Category Archives: Cherwell Council

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

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 This plan has been revoked.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

Miller Homes Application

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

    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

      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

      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.

      The presentations from HFDAG meeting with the councillors

      After a successful meeting on the 11th May with some of councillors, I’d just like to thank everyone that attended. I was pleased to see the passion that people put in to their questions. The councillors must realise that we are upset about these developments and that they really need to start to listen.

      As requested please find copies of the presentations that we put forward. Admittedly mine ended up being cut short mostly down to time but also because others had asked similar questions.

      The numbers

      Democratic Deficit

      A full analysis of the meeting with be discussed and then published.

      Press Releases, Meetings and CDC numbers

      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

      BAN2 Updated Plans – Letters from CDC

      Many of you will have received letters in the post today from CDC about changes to the development at Southam Road. It seems that someone, somewhere has engaged their brain and decided that the site would have a detrimental effect on the visual landscape of Banbury and the surrounding area. The numbers for this development have been reduced from the original 880 houses down to 600. The most significant reduction being on the area to the west of Southam Road (bottom of Dukes Meadow Drive) where the number of houses is now 90 from 370. However it I have also seen that Banbury Town Council are supporting this site to encourage the use of traffic calming on Southam Road. I think a few emails to Banbury Town Council may be in order as well !!!

      amended-west-plan-07145243
      April 2013 – Pandora/Rapleys latest plan – Reduced housing number of 370 down to 90

      Latest Press Release’s

      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

      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.