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 This plan has been revoked.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 CouncilĀ 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


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

  1. Hello, to anyone out there
    Yes it’s sad we’ve lost the ban2 and ban5 battle, and we knew this was a strong possibility; but at least we tried! I do feel strongly that some changes to our council’s planning process are needed.
    At present I have no confidence in public consultation with C.D.C. this would appear to be just a required formality on their part. It took some organising from HFDAGS admin for a meeting with councillors to take place, after which we were just ignored. We have been ill-informed all along by them, this needs to change.

    Regarding S106 negotiations between C.D.C. and developers, shouldn’t these be up for public consultation? i.e do we want another community hall, or playing field?
    I was unable to attend the meeting at Bodicote house on 13th of june. I have watched the video. Probably just as well I didn’t attend, I’m sure I’d have been asked to leave! There were councillors attending who knew what they were talking about (Cllr. Reynolds) for example; but they were ignored. There were councillors attending who didn’t know they were talking about, but voted anyway! My general feeling was that the planning meeting was a despicable joke! So If we want to make changes a petition seems to be the way forward.

    I think residents west of Warwick Road could be useful towards numbers, prior to Miller Homes planning submission. They like us, have concerns with traffic congestion. Other groups like Deddington and Bloxham would help in gaining numbers.
    Lastly, Amber Developments 160 house’s (yet to be submitted) on the field opposite Winter Gardens Way, needs to be stopped!! There’s absolutely no need for any more homes now!! We have to prove how important this small field is to so many of us, dog walkers and families enjoying a stroll. (it would be a small token gesture on CDC’s part to refuse this application). We need a petition to save this field too! Maybe people who previously have been reluctant to offer support might have a change of heart regarding saving this field especially if they were made aware that we haven’t lost it yet?
    Therefore two separate petitions could be the answer!

Leave a Reply