Introduction
There were 29 comments received in all to the final consultation to the Neighbourhood Plan. You can read them all for yourself by clicking here.
The majority were supportive of the plan but there were also three sets of objections from developers and various criticisms from Cherwell DC, Oxfordshire CC and from Bloxham School.
Developers
All predictably claim that Bloxham is a highly sustainable village that could accommodate more dwellings and bigger developments than those proposed in the plan
| Response from | Location of proposed development |
|---|---|
| Define for William Davies Ltd | Land to the east of South Newington Rd running back towards the Barford Rd and Bloxham Park estates. |
| Cerda Planning for Cala Homes | Land behind Crabtree Close |
| Gladman | Unknown. |
Cherwell District Council
| CDC Comment | Broadsheet online view |
|---|---|
| The plan needs to be more positive in recognizing the benefits development can bring in terms of revitalizing communities. | With 40% growth in 10 years we are hardly in imminent danger of a becoming a stagnating community! |
| The Plan needs to recognize that the adopted Local Plan is supported by an infrastructure delivery plan appendix 8. | Unfortunately Appendix 8 makes absolutely no mention of Bloxham. Many residents are of the strongly evidenced opinion that CDC seriously underestimates the cumulative infrastructure challenges faced by the village. We seem to be fast becoming a town with village infrastructure and Appendix 8 does absolutely nothing to instill any confidence additional large scale development will secure accompanying infrastructure improvement. |
| The plan should recognize that developer contributions can be sought to mitigate the impact of development on school facilities and infrastructure. The views of the County Council as education authority should be taken into account. | There is no mitigation for Bloxham parents if this developer money is used to create school places other than in Bloxham. This is exactly what will happen because the county council (OCC) – with whom the NP team fully liaised – have said that Bloxham primary school cannot be expanded. Their response to the pre-publication consulatation states,” As Bloxham Primary School is not currently in a situation to expand in an acceptable manner, current plans for additional primary school capacity are focused on the surrounding schools at Hook Norton and Deddington and/or Adderbury.” |
| That requiring 20% of new homes be downsize dwellings easily adaptable for those with decreasing mobility (which was the main request in the NP questionnaire) is a matter of building regulations not planning. | We do not agree and neither does the National Planning Guidelines paragraph: 005 Reference ID: 56-005-20150327 (Revision date: 27 03 2015) Can local planning authorities require accessibility, adaptability and wheelchair standards in new dwellings? The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is clear that local planning authorities should plan to create safe, accessible environments and promote inclusion and community cohesion. This includes buildings and their surrounding spaces. Local planning authorities should take account of evidence that demonstrates a clear need for housing for people with specific housing needs and plan to meet this need. Our questionnaire results provide this evidence! |
| That in some locations and in some schemes it would not be possible to provide car parking on the plot. | Given the present traffic and parking situation in Bloxham doesn’t this indicate that in such cases this is not an appropriate development site then? |
Oxfordshire County Council
The Oxfordshire County Council criticism included:
| OCC view | Broadsheet online view |
|---|---|
| OCC would deem it inappropriate for a neighbourhood plan to stipulate its own specific minimum parking standards | The Plan provides ample evidence that car ownership levels are much higher than normal and – and with looming public transport cuts – that does not look set to decrease. A Neighbourhood Plan is meant to reflect the evidence-based concerns of residents and this is exactly what the NP parking policies attempts to do. |
Bloxham School
The Bloxham School criticism argued that seeking to protect key views in the village – including the visual impact of the cricket field at the entry to the conservation area – puts at risk the economic survival of the school.
| Bloxham School View | Broadsheet online view |
|---|---|
| “Failure to continue improving facilities puts the continuing viability of the school at risk, with the ultimate risk that it would close, as is currently happening with many independent schools.” | To us this statement seems a little disingenuous. The Plan does not prevent development on such land. It merely seeks that it pays proper attention to preserving the visual impact.
Likewise the comments about closure of many public schools are totally at odds with recent Independent Schools Council census publications which use phrases like, “Overwhelmingly, the facts that this Census lays out are of a sector that is performing with resilience and stability (2014) ” and ,” In many respects this is a golden year for independent schools (2015).” |
The Plan will now go to an examiner who will have to decide upon it’s fate!