Download DRAFT CORE STRATEGY- Sample detailed response (Word file)                                                               Back

DRAFT CORE STRATEGY : Sample detailed response

NOTE: This sample detailed response has been drafted to cover all the main issues directly relevant to Hanwell village.  You may wish to add further comments of your own. 
This sample response may be modified after the Parish Council has considered its response following the public meeting on 7 April.
It follows the numbered questions set out in the CDC reply form.

PLEASE NOTE: Although the issues and questions set out in the Council’s on-line facility are in exactly the same order as the printed form, you will find that the numbering is slightly different.

CDC DRAFT CORE STRATEGY REPRESENTATION FORM

Question 1
Do you support the following:          YES/NO
Vision   (Section A.3)                   Yes
Spatial Strategy   (Section A.3)      Yes
Strategic Objectives   (Section A.4)   Yes
If you answered no to any of the above, please give your reasoning

Question 2
Do you support the distribution of development across the District?
 (Section A.5.3 )  YES/NO      
 If no, please give your reasoning
Yes

Question 3 Do you support the proposed locations for strategic housing and the reserve allocations? (Sections A.5.2, B1 & B.2)
Proposed Allocations    YES/NO
North West Bicester (NWB1)    Yes
Canalside (BAN1)    Yes
Land west of Bretch Hill (BAN2)   Yes
Land at Bankside (BAN3)    Yes

Reserve Allocations       YES NO
Land at South West Bicester (BIC1 – Reserve)    Yes
Land West of Warwick Road (BAN4)     No
Land North of Hanwell Fields (BAN5)     No
If not please give reasoning:

We object very strongly to the inclusion of sites BAN4 and BAN5 as “Reserve Allocations” as these are in effect now allocated as housing land.
There are serious questions about the commercial viability of redeveloping the Canalside area – desirable though it is in planning terms – and it is very likely that one or both of the “reserve” sites, BAN4 and BAN5, will have to be released by CDC for housebuilding in the next 10 years.  Both would have significant impacts on Hanwell and the character of the surrounding countryside. 
We consider that better options exist to the south of the town which would offer one large site with the potential for better infrastructure and would not lead to coalescence.
Our detailed planning objections are :
Objections to BAN5 North of Hanwell Fields :
1. The principle of development is not acceptable and should be resisted.
2. The site is inherently “unsustainable” and would offer little new infrastructure.
3. The site would have an urbanising impact on the surrounding landscape and the character and appearance of the rural area.
4. The site would erode the “strategic gap” of open countryside.
5. The site would detract from the setting and character of Hanwell village Conservation Area and important listed buildings.
6. The site would adversely affect wildlife habitats including a Bat Roost.
7. The site would adversely affect Hanwell Community Observatory.
8. Hanwell Fields development should be allowed to consolidate as a sustainable and stable community.
9. How is further development north of Hanwell Fields to be resisted?

Objections to Site BAN4 West of Warwick Road:
1. The principle of development is not acceptable and should be resisted.
2. The site is inherently “unsustainable” and would offer little new infrastructure.
3. The site would have an urbanising impact on the surrounding landscape and the character and appearance of the rural area.
4. The site would erode the “strategic gap” of open countryside.
5. The site would detract from the setting and character of Drayton village Conservation Area. 

Question 4 Do you support the principle of reserve sites? (Section B1 &B2)   YES/NO  If not, please give your reasoning
No. 
We are concerned that the two reserve sites identified are in effect allocated at this point because the Canalside site is unlikely to be fully developed over the next 10 years, and there could be huge uncertainties about timing and actual housing capacity.  We would prefer that CDC made firm allocations and its preferred phasing for these sites and, instead of these two smaller “unsustainable” sites at Banbury, allocated a large site to the south of the town which could deliver the required houses and contribute better infrastructure.

Question 5 Do you support the villages identified to accommodate housing in the rural areas? (Section B.3)      YES/NO
If not, please give your reasoning
Yes

Question 6 Do you support the housing numbers distributed to the groups of villages identified (Section B.3)?   YES/NO
If not, please give your reasoning
Yes

Question 7 Do you agree with the approach to be used to determine windfall residential properties within villages (Section B3)?   YES/NO
If not, please give your reasoning
Yes

Question 8 Do you support the policy for meeting affordable housing requirements? (Section A.5.3)   YES/NO
 If not, please give reasoning
Yes

Question 9 Do you support the Council’s approach to rural exception sites? (Section B3)     YES/NO
 If not, please give reasoning
Yes

Question 10 Do you support the proposed locations for strategic employment? (Section A.5.2, B1 & B2)
Bicester          YES/NO
South West Bicester   Yes
North West Bicester   Yes

Banbury           YES/NO
Land west of M40   Yes
If not please give reasoning:

Question 11 Do you support the locations proposed for strategic urban centre allocations? (Section A.5.4, B.1, B.2 & B.3)
Bicester            YES/NO
Land at Bure Place Car Park   Yes
Banbury            YES/NO
Land at Bolton Road    Yes
Land between Castle Quay and Spiceball Leisure Centre   Yes
If not please give reasoning:

Question 12 Do you support the site allocated for the relocation of Banbury United Football Club? (Section B.2)    YES/NO
 If not, please give reasoning
Yes.

Question 13 Do you support the other policies within Draft Core Strategy?  YES/NO
If not, please give reasoning
Yes, in general terms.

Question 14 Do you have any other comments on the Draft Core Strategy? Please continue on a separate sheet if required and attach  
No comments.

Question 15 Do you have any comments on the draft Sustainability Appraisal?
No comments.

 

Please send completed representation forms by 19th April 2010 to:

Planning Policy Team
Cherwell District Council, Bodicote House, Bodicote, Banbury, OX15 4AA

Email: planning.policy@cherwell-dc.gov.uk

Fax: 01295 221856