Tag Archives: hanwell fields

Latest plans for BAN5 – Dongers Land

Davidsons Developments have submitted plans for the land opposite Winter Gardens Way right through to Warwick Road. All that can be said is ‘what a load of crap’

Click to enlarge

If you enlarge the image and take a close look you will see that a number of the houses have the main entrance open on to a new path that will run right on the edge of Dukes Meadow Drive.  As residents of Hanwell Fields we all know the issues regarding parking. These plans will only encourage people to park on DMD out the front of their house.

The design and layout of the plans is not in keeping with current design and layout of Hanwell Fields. Nowhere along DMD do houses have main entrances open straight on to the edge of the main road. There is at least a 4m verge. These plans are dangerous and inconsiderate .
If you wish to object to them then please email planning@cherwell-dc.gov.uk

Bellway Homes Event – BAN2 (east)

There is an event booked at the Hanwell Fields Community Centre by Bellway homes to present a vision of their plans for East of Southam Road (Motorway side).
Bellway have a reputation for building ‘Affordable’ homes at the cheaper end of the market, with some pretty bad reviews (search google)

The event is on Friday 14th November from 3pm – 7pm at the HF community centre.

Let’s hope they bother to note the feedback given, unlike the devious bastards at Frampton’s (Amber developments) who in their reports claim there was only positive feedback to their plans.


Miller Homes has been refused

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.

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


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.

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

    Your Name (required)

    Address 1

    Address 2



    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.

    Amber Development 160 houses

    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


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


    Miller Homes Proposed Developments

    Antony, Maggie and I went to see the MIller homes exhibition at the town hall on Friday. They are proposing 300 homes on the land of West of Warwick Road. It was really quite informative, and their proposal has certainly been well thought out. We have a few minor issues with it, but overall I think we should support this proposal even though it is not listed on the Cherwell Local Plan. Firstly this site is slightly more sustainable than BAN5 and definitely more than BAN2. Secondly it would further enforce Dukes Meadow Drive (DMD) as the Northern Boundary. More Importantly It highlights our concerns with the council not assessing proposed sites around the town on equal terms.


    For instance, there is a site planned for Bretch Hill (BAN3) which is to the West of Banbury and directly below this Miller site, yet the council is saying the Miller site breaches the Western Boundary, yet the Bretch Hill one doesn’t, If you notice on the map it is actually more Westerly than the Miller site. Furthermore CDC are saying the Miller Site will have impact upon the Drayton Conservation Area (marked in green)…Whooaa hang on a minute the proposed Bretch Hill site has a much greater impact on it.
    I’m really beginning to think CDC have published the wrong map in the Local Plan, they must have used the map where developments shouldn’t happen.

    What most impressed us was the very fact that they had thought about the plans and done their research. When asked about schooling and education, they could answer with certainty, they have already had a meeting with the Academy school. It transpires that the school is looking to expand within the next 5 years to integrate a primary school and nursery. At the recent Persimmon exhibition they just shrugged their shoulders and said we’d throw some money at the Hanwell Fields Primary school.

    Our biggest concern with this development would be traffic down Dukes Meadow Drive to gain access to the town and Motorway. The suggestion was we can propose solutions to them…traffic calming etc etc, Our preferred solution would be to use access on the Hardwick Island, but an issue with tree conservation is preventing that. In the big scheme of things cutting down a few trees would resolve this and would certainly reduce traffic down DMD.

    The thing that struck me the most was their attitude, they didn’t come across as money grabbers and seemed concerned about the welfare of Hanwell Fields residents as much as their own. It was almost you help us and we’ll help you. None of the other developers were like that. Who’s to say if that will be true, but at least it seemed sincere.

    There are plans for allotments which would be useful for those that wish to grow their own, I know a number of members already have one around the area. I really don’t think we need any more sports pitches.

    I’d like to ask you all if you could fill in the feedback form on their website to help support it but mention the issue with traffic on DMD. The more people we can get to fill in this form the greater the chance this development happens rather than the 2 we are fighting.
    [Miller Homes Feedback Form]

    I would also encourage you all to visit their site and have a look at the plans
    [Miller Homes Website]