More devastation

Mon 22 Mar 2021, 09:58

Sorry to resurrect this thread but as we will be watching this development progress for many months Liz Leffman’s statement that this application would not have been approved had the new Local Plan been in place needs picking up. 

This development application was approved in June 2018 on the advice of officers that it was fully compliant with the new Local Plan after the new Local Plan had been examined by the planning inspector and when WODC’s position was to make decisions as if the new plan was adopted (as it was 3 months later).

People need to be aware that the new Local Plan policies have not given additional protection to land within built-up areas in the AONB as they have (in theory) to settlement edges and open countryside in the AONB. But there were plenty of Conservation Area, ecology, design and transport policies common to new and old plans where this application did not stack up well.

The issue was not the policies or the lack of an uptodate plan, it was officers’ and councillors’ judgement, against that of many local bodies and people, that this scheme was compliant.  Neither the WODC conservation nor ecology officers’ responses appeared to consider the principle of developing this site, just ways of mitigating its worst impacts.  There appeared to be no consideration of the desirability of adding traffic and spill over parking to narrow partly unfootpathed streets.  Development density was the only debate.  The one thing it seemed possible to argue unambiguously was that the density of the proposed development meant that it was not providing parking compliant with OCC standards and WODC policy.  But even when held under their noses neither OCC nor WODC officers were prepared to uphold their standards and policies in an area where parking and parked vehicles are as acute a problem as anywhere in the county.  The icing on the cake was the signing off of this application by WODC officers ignoring the planning committee’s last minute directions to alter the layout and reduce density.

So while there were lots of reasons why the application in its approved form should have been modified if not refused, the lack of a new local plan was not one of them. 

What part the extensive relationship between Blenheim and WODC planners played in all this we shall never know, not least because their meetings, like those with other local developers, were not minuted.  And while this is contrary to LGA probity guidance WODC officers claimed they just didn’t have time.  Worth noting again that Blenheim’s decision to drop its appeal at Grammar School Hill roughly coincided with officers’ support for this application.

All that said 1 Police House would always have got consent for redevelopment and perhaps drawing in some of the land behind.  But not the consented overdevelopment.  And it should have been approved via a process which inspired at least some trust in our planning process and people.  And I’m sure these houses will be very nice places to live.  Best of luck to Clarry and Judith if they decide to go for it.