Pooles Lane Development (Admin discussions)

Sun 20 Mar 2016, 15:07

Free speech, on the web, is the right for you to start your own website and say whatever you like on it. But it isn't the right for you to say whatever you like on a website administered by someone else. We (the admins) try to keep discussions here polite and moderate. Not generalising about whole groups of people is part of that.

On this website, if you would like to post less moderate arguments, you can use the Grease Pit section.

If you would like to discuss the moderation policy of the website, you can use the Admin section.

I'm locking this thread, but if anyone else would like to discuss the Pooles Lane development further, please do start a new thread.

Sun 20 Mar 2016, 13:20

what is wrong free speach

Sun 13 Mar 2016, 14:07

Please - we try not to characterise people as "incomers" vs "Charlbury people", or "natives" vs "white settlers" (as I once heard!), or anything like that on this forum. Thank you.

Sun 13 Mar 2016, 08:59

pooles lane has been like it is for 80 years of my live and i have had no problem with itso you newcomers to charlbury leave it alone if you dont like it move

Wed 2 Mar 2016, 12:49

Here we go again. Ding! Round two. So thankful that comments have been taken into account. The first year of anxiety almost over. Bring on the second.

Tue 1 Mar 2016, 17:20

Pity the people likely to be affected by this development could not attend this meeting.
Too much secrecy and too many "dear Jaynes and dear Mikes" for my liking.
Well done the objectors - keep it up.

Tue 1 Mar 2016, 13:12

They wouldn't be meeting if they weren't mindful of comments (to the council, not on the forum)surely that is what planning is about.

Tue 1 Mar 2016, 09:02

Keen observers of this planning application (http://publicaccess.westoxon.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=O0J87XRKLAP00) will see that it has been withdrawn. Looks like the advisors, the landowner, the architect and the planners are meeting today to discuss it, suggesting that they are considering a revised application. Fingers crossed they are mindful of the many comments from local residents potentially affected.

Tue 9 Feb 2016, 14:52

Last day for comments on the WODC planning department site is 25 February.

Sat 6 Feb 2016, 14:34

Please. I urge anyone with any strong views about the development to articulate them into a comment for the planning department. This link is nice to have, but it is serving no real purpose at this stage. We need formal opposition (or support if you have a view on how this will enhance the conservation area) now.

Sat 6 Feb 2016, 13:20

Sorry I don't mean right as opposed to wrong. I just mean that there could be more than one solution to putting four homes on this site which it would be useful to be able to explore.

Fri 5 Feb 2016, 23:58

Right for who ?

Fri 5 Feb 2016, 20:25

Doesn't mean it's right!

Fri 5 Feb 2016, 20:09

If you read the planners recommendation,the current application is the planners preferred site plan

Fri 5 Feb 2016, 19:51

I had rather supposed that the new homes would be along the sides of the garden facing into the middle. This would give all of them the benefit of being south-facing. It would also preserve the open aspect of the site and allow more options for pedestrians on Pooles Lane.

Fri 5 Feb 2016, 17:25

That's good, Pearl.

Thu 4 Feb 2016, 18:10

Thanks Andrew and Rosemary I have now been able to read the Document in question and I agree it is a first class report.

Thu 4 Feb 2016, 16:22 (last edited on Thu 4 Feb 2016, 16:30)

Thanks for that Rosemary, only just seen this which is shame as I just passed library as went Chemist. I am hoping Martin can sort it for me when gets home if not I may need to do that.

Thu 4 Feb 2016, 14:27

Thanks Andrew. I'm just thinking Pearl that the library will probably have a paper copy of the minutes, for an initial read?

Thu 4 Feb 2016, 13:05

The traffic in Market Stree is being diverted on Monday, except for access, so the same can happen in Pooles lane

Thu 4 Feb 2016, 11:53

Thank you Andrew. I have just clicked on your suggestion but it still says the same.I am using a laptop which may not have been updated with respect to that. I might ask Martin later as he uses the the main PC in the house, maybe he needs to do something do you think. I do have Windows 10 on here but I'm not into the the technical side I'm afraid. I shall have to remain frustrated for now. I'll post later if he sorts it for me. Thank you.

Thu 4 Feb 2016, 11:39 (last edited on Thu 4 Feb 2016, 11:41)

Pearl, you can open Office documents with OpenOffice (free) on a PC or a Mac, and TextEdit will open it on a Mac; many tablet apps will open Word files directly; and if none of those help you can convert Word/Office files to other formats such as PDF free of charge at www.zamzar.com - hope that helps!

A direct link to the document Rosemary mentions is here:
publicaccess.westoxon.gov.uk/online-applications/files/5029BECAB39AA993BFB739F6638E6928/16_00039_FUL-CHARLBURY_CONSERVATION_AREA_ADVISORY_COMMITTEE-389226.doc

Thu 4 Feb 2016, 11:35

The only thing is unless you have 'Office' you can't open it which is very disappointing! I can read all the other documents.

Thu 4 Feb 2016, 11:24 (last edited on Thu 4 Feb 2016, 14:24)

Since posting previous comments, I advise anyone interested in the development to read the Minutes of a meeting of the Charlbury Conservation area Advisory Committee held on Thursday 28 January 2016 at the Corner House, Charlbury, which is now lodged on the Westoxon planning department comments. See:
16/00039/FUL - Elmstead Crawborough Charlbury Chipping Norton

I would like to thank the committee very much for providing a first-class report. This document is absolutely excellent in its descriptions and conclusions. Thank you to all of the attendees, and to Mrs West in particular for her time, skill and expertise in writing up this document.

I would urge the people who have written here of their experiences of dangerous traffic in Pooles Lane to submit their comments and any other opinions on the planning department's form; the link is above. This is the *only* formal channel for this kind of communication from the general public that will be taken into account.

Tue 2 Feb 2016, 20:09 (last edited on Tue 2 Feb 2016, 20:24)

A bit of pavement wedged between the adjacent frontages is a dangerous 'solution' and is only a feeble attempt to placate the neighbours. Also, think about the rainwater that runs down Crawborough and creates a temporary river along the stone wall. If the road is partially paved, the water will run to the opposite side of the road into Milton Cottage's grounds and possibly right into Limestone and Anvil cottages.

Thu 28 Jan 2016, 17:08 (last edited on Fri 5 Feb 2016, 11:02)

I decided to ask the planning consultants for this project (Edgars) about the 'pedestrian refuge'. Here's the answer I have just received: "It is my understanding that the proposed pedestrian refuge details will be discussed with the County Highways and will be based on their recommendation during the application process. It is thought these details will be conditioned through the decision notice, if the development is approved."

So that appears to mean a proper, kerbed pavement is not inherent in the design, but the planning department can insist on it. I feel very sad about the loss of the old building (which I suspect may have once been the town's forge - it was certainly once associated with Anvil Cottage, as the application documents attest); every time we lose these old buildings, we lose our town's distinctiveness, and it starts to look like everywhere else, especially with the 'executive homes' in this development.

Thu 28 Jan 2016, 11:10

The site plan P02 and section 4.2 of the access statement explains the refuge - the boundary wall on the east side of Pooles lane is demolished and a new wall built set back from the road with a new pavement area.

Thu 28 Jan 2016, 11:00

A one-way system isn't a good idea. One-way systems tend to speed traffic up because drivers know they won't have to stop for oncoming traffic. A road closure somewhere along Dancers Hill would preserve access for residents and prevent traffic from the Slade from driving all the way to Brown's Lane. It would be great for anyone living on Pooles Lane or Dancers Hill and for pedestrians along the route. I am sure it would be hard to find consensus amongst residents of the adjoining roads about if/where to install a barrier. But it would bring many benefits if that were possible.

Wed 27 Jan 2016, 20:19

I have been looking through all the documents associated with the application but I haven't found much detail on the pedestrian refuge. My fear is that it is in effect simply a widening of the road to make vehicular access to the site easier, and will not make walking along the road any easier. If vehicles are able to pull into the pedestrian area to pass other vehicles it could make this already dangerous section of road even more dangerous. If however it will be a proper raised pavement then it would be a big improvement. Does anyone have any more detail of what the 'refuge' will mean in practice?

Wed 27 Jan 2016, 20:07 (last edited on Wed 27 Jan 2016, 20:09)

We have a one way traffic system and there were accidents with horses and carts

Wed 27 Jan 2016, 19:47

I walk down Crawborough and along Pooles Lane to get to Fishers Lane and Sheep Street a few times a week. You already have to dive into the nearest driveway or hug the walls when people race up Pooles Lane and onto Playing Close, more cars going in and out would pretty dangerous for pedestrians. With cars parked on Pooles Lane it is already difficult to get up and down with the traffic going in both directions. If this also means additional construction traffic using Sheep Street and Fishers Lane to get to Pooles Lane, that could also cause problems. When I am working in Sheep Street, lorries frequently get stuck outside the Farmers and have to wait for car owners to come and move cars as they are too wide to get down the hill. Our lanes in the town centre were not designed for anything more than horses with carts and pedestrians....maybe a one way traffic system is the answer???

Wed 27 Jan 2016, 16:51

I frequently travel this road and my concern is that extra traffic particularly along the narrow sections will make it even more difficult for essential Callers to the sick and elderly and emergency services to reach their patients and find anywhere to park.

Wed 27 Jan 2016, 16:39 (last edited on Wed 27 Jan 2016, 16:40)

Stephen, please refer to my posting dated 24th March 2015.

If readers peruse the Planning Drawings, it can be seen that many properties opposite Elmstead will lose the view overlooking the garden of Elmstead and will instead have a view of 3 new properties approximately 13 metres away. This will greatly reduce the available light and impact on privacy.

The opposition that will take place over the next few weeks will in no way reflect the anger towards Mrs Jeffs but to her Planning Advisors who have guided her through the process towards the Planning Application.

Her Planning Advisors held a shambolic meeting with neighbours late last year that had no agenda or structure following which the Planning Application was made that included a statement to the effect that "the drawings were amended to take on board the comments of the immediate neighbours". This is not true.

The only concession made was to increase the distance between the Pooles Lane properties and the new plots from 10metres to 13 metres which is still too close.

The initial objection to the scheme was overwhelming, however, it was stated by many neighbours that if the scheme went ahead, it would be better to turn the Pooles Lane facing properties through 90 degrees and have the front doors facing the new access road and the rear gardens facing south to maximise the light into the new properties.

Had the residents been properly consulted with the latter in mind, who knows, the opposition might have been minimal.

Sorry readers, you will probably have to consult the Planning Application to understand the above.

Wed 27 Jan 2016, 14:03

If it discourages drivers from using Dancers Hill and Pooles Lane as a Rat Run so much the better.

Wed 27 Jan 2016, 07:23

I too have raised the question in the past "I just wonder what the neighbours of the time were saying when (where I live) Wychwood House/Close/Paddocks were being built" No Charlbury Forum to record at the time. Anyway I hope the detractors of the Pooles Lane development will not add to the traffic by standing and staring.

Wed 27 Jan 2016, 06:48

The houses at present in Pooles lane including Mr Peacocks did not just appear they were built

Tue 26 Jan 2016, 19:05 (last edited on Tue 26 Jan 2016, 19:05)

This is a copy of my posting dated 24th March 2015 and although a couple of points are now irrelevant, the vast majority of what I said is still applicable. The Planning Application has been submitted (refer Elmstead) and comments can be made on the WODC Planning web site.
"Developers…

Long post - click to read full text

Sat 16 May 2015, 19:11

It makes sense to be aware of all possibilities, in my view.

Fri 15 May 2015, 08:02 (last edited on Fri 15 May 2015, 08:18)

Surely it makes sense to wait till we know what the tree officer has to say, and to see if in fact a planning application is ever made, which it may not be, before speculating further.

Thu 14 May 2015, 23:06

If they are saved, and if there is development near them, I suggest looking *very* carefully at how near the buildings are planned to go, and whether there is any chance that later on someone might get permission to fell them because of danger to the building. I've seen this exact thing happen...

Thu 14 May 2015, 14:19

That's good to hear Liz. If they do have to be felled, will there be any obligation to replace them?

Thu 14 May 2015, 11:37

I have spoken to the tree officer at WODC who is due to report on the condition of the trees in the next two weeks. If he agrees with the tree surgeons who have put in this notice, he will say so, and if not then he will place a tree preservation order on them. So there is no question of them coming down unless there is a genuine reason for that to happen.

Thu 14 May 2015, 09:23

Well said, Roy-you beat me to it. My garden overlooks Elmstead so I have an interest.However, I have lived next door to the owner for 40 years, never had a cross word and if I have an issue I will talk to her about it. She has lived the whole of her blameless life in Charlbury and allowed many allotment holders to use her garden completely free of charge.
I'm sure the person or persons involved see themselves as the custodians of the interests of local people. Anonymous missives which overstate the case are not the way to do this. There has to be a better way to negotiate the public/private divide in a small village like Charlbury. My copy joins Roy's in the recycling.

Tue 12 May 2015, 20:36 (last edited on Tue 12 May 2015, 20:51)

Would the person who put an anonymous document through my and my neighbours' doors on this subject please note that I have dealt with mine as I do with any junk mail. Why not have the courtesy to give your name and your interest?

Sun 10 May 2015, 11:29

Has anyone thought of contacting The University of Oxford Harcourt Arboretum, as they would perhaps give an independent evaluation of the true condition of the trees, and not one paid for by the developers?

Wed 6 May 2015, 16:54

It is encouraging to see the objections to the removal of the two trees on the WODC link (refer to Andrew Chapman's posting). I hope more objections appear soon so that this "first stage" of the development (if this is what is planned) is "kicked into touch" at the earliest opportunity.

Tue 28 Apr 2015, 18:43

Totally agree Andrew, the removal of these trees is the first step on the road to an application for a full development.
My suspicions have been reinforced by the fact that a Topographical Survey was carried out a few weeks ago.
If we are all wrong, I hope the Planners ask the applicant for their proposals to replace these trees.

Mon 27 Apr 2015, 19:45

Really do you have their phone numbers?

Mon 27 Apr 2015, 19:30

Amazing number of Arboriculturists living in Charlbury

Mon 27 Apr 2015, 16:20

These trees seem to be in no worse condition than any on the playing close, so maybe we should take all of those down just incase.
Or is it that these two would cause problems for access to another new development???

Mon 27 Apr 2015, 13:36

If a satellite fell out of the sky or a crow dropped a snooker ball, we might be killed or injured too. It is common practice for architects to advise clearance of a development site in ways like this. But perhaps it's all a coincidence.

Mon 27 Apr 2015, 13:24

If these trees in bad condition were to fall or shed branches, someone may be killed or injured. Read the application!

Mon 27 Apr 2015, 12:46

Not from what I've heard - I believe the owner is considering how to proceed.

Mon 27 Apr 2015, 12:27

Has planning for building been applied for for this site?

Mon 27 Apr 2015, 12:19 (last edited on Thu 14 May 2015, 14:50)

There is now a planning application to remove two trees next to Pooles Lane, in the garden of Elmstead. Is this the first step towards clearing the ground ready for development? The lime tree is currently bursting into leaf and despite a couple of dead areas looks in fine fettle - and would be a sad loss.

Details of the trees faced with the axe: publicaccess.westoxon.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NN3LW5RKHWB00

Wed 25 Mar 2015, 12:16 (last edited on Thu 26 Mar 2015, 07:35)

Has anyone noted the length of time, and disruption, of BHL Builders to build one small, Senecio Press office conversion? It is located at the top of Park Street opposite St Mary's church at the start of the lengthy one way system which ends at the Pre-School on Grammar School Hill?

This must be one of the most dangerous streets in Oxfordshire, as mentioned in the Forum by Chris Tatton on the 20mph thread.

Or noted their "mess" and disruption affecting the traffic flow, not only on site, but in the private lane, which is at the heart of Charlbury, in a "Conservation" and residential area, for the whole of this year and most of 2014?

Tue 24 Mar 2015, 16:34

Stephen, you are indeed fortunate in having a house built without any objections from your neighbours, however, the proposed Pooles Lane/Crawborough scheme is a major development that will not only affect neighbours but also the whole town centre.
Developers will no doubt wish to cram in as many units as…

Long post - click to read full text

Thu 19 Mar 2015, 07:31

I wonder what the neighbours of the property in which I happily live today were saying at the time it was built. What ever it was I am glad the builders won out.

Wed 18 Mar 2015, 19:56

I have heard it is initially one house adjacent to the existing one, but the follow up plan is then to sell off the rest of the land to developers.

Wed 18 Mar 2015, 18:39

I've been led to believe it is only one house, have you heard different?

Wed 18 Mar 2015, 16:20

Surveyors have been active today re:- the proposed development on the "allotment site" along the Lane from the Playing Close.
Pooles Lane is a very busy route to the town centre, although there are signs stating "no through route to town centre", and pedestrians (elderly en route to the Co-op and children going to school) are at great risk particularly along the narrow sections where there are no pavements.
Not only will the flow of traffic increase greatly during the construction period but also after completion with residents cars and the frequent delivery lorries.
Pooles Lane cannot cope with this proposed development and should be vigorously opposed.