Another planning application - Woodstock Road

Wed 2 Aug 2017, 19:21

Thanks Richard forgot that
I think the reasons are significant as they could be applied to several other applications in Charlbury including the two by Vanderbilt so it will be interesting to see how the committee decide on Hixet Wood on Monday and in the appeal for Grammar School Hill later.
I would like to think that they will be consistent for all sites where the impact on the Charlbury Conservation Area and the AONB are similar

Wed 2 Aug 2017, 10:45

As ever, the WODC planning site doesn't really do linking, but the relevant bits are that the application has been refused for these reasons:

"The proposed development, by reason of its scale, siting, form and appearance would appear as a visually incongruous feature within this part of the Charlbury Conservation Area and would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the area. Furthermore, the development would unacceptably urbanise the generally low density, loose knit character and appearance which would not respect the existing scale, pattern and character of development in this semi rural location.

"The development proposal by reason of its siting outside of the established built up limits of the settlement, on the edge of town, rural countryside setting, will appear as an incongruous and overly urban feature and will erode the rural character of the area and defined settlement edge, therefore adversely affecting the landscape setting of the town and the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and thereby failing to conserve the scenic beauty of the Cotswolds AONB."

Wed 2 Aug 2017, 08:38

A decision has been made on this application already see
publicaccess.westoxon.gov.uk/online-applications/files/47CA471A580F43511C6863462225AEFC/pdf/17_01893_FUL-REFUSAL_-_FULL_APPLICATION-535601.pdf

Fri 21 Jul 2017, 22:21

I would like to add something here.
i am very concerned about this deliberate and manipulative process which such developers are using. However
i think this is something which WODC have the power to address if they are so minded My own research suggests that there is no legal limit for requiring contribution from developers for small developments
Here I Quote from government requirements on the application of the so called section 106 agreements which cover this
B4. 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.
taken from Planning obligations webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120919225314/http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/147537.pdf
If this is true then we should all point this out in any objections to the planning application and ask that WODC planning say they require such a contribution should the planning application be accepted

Thu 20 Jul 2017, 11:39

The Ditchley development site came through in 2 stages: first 6 houses, then 4. This was, I understand, because the land was sold off in two stages. As such, any attempt to get round the requirement to contribute to social housing or pay some money to the community in recompense for the total was more concealed.

This particular property developer, Empire Homes Ltd, is described by estate agents as a local family firm, and certainly has a long history in applying to build housing estates across the WODC area. The main shareholder is based in Kidlington, but there are family connections to Stonesfield also.

I see they applied for a loan to acquire Sturt Furlong, Sturt Road, Charlbury back in 1999. Various planning applications are linked to that site, some of which were successful, others withdrawn. No documents about these applications show up online.

Their recent planning application to build an access road for 41 new houses at Sunset View, Upavon, Carterton ran into so many objections that it was withdrawn in May this year, but they have been more successful in Stonesfield (Farley Way, 13 houses), Long Hanborough and elsewhere.

Thu 20 Jul 2017, 09:17

And did the same thing happen at Ditchley?

Thu 20 Jul 2017, 08:55 (last edited on Thu 20 Jul 2017, 08:59)

It may be of interest that last year the developer applied to build one house on the site and permission was granted by the WODC. This year the developer has the following to say:"Policy H3 of the emerging local plan requires medium-scale housing schemes of 6-10 units within the Cotswolds AONB to make a financial contribution towards the provision of affordable housing off-site within the District.There is an extant planning permission for the erection of one detached dwelling within the curtilage of The Grange. The net increase in the number of dwellings arising from the current proposal will be five. The policy does not require a contribution from small-scale developments of 1-5 units."
So, split up your planning application and you can avoid making any contribution to affordable housing. Is it possible to believe that this was not deliberate?

Tue 18 Jul 2017, 19:23

In case the link shown does not work (as I didn't when I tried it), the planning reference for this is 17/01893/FUL.

Tue 18 Jul 2017, 17:25

Yet another 'greedy' development where the single criterion is profit. Am I surprised?

Fri 14 Jul 2017, 18:09 (last edited on Sat 15 Jul 2017, 08:00)

Yes I had seen it Helen. I am actually lost now and wonder if the previous applications which I believe had been accepted are actually going ahead for the 'affordable homes' at Rushy Bank, off Woodstock Road, and Lee's Heights ,I would imagine most of new applications are for private homes and not for our Charlbury families who are still looking for homes to rent or part buy.

Fri 14 Jul 2017, 17:30

I don't know if this one has slipped under the radar of forum users or not, but just in case this is a plan for 6 large houses off the Woodstock Road: publicaccess.westoxon.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=ORH4UDRKL5Y00