All posts by HFDAG Admin

Miller Homes has been refused

Amber Developments, BAN5, Banbury Local Plan, CDC Localism Act, Cherwell Council, Cherwell District Council, HFDAG, Localism Act, Miller Homes, Pandora Ltd, Persimmon Homes, Rapleys, , , , , , ,

The Miller homes application has been refused. Many members were in favour of this development as it would have the least impact on the area. Out of all the applications presented to the planning committee this site was the only one that had positive comments and yet was turned down….so much for the Localism Act, so much for the council actually listening to it’s residents. We asked our local councillors to help us fight these developments, did they ? hell no. Except when it affected one of their own. We’ll hear all sorts of rubbish about how they haven’t done that. In reality they should have helped us FIGHT ALL of the developments. Shame on them, they’ve lost my vote in the future.

The Miller homes application was byfar the most thoughtout and well planned of all the applications. I really hope CDC get their just rewards and we see the removal of the planning department, the removal of the Chief Exec for being incompetant, and finally the local councillors for having no backbone and no diginity.

BAN3 Bretch Hill has been approved

Amber Developments, BAN2, BAN5, CDC Localism Act, Cherwell Council, Cherwell District Council, HFDAG, Housing, Localism Act, Pandora Ltd, Persimmon Homes, Rapleys

Though this may not be within our area – North of Hanwell Fields, it does show the council have yet again ignored comments from the residents of Banbury, and blatantly chose to forget the democracy of a public consultation with regard to the local plan.

This is a misrepresentation of public rights.

As voters, council tax payers and residents of Banbury we should expect our council to behave in a manner that is fit for purpose, presently I don’t we can say it is. It certainly does not have our interests in mind.

What are we doing about it ? Moira and I attended a meeting with Hanwell Parish Council to discuss what options we may have with regard to both BAN5 and BAN2, the answer is not a lot. We then discussed what we can do about the council, my view is that we shame them in to making changes. To do this we are going to raise a petition against them, hopefully to be timed in accordance with the planning inspector’s visit. I also received a call from the ITV program ‘tonight’ to chat about the possibility of being part of documentary about the effects of planning on local communities. After several more calls and the passing of information I have heard that unfortunately we came close to being chosen but ultimately the producer has decided to feature a local action group in the North of England. I had explained that not only are we effected by such large developments but so is Hanwell Village, as well as other communities around Banbury. Anyway the show is to be broadcast on the 8th August, 7.30pm ITV1. It will be very interesting.

Now the planning has been approved, Persimmon have been given 12 months to finalise their plans and a further 12 months to start the build. As yet Amber have still not submitted an application for the remainder of the BAN5 site. One detail in our favour now Bretch Hill has been approved is the council have their fulfilment of housing numbers, meaning we could argue that their is no need for further approvals.

I still maintain that these site have been approved prematurely to protect the precious South of Banbury, more importantly Saltway.

Next thing we need to do put together some demands for when the construction starts, for instance, a ban of construction traffic before 9.00am on Dukes Meadow Drive, No mud left on the road. Construction vehicles can only park on their designated land and not block DMD. You get the idea, so if any one has any particular concerns about the effects of the construction then please leave comments below.

Thanks everyone, we’ve lost a battle but not the war.

Malc

Ode to Localism

Banbury Local Plan, CDC Localism Act, Cherwell Council, Cherwell District Council, HFDAG, Localism Act

Our Cherwell Tory Councillors
They toe the party line
And Cameron wants more houses
So they tell him that it’s fine
They bow down to developers, objections swept away
Nine hundred houses granted and that’s just on one day
But they are Tory councillors
Elected fair and square
No need to heed the wishes
Of those who vote them there

They think they can ignore us now
But there will come a day
Their smiles more like a rictus grin
Their hearts full of dismay
For when elections come again
They will not need the whip
Revenge is sweet and it will come
When we all vote UKIP

By Moira

Statement requested to be read at planning meeting (then subsequently ignored by Tracey Morressey)

BAN5, Banbury Local Plan, CDC Localism Act, Cherwell Council, Cherwell District Council, HFDAG, Localism Act, Persimmon Homes, , , ,

Dear Councillors

We urge you to defer this planning application on the grounds of it being a premature application whilst the Local Plan is still being considered. We would welcome the opportunity for the planning inspector to make a proper and informed decision on the sustainability of this site and its application. Furthermore this council should reject any applications until proof of demand can be ascertained by the development of Bankside and Canalside.

We would also argue that this application is beyond the boundary of Banbury and by your own claims would breach current planning policy. Again this development should be rejected until such policy is amended and formalised.

Sue Smith has confirmed in writing that Cherwell Council are sticking to the previous housing numbers as per the South East Plan. This plan has been revoked. We would like to see this council re-evaluate the current proposed numbers and base housing supply on factual evidence, rather than old, out-dated, old government projections.

Other councils are complying with this new method and we are unable to understand why Cherwell Council is refusing to adopt a balanced approach which would provide a five year supply of land whilst at the same time preserving the character of Banbury and the stunning countryside around the town which could be managed by adopting the NPPF.

This application goes against democracy, it goes against common sense, it goes against the wishes of local residents.

Many Thanks

Malcolm Finch
Chairman – Hanwell Fields Development Action Group

PLEASE READ OUR LATEST PRESS RELEASES

All of the councillors email addresses

Uncategorized

cllr.alyas.ahmed@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.ken.atack@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.Andrew.Beere@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.maurice.billington@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.fred.blackwell@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.norman.bolster@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.ann.bonner@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.Patrick.Cartledge@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.colin.clarke@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.margaret.cullip@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; surinder.dhesi@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.john.donaldson@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.diana.edwards@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.tim.emptage@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; andrew.fulljames@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.michael.gibbard@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.timothy.hallchurch@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.chris.heath@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.simon.holland@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.alastair.milnehome@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.david.hughes@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.russell.hurle@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.tony.ilott@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; Cllr.Mike.KerfordByrnes@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.james.macnamara@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.melanie.magee@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.kieron.mallon@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.nicholas.mawer@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.nigel.morris@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.debbie.pickford@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.lynn.pratt@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.neil.prestidge@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; nigel.randall@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.george.reynolds@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.alaric.rose@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; gordon.ross@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.daniel.sames@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.leslie.sibley@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.trevor.stevens@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.lawrie.stratford@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.rose.stratford@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.lynda.thirziesmart@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.nicholas.turner@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.douglas.webb@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.douglas.williamson@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.barry.wood@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; cllr.paul.o’sullivan@cherwell-dc.gov.uk; admin@hfdag.org.uk

Miller Homes Application

BAN5, Banbury Local Plan, Cherwell Council, Cherwell District Council, HFDAG, Miller Homes

As you are aware we are fighting these developments on many levels.

levels-of-HFDAG-fight

Firstly on a very local level we are fighting individual developers on individual development sites. Persimmon and Amber at BAN5 and Pandora at BAN2.

Secondly we are making cases against the areas of BAN5 and BAN2 using the northern boundary for instance as one of our arguments.

Thirdly we are fighting CDC on a district level against their proposed numbers, hoping to prove they are incorrect. All of these objections are relevant and as such all should be supported.

Recently the press has reported that we are against the Miller Homes development, for the record we are not – as a group we don’t support it either. The Miller homes development may not be justified with the housing numbers we are suggesting which is at the top level of our campaign. So here’s where we have a bit of problem, Yes we oppose any of these developments because of the numbers. However I have recently been contacted by Sue Smith who writes to say the council will be sticking with their housing projections and that’s what has been sent to the Secretary of State. That does not mean we should give in about proving them wrong, it does mean that we WILL be fighting developments at BAN5 and BAN2 as CDC are adamant their numbers are correct.

So we come down a level, to the boundary issue, again in the correspondence off Sue Smith she has confirmed that CDC have never guaranteed the boundary won’t be built upon or past, again this is not to say they are correct but this is what they have submitted to the Secretary of State.

We have to come down yet another level fighting the developers at BAN5 and BAN2, this is where Miller Homes has the potential to help us. I won’t lie it’s a bit of gamble and one I can’t take on behalf of everyone. The strategy being that if we support the Miller homes build we can argue that we don’t need Persimmon or Amber houses.
NOW the tricky decision, the risk being that if we support Miller homes and that gets the green light then we could actually get all of the developments including Persimmon and Amber.

Therefore I will put TWO letters on the site for people to either agree with the development or oppose the development, that decision will be down to you.

>Support Miller Homes

>Object Miller Homes

By Blocking all developments we could be considered NIMBY’s. I can assure you we are not. As I’ve always said we understand the need for more housing. We just don’t agree with the reason, the numbers, the locations or the demand. The whole local plan is a joke and the council show no interest in listening to the residents of Hanwell Fields, Banbury or the whole of Cherwell. This group was formed because housing to the North of Banbury does not make any sense. Please refer to why we oppose these plans to see all of our reasons.

Looking at the council website their are a number of people that are not part of HFDAG from other areas near to the Miller Homes site who are objecting to these plans on the grounds of increased traffic on the Warwick Road. If I could be so bold and ask them why they think the development on Warwick Road, roughly 100 yards further North but on the opposite side of the road would not have an impact on the traffic to Warwick Road. Given that it is for more houses.So why are they not opposing that development ?

Miller Homes – Objection

Banbury Local Plan, Cherwell Council, Cherwell District Council, HFDAG, Miller Homes

    13/00656/OUT
    Dear Tracey Morrissey

    I am writing to OBJECT to this application.
    An increase in traffic down Dukes Meadow Drive and Warwick Road is unacceptable. The demand for housing is not as great as the council propose, please review your housing numbers. This will have a detrimental effect on the landscape and wildlife in the area. Please develop on Brown sites as a matter of urgency over green field sites.
    Primary school education is already full to capacity and with no school provision this development will further contribute to this problem.

    Regards

    Your Name (required)

    Address 1

    Address 2

    Town

    Postcode

    Your Email (required)

    Enter the answer below

    Miller Homes – Support

    Banbury Local Plan, Cherwell Council, Cherwell District Council, HFDAG, Miller Homes

      13/00656/OUT
      Dear Tracey Morrissey

      I am writing to SUPPORT this application. The location of this development will support and enhance the Northern Boundary of Dukes Meadow Drive and is the preferred location over housing to the North of Hanwell Fields. Furthermore the proposed placement of this development will provide better traffic integration on the Warwick Road and potentially lessen the impact of traffic at the Southam Road/Hennef Way island.
      These plans are well thought out and detailed unlike any plans for North of Hanwell Fields. The provision of facilities for an ageing population should be encouraged. The proximity to the academy school is positive. This site should be included in the Local Plan.

      I would like to see a number of requirements included before a decision is made.
      A. Traffic calming between Warwick Road/Dukes Meadow Drive island and Dukes Meadow Drive/Usher Drive island.
      B. Road access from the proposed development on to the Hardwick island on Warwick Road. (I fail to see why a protected tree has more rights than I do over allowing access to this road island) By allowing access off this island better public transport provision could not only be provided to this development but extending the current Hardwick bus route could then include Hanwell Fields.

      Regards

      Your Name (required)

      Address 1

      Address 2

      Town

      Postcode

      Your Email (required)

      Enter the answer below

      30th May 2013

      Amber Developments, BAN5, Banbury Local Plan, Cherwell Council, Cherwell District Council, HFDAG, Persimmon Homes

      Brilliant news BAN5 has officially been deferred. The main reason’s are; It was a premature application, meaning it has been submitted during the Local Plan whilst it’s still being considered. The council has the right to defer the decision as they could argue they haven’t agreed the areas in which to build. Only because the submission of the local plan is imminent and out for public consultation are they able to do this. Any other time it would have been accepted. The second reason is the boundary. As we highlighted to them they deferred a similar application to the south, the BAN5 application was identical to the same reasons they gave for rejecting Saltway in November (also including prematurity). According to the press, public pressure made them realise they needed to act and defer the plans.

      However this doesn’t mean it won’t get the go ahead. This is where Antony’s numbers plays a considerable part. As you are aware we are currently trying to prove that CDC have made a big mistake in the planning numbers. IF we can get them to see that we are correct, they may reconfigure their numbers.

      So what next…The local plan has to go to the secretary of state who will appoint a planning inspector. The planning inspector will hold a hearing at CDC offices. I have asked if I can speak to him to put our case forward. He doesn’t have to see me if he doesn’t want to but let’s hope he does. The inspector will look at the plans that CDC have submitted and they will decide if the Local Plan is valid. They could change everything CDC has suggested in terms of numbers and locations or they could agree with them and approve the plan, which in turn will lead to persimmon building on BAN5. However the deferment gives us a bit of time to gather information, prepare to fight further and gain interest.

      I have forwarded on the numbers presentation to other groups around Banbury to get their views but also to see if we can, as a much larger group, encourage the council to reassess these numbers. If the numbers come down then so does the demand for building houses. The problem being the developers read the local plan and see that CDC are suggesting they are short and therefore more housing is needed. The developers all quote the same thing…our houses will help CDC fulfil their housing need.

      Thanks to everyone that submitted a reply to the council, it was only from this pressure that they gave in.

      Following on from the meeting we had with the councillors, they have suggested our numbers are not great enough. I ask you all to encourage people to join the group, we need as many as we can….
      We are looking to start a petition around the estate, which Moira will take lead on. So we are looking for volunteers to help go around Hanwell Fields to get signatures. If anyone can spare just a bit of time to go door to door that would be really helpful. Please email admin@hfdag,org.uk if you can help. I’ll get the sheets printed so don’t worry about that, Moira will liaise.
      We are also looking at putting together a few events to raise awareness of the campaign, more news to follow on that.

      Email the councillors the following letter

      Uncategorized

        Dear Councillors

        On Thursday 16th of May, you are tasked with making a critical decision with very serious implications for the residents of Hanwell Fields, Hanwell Village and quite possibly Wroxton and Drayton.

        You are considering Application 12/01789/OUT.

        We are vehemently opposed to Planning Permission being granted to the Developers on the following grounds.

        • We challenge the need for these houses. We have produced a set of figures which has been passed to the Council, which show a much smaller number of houses needed for the Council to meet its housing provision obligations.
        • The Council has produced its figures using the old South East Plan, which is now superseded by the National Planning Policy Framework. The NPPF requires housing provision to be made on fact based assessment - this figure is now 10,080 houses (calculation based on ONS 2010 figures) and not 16,750 as currently published (old SE Plan). This means Banbury new figure = 3,326 and not 5,954 again as published.
        • We consider any decision made to be premature in the absence of an adopted Local Plan. We are asking primarily for permission to be refused, but at the very least we would expect the decision to be deferred on grounds of "prematurity"
        • The Council-commissioned Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Report clearly identifies this land as being the LEAST suitable of all the sites the Council has marked for development. Moreover, this report goes further and the recommendation for future Management and Maintenance advocates an ENHANCEMENT of the existing informal recreational uses. We are upset and angry that the results of the report will have been totally ignored if planning permission is granted.
        • As part of the Design Brief for Hanwell Fields, the Council itself designated Dukes Meadow drive as the natural northern boundary of Banbury, in order to prevent "urban sprawl". solicitors conducting searches for potential house buyers on Hanwell Fields were given the assurance that the northern side of Dukes Meadow Drive would not be built upon. We do not believe that the Council has sufficient grounds on which to propose breaching this natural northern boundary. Salt Way is not considered by the Council as being suitable for development as it forms a natural southern boundary for Banbury. It is inequitable that the northern boundary be treated any differently. Salt Way was the subject of a Public Enquiry. We demand at least the same fairness applied to the residents of Hanwell Fields, Hanwell Village, Wroxton and Drayton.
        • Planning Permission has already been granted to Bankside. This number of houses 1,090 delivers all of the Council's Housing Provision/Five Year supply and more (infact this one development would deliver 8.86 years - using our fact based figures). We know that the Planning Inspectorate have been advised by Ministers that in the case of any planning appeals, any unimplemented planning permissions should be taken into account. Therefore we ask the Council to take the common sense approach and refuse this Planning Application, unfettered by fear of the Planning Inspectorate.

        Your Name (required)

        Address 1

        Address 2

        Town

        Postcode

        Your Email (required)

        Enter the answer below