Category Archives: CDC Localism Act

Press Releases, Meetings and CDC numbers

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

Things are picking up a pace, Cherwell Council are sticking to this ludicrous idea of planning numbers by insisting the local plan is based on the old, out of date SE plan. This actually says a whole lot more about the council as much as their policy. They are infact the ones that are out of date. What we want to see is a clearly defined local plan that CDC can say with validity has been produced using the right methods, with the right skills for the right reasons.
As we have said time and time again the latest NPPF does not require such a number of houses over such a period of time. Using the NPPF, as they should, CDC only need to produce a small local plan which shows Bankside and Canalside. (these site constitute 12.6 years worth of housing). Our Latest Press Releases say it all.

We are arranging a meeting with the CDC councillors, we are planning for May 11th, 3pm at the Hanwell Fields Community Centre. If you are interested in attending then please contact admin via the contact page

Latest Press Release’s

Amber Developments, BAN2, BAN5, Banbury Local Plan, CDC Localism Act, Cherwell Council, Cherwell District Council, HFDAG, Housing, Localism Act, Miller Homes, Persimmon Homes, Rapleys

HFDAG Press Release 122 – Impact of proposed developments on North Banbury
Press Release 122

HFDAG Press Release 121 – Cherwell housing plans are still wrong
Press Release 121

HFDAG Press Release 120 – The worst planning application yet, “Land Grabs”
Press Release 120

HFDAG Press Release 119 – Letter of objection sent to Cherwell District Council, January 2013 North Hanwell Fields proposed development (BAN2)
Press Release 119

The revised Local Plan has been published

BAN2, BAN5, Banbury Local Plan, CDC Localism Act, Cherwell Council, Cherwell District Council, HFDAG, Localism Act

CDC have just published the revised Local Plan for public consultation. This is the last step before it is presented to the Secretary of State for final decision. Given the coalitions stance on housing and development this more likely to be passed without any consideration on what we believe to be acceptable. So much for the Localism Act.

The revised plan has basically ignored all our concerns. The only minor change I can see is they are proposing a reduction of housing on the land to the west of southam road. Currently from 300 down to 90. However the number for north of hanwell fields (BAN5) has increased from 400 to 500.  Everything else is still on the cards.

I just need to point out that I have not completely read all the documentation as there are a number of documents many of which are 300 pages each. So please bear with me.

The only thing that is slightly to our advantage is the local county council elections are coming up. Perhaps we should send a message to our councillors that they really need to start listening to us or they will no longer be councillors. The thing that I’m most concerned with is – who or what lets these out of touch idiots make such decisions about the direction and the structure (both physically and socially) of Banbury. We have a chief exec from a different council, we have a council leader and the head of planning committee who both live outside the district, how can they possibly have our best interests in mind.

The attraction for people to move to Banbury is the rural market town that it presents itself as. It is not a sprawl of urban defecation that many people want to avoid and yet this council is determined to change the very fabric that makes this town so appealing and turn in to excatly that. They should be ashamed to be our local councillors.

Send a letter to oppose the developments on Southam Road (BAN2)

BAN2, Banbury Local Plan, CDC Localism Act, Cherwell Council, Cherwell District Council, HFDAG, Rapleys

To send a letter this letter to Cherwell District Council to oppose the development of 880 houses around Southam Road simply fill in a few details and press send

    Dear Tracey Morrissey

    Ref: 13/00158/OUT & 13/00159/OUT

    I strongly OBJECT to these plans. They breach the councils original agreement for the development of Hanwell Fields that were implemented by the developers at the time of building.
    The Hanwell Fields design brief 2007 stipulated the following:
    “P2. point 1.3.1 Location.
    The land allocated for development at Hanwell Fields is located on the northern extremity of Banbury and will form the new urban edge to this side of town. The objective is to create an urban form and new urban edge which appears organic in character, relating to land form and local colour and therefore specifically distinctive as Banbury”

    “P2. point 1.3.2 Prospect.
    The topography of the site affords extensive views generally northerly over the Area of High Landscape Value. From the proposed westerly neighbourhood park a 270 degree panorama may be enjoyed. Development should be located so as to enable as many people as possible enjoy these views.”

    My house was purchased on the strong understanding that the Northern Boundary of Dukes Meadow Drive would not be built upon. This countryside is enjoyed by many people and it is what enticed us to the area in the first place. If these plans persist then we will no longer be an 'edge of town' development as again we have been assured in the past. I have a right to open space. The previous Cherwell plans, Draft Core Strategy 2010, Options for Growth Document 2008 and the Banbury and North Cherwell Site Allocations – Issues and Options 2006 all state this right to open space. By allowing this development infringes that right.
    Cherwell Council should be supporting the principle of the Northern Boundary as they are to the South with developments at Saltway. If this is given the green light then so should the proposed southern developments.

    This site is designated an Area of High Visual Impact, the impact of such prominent housing will have a negative effect on both house prices and saleability in an already declining market. Demand for housing in Cherwell is being grossly over judged by CDC. If such a demand was evident then why are so many houses still for sale in and around Banbury. Many on Hanwell Fields for 12 months or more. Also given that Bankside and Canalside have been granted permission to develop housing for nearly 5 years and yet not one brick has been laid. I object to the spoiling of a perfectly good environmental landscape to be replaced by urban sprawl.

    The site is unsustainable as it is too far from many aspects of Banbury, it encourages car use on what is considered a very over congested route. Allowing this development does not address or indeed fix this problem. There is a distinct lack of infrastructure to support such a number of houses.

    The manner in which this area has been selected has no bearing on the sustainability of the site, there are far better sites to develop housing around Banbury that have been selectively removed from the Cherwell Local Plan, these areas include Land West of Warwick Road and Saltway.

    The Traffic Assessment is out of date and unrealistic. Again the placement of the development only supports a greater dependency on car use.
    The employment listed in the TA document is Pro Drive. A specialist car engineering company, that employs specialist staff. The TA is therefore suggesting that any potential home owners on the development will also just happen to have the specialist skills required to obtain employment at Pro Drive. If they don't, then car use is required. Saltway would have the largest employment catchment area with both the first (Horton Hospital) and third (CDC) largest employers in Banbury within metres of the site and yet it's ignored and not listed on the CDC Local Plan.

    In reality, school pupils will not walk from the Eastern edge of the development to the Academy School on Warwick Road. It is too far, yes I understand their bold and noble view that we must encourage more exercise. However simply look at the traffic congestion at the Hanwell Fields Primary School for guidance on the real world. The primary school location on the planned development encourages car use from parents who won't be living on the estate. Many parents drop the children off at school on the way to work. Children will be dropped off in the lay-by opposite the planned location, whereby they will have to cross a very busy main road. Any accidents on this site will be the responsibility of the developers and the council.

    Hanwell Fields is still un-adopted, as a resident I have not received my full requirement of services. Cherwell Council have had 10 years to sort out this site. I have no confidence in them being able to effectively manage or deliver housing and services any better than the appalling treatment we get now.

    I would like to discuss these plans with the planning inspector or at least have some sort of representation, I have a right to do this. I also have a right to be supported by the council as ultimately they SHOULD have my concerns in mind and represent me and other Hanwell Fields residents and not the developers. It appears the council have collaborated with the developers to try and get this plan pushed through no matter what the implications or the thoughts of those most affected.

    Regards

    Your Name (required)

    Address 1

    Address 2

    Town

    Postcode

    Your Email (required)

    Enter the answer below

    Just to prove we are not scaremongering…

    BAN2, BAN5, Banbury Local Plan, CDC Localism Act, Cherwell Council, Cherwell District Council, HFDAG, Housing, Persimmon Homes

    I know I don’t have to, but this just proves how we are right with our facts, and that we are not scaremongering as we have been accused.

    This is an extract from the official Thames Valley Police response to the Persimmon Developments.

    Directly related to the proposed development
    There is a functional link between the new development and the contributions requested. Put simply without the development taking place and the subsequent population growth there would be no requirement for the additional infrastructure. The additional population growth will lead to an increase in incidents, which will require a Police response.

    The infrastructure identified above has been specifically identified as infrastructure required to deal with the likely form, scale and intensity of incidents that the development will generate.

    The Police are also requesting money for ANPR cameras, Remote IT facilities and Bicycles to provide adequate policing for the area.

    Amber Development 160 houses

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

    Here are the proposed plans by Amber Developments for 160 (max) properties to be built, in conjunction with the 350 planned by Persimmon in the fields next to this area. This is worse than first proposed which was 400 homes on the BAN5 site. Instead we are now looking at a possible total of 510 houses. Click the image below for a more detailed view

    Amber_master_plan

    To view all of the Amber Developments / Framptons Exhibition boards please click here

     

    14th Jan 160 houses on BAN5 Exhibition

    BAN5, Banbury Local Plan, CDC Localism Act, Cherwell Council, HFDAG, Housing

    Just to remind everyone that an exhibition of planned houses for BAN5 area takes place today at the Hanwell Fields Community Centre between 2pm and 8pm
    According to the press, they are looking to merge this development with the proposed Persimmon Development (350 Houses)
    Framptons – the planning consultants are looking for feedback about their plans, so please go and tell them.

    Localism Act

    Banbury Local Plan, CDC Localism Act, HFDAG

    Under Dave’s coalition government one of the first policies they conceived was the ‘BIG SOCIETY’ part of this idea was to give a greater freedom, influence and decision to local communities. This became realility with the Localism Act.

    Extracts worth noting

    “Early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with neighbourhoods, local organisations and businesses is essential. A wide section of the community should be proactively engaged, so that Local Plans, as far as possible, reflect a collective vision and a set of agreed priorities for the sustainable development of the area, including those contained in any neighbourhood plans that have been made”.

     

    “Instead of local people being told what to do, the Government thinks that local  communities should have genuine opportunities to influence the future of the  places where they live. The Act introduces a new right for communities to draw  up a neighbourhood plan.

    Neighbourhood planning will allow communities, both residents, employees  and business, to come together through a local parish council or  neighbourhood forum and say where they think new houses, businesses and  shops should go – and what they should look like.

    These plans can be very simple and concise, or go into considerable detail where people want. Local communities will be able to use neighbourhood planning to grant full or outline planning permission in areas where they most want to see new homes and businesses, making it easier and quicker for development to go ahead.

    Provided a neighbourhood development plan or order is in line with national planning policy, with the strategic vision for the wider area set by the local authority, and with other legal requirements, local people will be able to vote on it in a referendum. If the plan is approved by a majority of those who vote, then the local authority will bring it into force.

    Local planning authorities will be required to provide technical advice and support as neighbourhoods draw up their proposals. The Government is funding sources of help and advice for communities”.

    For a quick guide please view
    http://communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/1896534.pdf