of westoxon.gov.uk site in more detail?

Try https://publicaccess.westoxon.gov.uk/online-applications/ and search from there.

Sat 23 Dec 2023, 07:52

The website address www.publicaccesss.wesroxon.gov.uk doesn't seem to work in order to register an objection to planning application. Is it just me?