Category Archives: Uncategorized

Canalside development information

CanalSide_development [click to view pdf]

Some information about the canalside development that CDC would like to implement. After various reports and looking back through old documents, canalside has been proposed from at least 2004 and even as far back as 1996. It is planned to housing, retail and commercial use.

Why’s it on here…what’s the impact going to be on Southam road?
Which in turn will impact Dukes Meadow Drive.

Amber Development Plans

Here are the plans that have been submitted from Framptons of Banbury for the Amber Development. For those that remember their exhibition in the community centre apparently only 12 people gave feedback. I think they’ve made this up. I have included this as well. It’s a joke really.

The housing plan – Amber _160houses_ plan_07425909
Footpaths and Connections – amber_footpaths_connections_07425918
The feedback from the exhibition – amber_framptons_feedback_07425269
Trees and green space – Amber_green_plan_07425910

All of the councillors email addresses

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

Email the councillors the following letter

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

Send a letter to object to the Persimmon Homes plan for 350 homes North of Hanwell Fields

Your Name (required)

Address 1

Address 2

Town

Postcode

Your Email (required)

Enter the answer below

To send the following letter to Cherwell Council to object to the Persimmon Plan simply fill in your details and press send.

Dear Jane Dunkin

Ref: 12/01789/OUT

I strongly OBJECT to these plans. They breach the councils original requirement for the development of Hanwell Fields that was agreed by the developers at the time of building. Furthermore and for this reason 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. Cherwell Council have fought this development once before, it went to appeal and lost. Nothing has changed from that previous attempt.
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.

The proposed height of the buildings by persimmon implies condensed, overbearing and claustrophobic living. We have a right to green, open space, by allowing this development infringes that right. I object to the spoiling of a perfectly good environmental landscape to be replaced by urban sprawl.

The visual 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 other areas of Banbury have been granted permission to develop housing for nearly 5 years and yet not One brick has been laid.

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.

The site is unsustainable as it is too far from many aspects of Banbury, and 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.

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.

These plans will be rejected if common sense prevails.

Alternative Sites

We have started to compile a list of alternative sites based on the recommendations of Tony Baldry, he said that we should seek these sites to remove focus on the areas to the North of Banbury. We are not particularly happy about doing this as it will only pass the issues to another area. However, that is what we are doing.

BAN5 Distance to
Primary School 1.7km
Comprehensive Sch 1.5km
Local Shop 1.7km
Employment area 2.3km
Supermarket 3.6km (Tesco)
Doctors 2.1km (part-time)
Dentist 1.7km
Hospital 4.9km
SALTWAY Distance to
Primary School 1.3km
Comprehensive Sch 0.7km
Local Shop 2.0km
Employment 1.0km (CDC HQ)
Supermarket 1.17km (Sainsburys)
Doctors 2.8km
Dentist 2.4km
Hospital 2.9km

According to the Draft Local Plan the top 3 employers in Banbury are

  1. The Horton Hospital
  2. Kraft General Foods
  3. Cherwell District Council

2 of these 3 sites are easily within walking distance of Saltway. There are shops and schools closer to this area. Both the North and the South of Banbury have 2 artillery roads connecting the site. North has Southam Road and Warwick Road, Whilst the South has Oxford Road and the Bloxham Road. All are major roadways in to Banbury. According to the local plan a further connecting road is to be built that will connect Bankside to Thorpe Road so this adds to the sustainability of Saltway.
Some would say that Saltway needs to be protected as it’s an ancient walkway. BAN5 has 2.

Our biggest concern is the biased views of the council and why they seem content on destroying the North of Banbury but not the South. Why have none the site been assessed on equal terms. If this were the case then Saltway and West of Warwick Road would both be on the Local Plan. As yet this council can not prove it has approached these site allocations in a fair, honest and open way.

Come and meet your neighbourhood policing team

Slightly off topic I know, but I offered to spread the word for them. After all we are trying to make Hanwell Fields a better place to live.

You can come and meet the local police team and tell them about issues that matter most to you (I wonder if they know anything about planning). Where and When….Wednesday 21st November – 7pm till 8.30pm, down at the shops by the purplemango, the pub, community centre. etc. etc.
Don’t forget to leave a light on whilst out 😉