10 new houses on Hixet Wood

Tue 8 Aug 2017, 20:07

Having stated earlier, somewhere, that I had done with posting about new developments, I have been prompted by Simon's remark below to bring to your attention the new roadworks at the entrance to Chipping Norton from the Burford Road. Aggressively urban, massively engineered to the commonest of denominators, ugly, and out of keeping with the vernacular.
The new Neighbourhood Plan for Charlbury has got a lot on its plate, if this is the level of solution acceptable within our area to the District Council.

Tue 8 Aug 2017, 17:49

Following on from Pearl's comment "It seems quite unbelievable that OCC have no objection", maybe it's worthwhile considering that the same Highways Department considered that the proposed access for Vanderbilt's 34-house complex below Wellington Cottages "is acceptable ?" the applicant has shown that visibility splays and forward visibility can be provided". That comment is in the public domain amongst the documents relating to that planning application.

I would respectfully suggest that no-one from the Highways Department can have stood on pavement at the sharp corner where the new access is proposed and watched two articulated lorries/S3 buses/tractor-and-trailer units/cars (perm your own combinations from these) trying to negotiate the corner simultaneously from opposite directions. If they consider that to be acceptable, while keeping pedestrians safe as well, there's little chance that they would raise objections to altering the three-way corner at the junction of Hixet Wood, Sheep Street and Fishers Lane into a crossroads.

Tue 8 Aug 2017, 13:19 (last edited on Tue 8 Aug 2017, 17:34)

The fact that OCC have made no objection does not mean the Committee are unable to consider issues such as road safety, adequacy of parking etc - indeed they have a duty to do so. I don't know how carefully OCC looked at this but Liz may be right, they may simply not have the resources to examine every proposal thoroughly. In my experience, residents often have a better understanding of local conditions than Highways Officers and their objections should be properly considered - perhaps the committee could be invited to view for themselves if they haven't already done so.

Just to add, if the application were to be refused on highway safety grounds in the absence of an objection from OCC, the Council might be at risk of an award of costs on an appeal if they could not provide substantial evidence to support the case on that ground. It may be that which has apparently led the officer to advise against deferring for that reason. But they should still consider what residents have to say about it.

Tue 8 Aug 2017, 13:07

Thank you to Peter Kenrick attending on behalf of the town council to argue for the deferral of the decision.
I wonder whether OCC has the resources these days to they just wave things through.

Tue 8 Aug 2017, 12:03 (last edited on Tue 8 Aug 2017, 12:04)

I have gone back some months to find this thread but I just wondered if people unhappy about this application have spotted Peter's post in the news? It seems quite unbelievable that OCC have no objection.

Mon 3 Jul 2017, 16:45

Thanks to all those who have already re-iterated their objections to the (amended) Vanderbilt application to build on the land behind the Police Houses at Hixet Wood. However, could I please remind those who wrote originally, but, if they still object, but have not resent their objections, that the closing date for representations to be made to WODC will be JULY 13th. I am afraid, even if you wrote the first time, you still have to write again - even if you just send a sentence saying something along the lines of "I still object as per my previous comments", that is fine. Thanks. Helen Bessemer-Clark

Tue 20 Jun 2017, 22:30

specifically the statement says
Planning obligations are unlikely to be required for all developments but should be used
whenever appropriate according to the Secretary of State's policy set out in this
Circular. There are no hard and fast rules about the size or type of development that
should attract obligations.
so please press the District to request contributions if the application is approved

Tue 20 Jun 2017, 22:24

I would echo what Rod says
I have also raised the question of financial contribution to the community with our District councillor

I think it is at the discretion of the Local Planning Authority

There was dismay at what happened on Ditchley road so could you please try to see if contribution could be specified for this development - if it was to get planning permission of course!

Quote from webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120919132719/http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/147537.pdf

Tue 20 Jun 2017, 11:05

John is there some way your flood risk map could be put into or accepted in documents on the application?

Fri 16 Jun 2017, 17:24 (last edited on Sat 17 Jun 2017, 17:09)

Stephen (Cavell), you might well say that. After 20+ years as a Planning Inspector I of course could not possibly comment!

In truth it's not always the case but by all means cast a sceptical eye...
More importantly, if anyone still has objections they should be made them afresh, as others have pointed out.

Fri 16 Jun 2017, 17:22

That is very interesting John, I hope others take a look at your link they will surely agree it is not a suitable area at all.

Fri 16 Jun 2017, 14:32

Flood Risk?

Try this and tick Surface Water and zoom in..

flood-warning-information.service.gov.uk/long-term-flood-risk/map?easting=436027&northing=219658&address=100120949283

Fri 16 Jun 2017, 14:21

Thank you Andrew.

Fri 16 Jun 2017, 14:18

Documents are available again now at 2:17pm

Fri 16 Jun 2017, 14:03

I thought I would just have a look in the link but unfortunately the Documents are not available at this time, maybe they're adding some new ones. It does say try again later!

Fri 16 Jun 2017, 10:59

Interesting bit of info.So the technique is to ask for the max first time round - pretend that you have listened to the objections and slip in a lower number to get it past the 'onlookers' and if you are lucky get an even better deal than your first proposal. Is the word 'cynicism'adequte to describe that process.

Thu 15 Jun 2017, 21:05

Maybe it's me being sceptical of developers but by only proposing 8 rather than 10 houses would mean that the District would not have to enforce payment towards infrastructure such as traffic calming etc or any other communityncontribution (technically known as Section 106 agreements)
This is precisely why the new houses on Ditchley road were not required to make any contribution to the community.

Thu 15 Jun 2017, 20:16

Pearl, I agree it is confusing.

Thu 15 Jun 2017, 20:01

Oh right maybe that's it then just seemed strange they still show , it's a good job Helen actually rang up and found out otherwise no one would be any the wiser. I wasn't actually doubting her just confused.... thanks Jackie.

Thu 15 Jun 2017, 19:46

I believe Helen is correct. If no further objection is submitted, it may be assumed that the changes made to the application have answered the concerns of objectors.
When I lived in Stratford-upon-Avon, a planning application for a number of dwellings was amended to provide fewer dwellings and the local councillor advised residents to re-submit their objections to ensure they were taken in to consideration.

Thu 15 Jun 2017, 15:33 (last edited on Thu 15 Jun 2017, 16:01)

I understand what you are saying but the proposal says for 8 new houses and the objections are still there plus a few more recent ones...lets hope they all stand.

Thu 15 Jun 2017, 09:59

Pearl, you are right, but as this is an amended, and therefore "new" application, as I understand it, we have to re-iterate our comments all over again.......before July 13th. Helen BC

Wed 14 Jun 2017, 18:27

Helen if you click on Richard's link you can still read the original objections, at moment anyway.

Tue 13 Jun 2017, 13:38

Thank you, Helen. Cunning of them, isn't it, with summer holidays coming up and initial energies spent on opposing the previous application?

Tue 13 Jun 2017, 12:56

URGENT: I have rung the WODC Planning Dept this morning concerning the revised planning application re Hixet Wood and apparently, as this is considered a "new" application, all the comments sent previously should, if you still feel so inclined, be resent, possibly with adjustment to cutting and pasting with reference to the two less houses - although as I understand the plans, it would seem that the access road is narrower, and I cannot see parking for Plot l which would mean they would have to park on the main road. By coincidence this morning (June 13th) yet again, there was yet again an occasion when a lorry could not get down Sheep Street, because one large car, though parked on part of the pavement, was opposite another car parked on double yellow lines. I have the photos should anyone be interested. Please advise all those who had objections previously to consider writing again if they still feel strongly. The final date for comment is July 13th. Helen Bessemer-Clark

Mon 12 Jun 2017, 09:37

I see that the proposal has now been scaled back from 10 to 8 houses, with the stated intention of retaining views over open space from Hixet Wood. The two 'rearmost' houses have been removed and one garden has been lowered.

Link is publicaccess.westoxon.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OMWEDTRKJRX00 .

Tue 18 Apr 2017, 20:13

That's an interesting point, but one that town planners and builders choose to ignore. The house at the lowest point in Pooles Lane (by the stream) flooded a few years ago..... but this lesson is always ignored! WHY?

Tue 18 Apr 2017, 16:50

I always thought it was considered a flood plain at bottom of Hixet Wood there.

Tue 18 Apr 2017, 16:06

I said that I wasn't going to get involved with any more debates about infill building in Charlbury but here I go again. It is about time that common sense was made compulsory in these decision-making processes. Charlbury is finally and rapidly losing its special character. Each time a secret garden, or little piece of river bank or pasture gets bulldozed, bio-diversity, sense of place, air quality and climate (to randomly name just a few) are affected adversely and for ever. These are serious matters, and it is heartbreaking that there is no one strong enough nor powerful enough to stop the permanent destruction of a (once) special place.

Mon 17 Apr 2017, 10:42

Yes Andrew that is correct and is why in he Local plan only Jeffersons piece was allocated
The SHELLA was published in December 2016 and previously in 2014 see
shlaa/
A similar assessment can go into the Neighbourhood Plan but the important additional factors that the criteria for assessment and opinions of the local residents would apply

Sun 16 Apr 2017, 18:18

It looks as if that report says the only sites in Charlbury that are suitable for housing are the two areas that are already undergoing building, or at least planning, ie Little Lees and Jefferson's Piece.
All other sites are, according to that report, unsuitable.
When was that report published Tony, and how often is it updated or amended?

Sun 16 Apr 2017, 14:52

It is interesting to see the comments from WODC when this site was considered under the Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) in 2016
Development on the site would result in the removal of thick vegetation, severely harming the character
of the Conservation Area and street scene. Also significant access constraints in terms of vehicle
movements along Hixet Wood.
Access would be off Sheep Street/Hixet Wood, however these are very narrow roads and there is a lot of
on-street parking. In addition, the footways are intermittent and improvements would be necessary.
The site is located within the Conservation Area and AONB. There are numerous trees on the site and in
particular along the stream and pond. The site provides an important area of green space within the
centre which also creates an attractive backdrop within the wider area. Development of the site would
harm the character of this part of the town and necessitate the removal mature vegetation.

For more details and for other sites in Charlbury see
www.westoxon.gov.uk/media/1577281/SHELAA-Update-2016-Revised-Appendix-3.pdf

Thu 13 Apr 2017, 18:54

I agree with Matt regarding infill the main problem with this development is in my mind the fact that there are still a 3 and 4 bed house whereas this area is a perfect area for just one and two bed houses ideal for downsizing and very convenient for the centre and fits in with a recognised need in the housing mix in Charlbury. Smaller houses would also reduce the likely number of cars

Thu 13 Apr 2017, 10:51

They generally do - most applications will have a Section 106 payment to contribute to local infrastructure. Doesn't always get spent where it might be needed, of course.

Thu 13 Apr 2017, 10:12

I wonder why Planning Authorities don't take into account the impact on the local infrastructure of new developments? I've only lived in Charlbury for about 5 years but in that time have noticed a significant increase in traffic coupled with a significant decrease in parking availability. Negotiating the top of Dyers Hill to/from the Station has become particularly tricky.

Thu 13 Apr 2017, 08:28

An infill development seems very sensible to me. At some point in the near future Charlbury is going to have to accommodate a number of new homes. They've got to be built somewhere.

Wed 12 Apr 2017, 19:20

While energies are being geared towards expressing feelings about the Grammar School Hill Development, Charlbury residents might like also to investigate the planned development (by the same company as Grammar School Hill) behind the Police Houses on Hixet Wood. publicaccess.westoxon.gov.uk/online-applications 17/00889FUL. Many trees have already been cut down, and it appears that a whole area of glorious bio-diversity will be destroyed, while Sheep Street, Fishers Lane and Hixet Wood which are already a traffic nightmare, with lorries frequently getting stuck, will experience more traffic, and less facilities for parking. Please write with your comments to WODC (by May 8th) or our Town Council in time for the planning meeting on April 24th. Helen Bessemer-Clark