next »

I just wanted to alert people to a planning application, 11/00114/F, which affects the historic conservation core of our village. I am sure people will have their own views on this - we lived in this property for four years, between 2005 and 2009 - and I have put together some information at:

http://savewincote.org

Some people are having problems using the Cherwell website to view documents. We have posted copies of some of the plans on our own site. This also includes a much higher-quality version of the 84-page "Design and Access Statement" (which is not available on the Cherwell site). That is the key document to read, and includes all the requisite plans.

http://savewincote.org/proposal.html


Viewers will also find ananimated site plan, showing the "before" and "after" layouts, in comparison with the sizes of the neighbouring properties:

http://savewincote.org/discussion.html

Thanks, David, for alerting us to this. (I'm glad somebody did!)
And thanks too for your excellent website.
I've read the planning documentation, along with the various objections already lodged with the District Council.
I've added a further objection on behalf of Jenny and myself.
The proposed development looks singularly inappropriate for a village conservation area,
and the disruption caused by such a lengthy building project a potential nightmare.
Without wishing to imply any lack of good faith, it is very hard indeed to believe that such a grandiose
development is intended, in the long term, as a family home.
Do we know if the Parish Council has taken a view on the proposal one way or the other
- or our District Councilors for that matter, as they will presumably have a vote on the matter atb some stage?

Peter,

The parish council's job is to serve the interests of the residents of the village - but are they really doing so? I have yet to speak to a single resident (i.e. one who isn't on the parish council) who feels anything other than disbelief and disgust that the parish council aren't fighting this monstrous proposal tooth and nail on behalf of the village.

And I cannot get a straight answer out of the parish council.

Everyone I speak to, also, cannot believe that this development hasn't been thrown out by the planning department in limine: it's totally out of character for the village and especially for its heritage setting, it's vastly too big and overpowering for its setting, and basically it's a rich and powerful city firm trying to impose its wishes on the village against the wishes of the people actually living here.

This is supposed to be a conservation area. If developers, and the district council, can ride roughshod over the whole concept of conservation areas, why not pull down the church and build a 20-storey block of flats in its place?

Family home? Really? "A" (in the singular) residential property? Really? It looks like SIX residential properties to me, each one (!) with its own 'contemplation pool' and parking for 2 cars per property. In the sane world, this is called SIX residential properties, and looks remarkably like a commercial development.

Is there a lawyer in the village who could advise on whether this apparent discrepancy (6 vs. "1") makes the application itself, and the district council's planning notice, legally flawed?

Has anyone worked out how many mature trees will have to be felled - in a conservation area - to build this monstrosity?

I am told that the Oxford Times will be sending someone round tomorrow (Monday 11th) at 11:00 am to talk to people - can as many of you as possible meet at the corner of Cow Lane at 10:40 am?

Sorry, David, I cannot get any of your links to work in any browser on any computer with either of my two quite separate ISPs...

Sorry, David, I cannot get any of your links to work in any browser on any computer with either of my two quite separate ISPs...

Thanks for the note, Yoni, and sorry to hear that you have had problems. I've checked the site and it does seems to be working now - perhaps there was a connectivity problem earlier?

- If you could please try again, and let me know (you can contact us directly by e-mailing info@savewincote.org).

- Also, it would be useful to know what web browsers and operating system(s) you are using please. The site is set up using open standards (unlike the Cherwell site, which requires specific versions of Internet Explorer), and has been tested using Safari (Mac OS, iOS), Firefox and Internet Explorer (Windows XP and Windows 7).

Thanks for phoning me, David. All sorted.

Just occurred to me: there may be people who don't realise that if the URL is savewincote.org, you don't put www. before it (I did know that, this wasn't the issue!).

(I am talking about the cards.)

Thanks, Yoni - but actually it doesn't matter how you enter the URL, either will do:
http://savewincote.org
or
http://www.savewincote.org

Oh, right.

I am trying to view the objections so far. The first one showing on my screen is Julia Joyce (two from her??). When I highlight it and click View, nothing happens.

Having just read through the posts on this application I would like to clarify some of the comments on the Parish Council's role, but first to let you know that there will be an Open Public Meeting, arranged by the Parish Council, on Tuesday 19th. July at 7.30p.m. in the Village Hall. I'm sure that the website will put notice of this elsewhere on the site too.  The purpose of this meeting is to give the public, yourselves, a chance to air your views on the applications, (in fact there are two, a demolition application and a full application for a new build). The applicant has asked  if he can be present, and I think it is only democratic to allow him a short time to present his plans. He will of course then be there to  reply to your questions and concerns.

The Parish Council has asked for and been granted an extension to the consultation period for this application and also asked that  it  go to Committee rather than be a Delegated  decision, which means the planning officers will not themselves decide the outcome but it will go to the Planning Committee made up of District Councillors for a decision.  This too has been agreed and I understand from the Planning Officer that it will probably not go to Committee until September. That gives everyone much longer to get their comments in to CDC.

The PC first knew of this application when it arrived with the Parish Clerk on 23rd. June. Contrary to conspiracy theory we were not aware of it before then. When an application arrives with the PC we have (usually) 21 days to respond. We are able to object, to register no objection and /or to make comments. If we wish to object we have to back those objections with proper planning reasons and quote relevant planning policies. Our comments can range much wider than that and things like possible noise and disturbance can be commented on.   We can also ask for conditions to be applied, should the application be granted. Whether our response has any effect on CDC's decision making we sometimes wonder but we try to respond in a proper and professional manner which should carry some weight.

The PC will not make its joint decision until our PC meeting on 25th. July which gives us time to listen to village views on the application and read all the documents, evidence, objections etc. relating to the application. Also to look at the site and assess the potential impact such a development would have both on the near neighbours, on the Conservation Area and on the Area of High Landscape Value which is the Cherwell Valley.  We have deliberately not made our personal opinions known, which probably results in Yoni 'not getting a straight answer out of the Parish Council' but the time to do that is at the PC meeting where we agree our response, and by then we will have had full opportunity to hear the views of the village.

I hope this clarifies the PC's role, at present we are busy listening!
.

[in its present form]

OK, the application appears to have been withdrawn in its present form, BUT will be submitted again in modified form.
We need to guard against a slightly tweaked application, which is highly likely to be the developer's approach, and the attempt to win the planners over by presenting this as the result of 'listening to the people and learning lessons'(TM).
As said by one of the objectors, tweaking won't cut it as far as the conservation area is concerned.
I hope that Steeple Aston residents will object with the same vigour displayed thus far to any such tweaked application. What can we do to make this happen?