Representation on planning issues

Fri 12 Jun 2015, 17:42

Alice - I wouldn't worry too much. Putting aside the chances of changing national planning law to have a 20-mile threshold, any public body that needs to carry out consultations is well capable of recognising what might be (unfairly!) termed "rent-a-mob" responses, not least in this age of online petitions. This is especially true of planning authorities such as WODC.

The Government code of practice on consultations makes a relevant point: "Analysing consultation responses is primarily a qualitative rather than a quantitative exercise". In other words, they'll take account of what the responses say, rather than how many there are.

What worries me more is the revolving door between planning authorities and developers: two of the three housing developments currently proposed in Charlbury have engaged, as development consultants, people who were working in the WODC planning department until very recently. But again, I can't see any likelihood of change there.

Wed 10 Jun 2015, 18:58 (last edited on Wed 10 Jun 2015, 21:48)

Ironically, Alice, your idea for a twenty mile limit might easily have the opposite effect from the outcome you evidently want. It would prevent, for example, someone who had grown up in Charlbury and wished to come back from writing in support of new housing. As I understand it, the law is clear. Anyone can object to or support any planning application.

Wed 10 Jun 2015, 18:10

Places distant from Charlbury including Oxford (furthest) and Chipping Norton from two young adults unable to live in their home town. It has been interesting to hear your views and I have concluded that whilst probably local comment has very little impact on a councillors decision there still may be an element of misrepresentation arising from the statement in their report that so many objections were received and letters of support received.

I didn't know what to think when I started but now I've concluded that comments should not be accepted by the local council unless they come from an address within say 20 miles of the planning proposal. That probably there should only be one comment per address to prevent the Tower Hamlets situation.

I still haven't had any comments on how the young people of Charlbury are to be represented. If we want to retain a vibrant community with growing families and a mixed age population that will support shops, pubs, post offices, doctors, dentists and schools we might have to consider their needs. Over and out ...

Wed 10 Jun 2015, 11:15

Perhaps the standard letters containing the spelling mistake 'peace-meal' could be ruled out as evidence of genuine objections to the scheme. The local resident who solicited these may by now be embarrassed by the complications they have caused. Even so, the fact remains that more local people have opposed the scheme than supported it, in most cases out of a desire to keep the AONB beautiful rather than out of mean-mindedness and lack of community spirit.

Wed 10 Jun 2015, 10:39

In fairness, Alice, somme people supporting Rushy Bank also used standard letters, and some came from places distant from Charlbury.

Wed 10 Jun 2015, 09:21

I don't see anything strange about it. I do gardens for several people who own houses in Charlbury but live in London during the week, they are as entitled as those people who live here full time to make their views known on the application. It is also possible to have a job which requires you to work abroad for periods of a few weeks to a few months, but still actually to live in the UK.

Wed 10 Jun 2015, 07:27

I think you might have missed the point - 46 standard letters from remote destinations from people who may or may not have visited Charlbury and known the people here, probably do not represent thoughtful responses based on evidence. I'll let WODC officers and councillors know what's happening so the councillors don't need to fear for their re-election if they decide there are no valid reasons for turning down the development.

Tue 9 Jun 2015, 18:37 (last edited on Tue 9 Jun 2015, 18:39)

How intriguing.

Tue 9 Jun 2015, 18:33 (last edited on Tue 9 Jun 2015, 18:35)

If there is any lesson to learn from the recent election, it is surely that it is unwise to assume that all right-thinking people must share the same views. My reading of the public responses on the WODC planning site is that a great number of people have responded thoughtfully and with integrity, and have expressed a wide range of views. I've seen no reason to assume that any responses are bogus, and I'm sure that WODC would be more than capable of spotting this if they were ...

I objected reluctantly to the proposals because I thought they set a worrying precedent for development in an AONB. That is not to say I'm unconcerned about social housing. I am certainly sympathetic on dementia care - not least because my godmother died of early onset dementia last month. Most things in life are not cut and dried. It is unwise to drift into the mind-set that those with whom we disagree must lack generosity of spirit, or must somehow have missed the point if, having looked at the evidence, they didn't come to the same conclusions as us.

Tue 9 Jun 2015, 17:53

Hello Mark, the project as I understand it is using private sector funding through the sale of some high value homes to allow the development of a much needed facility for the care of younger people with dementia and a small amount of self build and discount housing. Young on-set dementia is cruel both to the sufferer and the carer who is usually a spouse of working age. Caring full-time at home is often not an option and even when it is, the carers must have a break sometimes. I don't have any links with Young Dementia Care other than having witnessed them help a former neighbour support their spouse. The need for housing, the skills learnt through self build, the employment options - all of these are benefits to younger people, the very people we need to sustain our vibrant community.

I know the residents of Charlbury to be a very accepting, welcoming and strong community so I was surprised at the negative reaction to a project that should benefit younger residents and looked to see what was so offensive about this project. I learned that 46 residents of Westminster, Kensington & Chelsea, Munich, Wittgenstein, Dusseldorf, etc. are very worried by the traffic implications.

You might object to the site on the grounds that it is not a very desirable location - a bit dank and stuck between a railway line, a sewage farm and light industrial units, but even so, I would have thought the residents I know in Charlbury would bend over backwards to accommodate such a project.

Mon 8 Jun 2015, 23:49 (last edited on Mon 8 Jun 2015, 23:59)

Are you saying that the fact that you didn't recognise the addresses means that the 46 comments are somehow invalid? Or that because you think that 46 objections out of 179 are inadmissible that the other 133 don't count? Or that democratic feedback is a good thing, but that you reserve the right to declare it to be unrepresentative if you happen not to agree with it?

Mon 8 Jun 2015, 22:12

It was interesting that of the 179 voices against the Rushey Development 46 were standard emails/texts from locations in Germany, Central London and no address provided. There seem to be enough individuals in the Friends of Evenlode Valley to weigh the numbers against the project if that is what was wanted. Who represents the young people of Charlbury in this process?