The consultation period for the Bloxham Neighbourhood Plan is now closed except to those who formally agreed an extension.
Here’s a simple summary
| Policy | Simplified Policy Statements |
|---|---|
| HN1 | Accommodate a further 20 dwellings in the plan period in addition to existing permissions. |
| HN2 | Accept only minor developments and appropriate infill – not large estates. |
| HN3 | Schedule most development to take place after 2025. |
| HR1 | Developments should make a positive contribution to the rural character of the village. |
| HR2 | Be in keeping with neighbouring properties and the village in general in terms of materials, style, scale, separation and character. |
| HR3 | Lean towards rural, not urban in respect of gardens, hedgerows, trees and soft-boundaries . |
| HR4 | Avoid development of gardens and retain a generous allocation of open green space. |
| HR5 | Lighting should convey a rural feel that avoids light pollution especially towards the village periphery. |
| HR6 | Avoid significant adverse effects upon existing residents re. privacy, noise and light pollution etc. |
| HA1 | Affordable housing – give preference to those with a strong parish connection in perpetuity. |
| HA2 | Encourage high-quality, non-estate houses and bungalows sufficiently attractive to meet the needs of households who may wish to downsize. |
| HA3 | New housing to offer adequate parking on the property not in distant parking courts or on-street. |
| HA4 | Require all developments of 5 or more dwellings to include some open-market homes easily adaptable to the needs of the elderly or disabled. |
| HC1 | Areas subject to either fluvial or run-off flooding shall be avoided whilst less vulnerable alternatives are available. |
| HC2 | All developments should have site-specific flood risk assessment and adopt sustainable drainage systems wherever appropriate. |
| HC3 | Developments using pumped drainage systems should be designed to avoid property flooding in the event of temporary local drainage system failure. |
| HC4 | Housing shall be designed to high levels of water efficiency. |
| HC5 | Housing shall be energy efficient with low on-site CO2 emissions. |
| HT1 | Development that can demonstrate its location and design will not significantly exacerbate traffic congestion at the village centre or other traffic hot-spots. |
| ELW1 | Encourage appropriate live-work development having both living and small-scale employment space. |
| ELW2 | All new live-work development shall provide ducting to enable more than one broadband provider. |
| EBA1 | Support appropriate small-scale new build or of existing employment space for business. |
| EEL1 | Land used for employment shall be retained for employment unless it can be convincingly demonstrated use for employment is no longer viable. |
| ERF | Additional or expanded retail in the High Street and Church Street should seek to mitigate the impact of additional on-street parking. |
| EDC | Additional mobile phone equipment will be supported where concern is shown to minimise the impact upon the character of the village. |
| CT1 | Design an environment that improves linkages between residential areas and services and facilities. |
| CT2 | Schedule development after 2025 to reduce the likelihood of primary aged pupils having to travel to schools outside of the village. |
| CT3 | Protect rights of way and take opportunities to improve general village footpath connectivity. |
| CR1 | Support proposals for a Warriner – Community joint-use recreation facility on Grove Rd. |
| CR2 | Support the moderate upgrading / extension of the Jubilee Hall. |
| CS1 | Protect certain areas by giving them “green-belt” type status: these to include:
|
Full copy of the Neighbourhood Plan |
|
|---|---|
| Will contain detailed policies and context | You can download that by clicking here. |
Here is what some others have had to say .
| Your comments | |
| 1 | HR1, 2,3,4,5,6 – this is a historical, rural village and houses should be built with that design in mind – not the cheap-looking red brick, devoid of any character. The village also has a great sense of community spirit – with people always greeting each other and taking an avid interest in social events. With (almost gated) communities being set up in the new builds, can this be guaranteed to continue? And if we are expected to accommodate these new builds, are we, in turn, going to be given the funds required, to extend our current facilities i.e schools, dentist, doctors etc.ERF – Bloxham High Street needs to be organised and now! I am surprised we have not a fatality on that road with people pulling in and out of a very over-stretched parking lot, on to a very, busy main road – we need more off road parking – or (sorry for sarcasm!) as we are only a small village – people could just walk!CR1 – Yes, Yes and Yes!CR2 – Yes, Yes and Yes!CS1 – Yes, Yes and Yes! |
| 2 | All policies except HN2 and HN3 strongly supported, especially those conserving green spaces and requiring that housing development conform to the neighbourhood plan. |
| 3 | I agree to all the 31 policy statements |
| 4 | Page 17 Provision for safe low – carbon travel. section c the road footpaths are not safe in parts of the village I feel that this should be reviewed as traffic levels increase and kept under review.The preservation of green spaces should be agreed subject to Villagers having access to such places. |
| 5 | Bloxham School has shown itself to be a responsible guardian of the village for more than 100 years. They should be trusted to make decisions in the interest of the school and the village and not be constrained by inflexible land designations on their playing fields which would limit their flexibility to ensure the continuing success of the school and the jobs they provide. |
| 6 | We have been made aware that the neighbourhood plan has designated two areas of land belonging to Bloxham School being Main Field off Strawberry Terrace and Second Field on Courtington Lane as Local Green Spaces. I must stress that we, in our village of Tysoe, are going through the same process to protect ourselves from overzealous developers spoiling our villages but we must be careful that we protect the areas of land for the correct reasons without harming our local businesses and economy. It is fine to say you do not wish the school to sell the land for housing but to have it designated as Local Green Spaces a totally different scenario which I don’t think you have considered properly. I would ask that you consider if this where to happen the school would not be able to expand its facilities if required on its main campus which could damage the business. How would pupils move around if class rooms where built elsewhere, there is an issue of safety and long term business strategy to consider if where to happen and ultimately businesses which are held back by geography always move in the end. |
| 7 | Bloxham has seen frenetic growth in recent years and still has 225 extant housing permissions that will be fulfilled during the period of this policy. Elements of the physical infrastructure are “creaking” with water, electricity, traffic and especially primary school capacity all creating real issues that local planners seem either not to know or care about. By providing a breathing space for consolidation of recent and extant developments this plan represents a sensible way forward that will still see Bloxham one of the fastest growing villages in the district. |
| 8 | In principle I have no objection to the expansion of house building in Bloxham. However, I am concerned that the amenities supporting a growing population are increased or put in place before such expansion – in particular the surgery, schools, footpaths and roads. The village already often becomes grid locked with traffic and many pavements and roads are not sufficient or wide enough to safely accommodate current pedestrians, cyclists and drivers. There need to be additional pedestrian crossings and traffic calming measures, particularly on the Milton and Barford Roads, as I fear greatly for children and parents currently (let alone additional numbers in the future) walking to school and shops from these areas. Who will bear responsibility for future deaths occurring on these roads? Has a bye-pass been considered? Surely a Health & Safety review would have to freeze all future development until appropriate remedial action was taken. |
| 9 | HN HA HT – Agreed. The village has often been treated as ‘open plan’ by developers over the past several years. and is hopelessly over-developed for its facilities. Also little if any of the 225 houses for which permission has been given are compliant with local requirements.HC – Agreed. Current developments and the 225 outstanding permissions are not compliant with these requirements.CR CS – Compliance with these is essential. Existing and planned developmemnts are extraordinarily dense by rural standards, have or will overbuild large tracts of former rural landscape surrounding the village meaning that the remaining open areas must be preserved. |
| 10 | I fully support the themes and objectives of this plan. In particular ensuring that the housing needs of the community are delivered in accordance with the evidential data obtained from the consultations and residents opinions expressed in the questionnaires. We must ensure that Policy HN is fully complied with in every respect. |
| 11 | I strongly support the main thrust of the plan – I think it captures the major needs of Bloxham and the preferences of the community. It also recognises the part we have to play in the wider Cherwell plan and most importantly acknowledges the contributions Bloxham has already made. However we need greater support from Cherwell and Oxfordshire to address the ongoing challenges of traffic, school numbers & infrastructure. |
| 12 | “The thing I am hearing time and time again is – ” “It’s such a shame about Bloxham”. Or “what they are doing to Bloxham is terrible….”. I used to believe you have to have tolerance for change. Yes a reasonable amount of new housing in every village and town area, but Bloxham does appear to be shouldering the brunt in this area along with Hook Norton to a degree. I spoke to the headmaster at the local Primary School and he has told me they are at capacity already – let alone the 2025 as you speculate in your plane. The traffic has already considerably increased in the 9 years since we have lived here and how someone hasn’t been mowed down near the Co Op is a miracle. I recently met one of the planners at Taylor Wimpy by pure accident. This is what he said. “Ahh Bloxham, I don’t feel good about this one, what they are doing to Bloxham is terrible, the reason why; because Cherwell Council are ineffective and have not got the willpower,or resources to stop developers applications. Especially as government are strong arming every council to accept new housing or be fined. I think the current housing estates on the Milton road are good – they did them well and yes Bloxham can take this expansion. However isn’t it true that Bloxham is a village and should stay a village rather than go supersize or town? I understand a new development application has gone in behind the church? How is the center of this village going to cope I wonder. Has anyone looked into how many houses are being built in Chadlington where Mr Cameron lives. You guessed it zero!” |
| 13 | “It is vital that we protect the rural nature of the village and ensure that residents, current and future, continue to enjoy the features that make us want to live here and which will be threatened unless expansion is controlled. Potential 40% growth between 2005-20131 is massive by anyone’s standards. I fully support the policies outlined in the plan and congratulate the team for undertaking such a mammoth task. |
| 14 | Further to the Health & Safety issues already raised, it must be assumed that the four imminent/pending sites will inject multiple hundreds, if not thousands, of additional daily vehicle movements within the village, with the resultant detrimental impact on pollution levels – even more so with the prospect of increased grid-lock. Have pollution levels been measured/estimated? Furthermore, recent press reports of EU directives specifying that the use of gas as a domestic fuel must be phased out over the next 20 years or so, appear to have been ignored by the developers. Agents for the new Bovis site on the Barford road have advised that these houses will still feature gas as a fuel for central heating and cooking whereas surely they, and all the other new Bloxham developments should now only be marketed as ‘all electric’? – particularly given that this is the usual fueling specification within the many rural communities denied access to mains gas supply. EU proposals also specify that all new cars must soon create zero emissions – i.e. be electric or fuel cell powered within an even shorter time scale – so, given the current availability of such vehicles, surely all new homes should be specified now to offer easily accessible charging facilities for at least two of them? I’m prompted to suggest that sooner or later, from a marketing perspective, builders will have to include at least one, perhaps two, new electric vehicles within the price of every home. Certainly this, together with the removal of gas in the home, would help alleviate increased pollution levels, but I have to question why, in light of these plans for the near future, all new homes are not now compulsorily specified as such? It must also be emphasised that the switch to very quiet running electric vehicles gives even greater urgency to the need for the additional pedestrian/cycling safety measures requested in my earlier feedback – indeed more so, given a populace of increasing age and hearing deficiency. Finally, I would submit a plea on behalf of my new neighbours, for greater space being allocated to vehicles within the designs for the new estates. If it wasn’t for many cars being parked on the pavements of my estate, it would be almost impossible to navigate a safe path through – large Refuse and Delivery vehicles already struggle. Again, there have been press reports advising of bans on such parking, but given the inflexibility of alternative modes of transport it is difficult to see a future with anything other than an ever increasing number of vehicles on the road, and thus to be safely parked. Ultimately I have to question whether all those responsible for signing off these new developments have really taken into account their full impact. The rush to build without at least a parallel growth in the infrastructure is surely a case of putting the cart before the horse? |
| 15 | Well done. Happy to support plan that keeps us as a rural village. |
| 16 | Policy HC: It is great to see a neighbourhood plan policy that proactively engages with climate change mitigation – this is quite rare amongst those that have been adopted. The plan also notes in the ‘contextual information’ against this policy that it recommends SuDS even for minor developments – this is a forward-thinking approach as accounts for the cumulative effect on flooding of multiple small-scale developments. |
| 17 | I strongly agree that all of the green spaces below should be protected from any housing or business development. |
| 18 | I have read through the plan and agree with everything that has been included. I can’t think of anything else to add but as a Bloxham resident would like to say thank you for the obvious time and effort that you have put in to this. I read an article in the Banbury guardian this week with regards to a member of the parish council resigning due to his efforts being ignored with the ” bourne ” development and the change of use to the Bell public house. Let’s hope that your plan has more success and get’s listened to. I will say that the development at salt lane is also going to make Bloxham even worse for traffic as cars will only have 2 directions to go, Banbury or Bloxham. |
| 19 | HN – That the 30 dwellings ensure the use of the control of the ponds is clearly defined on the part of the developer. HA – On-site car-parking cannot be reduced by subsequent building permissions to the owner. The C of E Building division has backed a plan to fit all of the C of E’s 16,000 churches with WiFi internet access. Is this of use in any way as part of EOC 2c The primary school also accepts children from Milcombe, South Newington and increases in these villages makes the situation worse and changes must be noted when considering primary school numbers. I totally accept all of your plan. My remarks are of a minor type to try and help in promoting the policies.” |
| 20 | “I would like to communicate my concern about imposition of green space on the ability of Bloxham School to develop its facilities. I am concerned that there is no mention in the report of Bloxham school’s support to the community, for example, in my role as Director of Drama, I have been very pleased to continue to make the Wesley Theatre available for village use for Bloxfest. Furthermore, we have enjoyed welcoming Bloxham primary for regular workshops, alongside having much of the local community attend our most recent school production. Engagement with the local community is very important to us, and we hope the community will also see the benefit of allowing Bloxham School to have the opportunity to develop its facilities appropriately as the school require.” |
| 21 | I fully support the findings and recommendations of the Plan. |
| 22 | As developments are highly likely to increase traffic in the village I believe that for the developments already given the green light, and as a stipulation for any future developments, the developers should be responsible for financing pedestrian crossings for example on the Tadmarton Road near the Primary school. Furthermore, the play areas provided by the developers ought to be more in keeping with a rural setting i.e. nature trails in leafy enclosures with sympathetic wooden play equipment similar to Hook Norton playground, Charlbury etc, as opposed to the token poorly thought out examples at Crabtree close, Aldous Drive etc. Lastly each developer should provide an allotment area with enough allotments to go with each property built. If these are not required by the new owners the allotments can be taken over by locals. |
| 23 | Don’t build behind other peoples back garden. |
| 24 | I wholeheartedly approve of the plan in its entirety. |
| 25 | A vote of thanks must be given to the group for producing such a thorough and well written report. It sets down a structure for the village to support and fight for in the years to come. We may have to accept the arrival of a further 225 homes but it is critical we investigate how our infrastructure can support and gain from the increased population. The range of services offered within the village need to fain from this increased base. It may be that in future children from other villages will be directed to other local primary schools so easing pressure on Bloxham based children. But with much of the increased building taking place on the opposite side of the village to the school I fear car journeys at peak time will increase in the village. As the village expands there is a continuing risk that a village identity will shrink. Even before the recent growth the village lost both its adult football and cricket teams. Such losses erode the feel of community in the village. Consideration needs to be given as to how new communities are brought into the village community. Bloxfest is a good example of a new initiative that strives to do this. Does the village have the drive to recreate that village spirit? I hope so! If not the village will continue to splinter and become increasingly anonymous. |
| 26 | “Thank you for giving us the opportunity to discuss the Bloxham Neighbourhood Plan 2015-2031 on Saturday. I have now read the public consultation draft, dated 28th November 2014, and wish to compliment you on an excellent paper. Your conclusions and recommendations are intelligent, practical and balanced. I understand from our discussions that the overall need for additional houses has been set at 1500 to be shared between 23 Oxfordshire villages. This 1500 requirement is in addition to approved but yet unbuilt houses. The consultation draft under 6. Our Policies, tells me that Bloxham could grow by 275 houses over the period on the basis of your proposed 20 new dwellings, the 30 in current application and the 225 already approved. 2011 Census 1279 Extant Permissions 225 Plan & Applications 50 Total 1554 Total growth 21.5% I believe it would be helpful for future discussions and communications if a full 23 village analysis was created to compare future proposals as they effect Bloxham compared with the other villages. This could cover – Village Name – Current population – Population as a percentage of the total of all the villages – Current house numbers – Extant permission numbers – Plan and application numbers – Total current + extant + plan +application – Total as a percentage as an increase per village – Total as a percentage of total increase for all villages – I understand that decisions will be made taking into account current village services and amenities, but also that some villages will wish to grow significantly to support their case for services and amenity investment. This form of analysis would allow a simple, easy to understand approach to the challenge and could help get a fair decision for Bloxham. It could allow a clear “call to action” which may help unite people and gain supportive media coverage, especially on social media. It is in the character of the British people to wish to see fairness. Wishing you well in your continued consultations and discussions.” |
| 27 | I think it is an extremely good piece of work and I think that the Parish Council and everyone who has been involved with compiling the Neighbourhood Plan deserves to be congratulated. I think the Plan is extremely well laid out and extremely readable. I have the following observations. Firstly, the Bloxham Neighbourhood Plan under planning law is of course sequential to and dependent on Cherwell District Council’s Local Plan being adopted. If I understand the situation correctly, there has already been given planning permission for considerably more houses to be built in Bloxham between 2011 and 2031 than were ever envisaged in Cherwell’s Local Plan and I think that needs to be made clear “in terms” in the Neighbourhood Plan. Secondly, Bloxham Parish is a square, with a sizeable chunk taken out to the south east by the Parish of Milton and I wonder whether it is possible and desirable to include Milton within the Bloxham Neighbourhood Plan because if Milton don’t get round to doing a Neighbourhood Plan of their own, it runs the risk that land on the Milton Road within the Borough of Milton may become vulnerable to planning applications, and although not within the Parish of Bloxham, any further development within the Parish of Milton, will obviously have an impact on Bloxham. Those are my only two substantive points concerning the Plan which I think is an excellent document. I do, however, have another couple of second order points, whilst considering the future of the village. Firstly, the table on page 25 demonstrates how little green space there is in the village. I think given the size now of the village, it would be always worth exploring whether there is other land around the village which could be purchased for open space. Secondly, separately, the village has a number of small halls (ex-Servicemen’s Club, Jubilee Hall, Helen Hind Hall, etc.), but the only public space of any significant size is the Parish Church and I know that the Parish Church is seeking to re-order St. Mary’s to make the space within St. Mary’s much more flexible and usable for the village as a whole and hopefully the Parish Council and the Parochial Church Council can work closely on that project to ensure that St. Mary’s can be as useful an amenity to the community as a whole. |
| 28 | “First thanks to the whole team for this well compiled document, hope your hard work will be rewarded. Because we have become so big, we need to be told officially what Bloxham is, rural or urban. This ambiguous situation seems to benefit everybody else except us. It looks to me that the developers are at an advantage because they use the ‘urban’ rules so they do not have to provide so much parking, because as ‘urban’ we are supposed to have good public transport. On the other hands we are treated as rural by the other services, which means when we ask for extra traffic light (in front of Church) this has been denied in the past, Old Bridge Road cannot be repaired because lack of budgets. The electricity, water service and mobile phone are poor because we are not recognised as “””big enough”””. Same with drains which are not cleaned regularly, the village becomes more and more dirty (especially dog mess). The new developments proposed are not in keeping with the rest of the village. They should been in harmony with the old dwellings. Enough new houses…………we cannot cope any longer with the amount of traffic.” |
| 29 | I agree with the contents of the Plan and if we have to have more homes built, I would prefer there to be more smaller houses rather than large family homes. |
| 30 | “HN, HR, HC, – agree HT1 – Consider additional zebra crossing west side of shops and 20mph limit between. No speed humps but solar 20mph measurement sign each end. CT – need consideration of how to improve off main road footpaths and routes around village. Tarmac through Gogs and to Tadmarton road to make wheelchair and pushchair accessible. Gives a school route and a walkway. Consider tarmac footpath from Milton Road through to Ridgeway – gives a round Bloxham walk with little A361 contact ELW2 – no mention of proposals for local power generation as part of any development. Should this not be part of the village wants for future not just communication technology? CT1 – any new development should be conditional upon funding a community project – links to village or Jubilee enhancements or Joint use rec. centre” |
| 31 | I am in agreement with this vision for Bloxham and wish to thank the Bloxham Neighbourhood Development Plan Group and Bloxham Parish Council. |
| 32 | The shopping centre on th A361 has no long term viability because of the difficulty of access. It can only get worse and one day there will be a very serious accident there. The increase in developments and hence car traffic does no bode well. It seems to me that consideration should be given to having a different shopping area created in another place away from this road. Why cant one of the developers seeking permission to build be made to include this? |
| 33 | I feel the options I have chosen are the most important to the village but in an ideal world all 6 areas should be saved |
| 34 | I feel the plan reflects the village as we are now respecting our heritage and how we live in the 21st century. I feel it is very imprtant to keep our green areas and vistas as well as our views of our lovely church. Thank you to allwho have worked so hard and I do hope that CDC will adopt it into their plan and allow our village to consolidate with all its new developments which are on the way. Also by being guided by the plan future developments will hopefully be aimed at what our community needs and wants so we can be an inclusive community. |
| 35 | HN – Housing Need: Totally agree with proposal of only a further 20 dwellings – preferably after 2025 HR – Rural Heritage and Landscape: a and b – We must stick to this policy and have no more “”little boxes”” edging our village. d – We have already had a few of these inappropriate garden infills and we must resist any more which are taking away lovely open views. f – Definately agree with this – we must protect our residents quality of life, after all. this is probably why they live in Bloxham in the first place. HA – Appropriate Housing: Parking on site is a necessity! Parking courts are universally disliked and they are not helpful to on-street parking as residents want to park outside their houses to unload etc., and also to have their car visible from their property. HT – Traffic Containment: It is vital that we get some answers to Bloxham’s traffic problems – especially at the mini-roundabout which OCC said they could sort out with appropriate 106 contributions. EEL – Employment Land: We must protect any employment land in the village as there is so little of it – we have plenty of houses scheduled but very little employment land and any applications to build on employment land shoould be strongly opposed. ERF – Retail Facilities: The High Street has become a nightmare for parking and I really don’t know the answer to it but as Bloxham lines the A361 for much of its length I cannot see where minor retail provision, off this road could be accommodated. CR – Recreational Facilities: Bloxham definitely lacks a suitable ‘village hall’ and I would support the idea of upgrading and expension of the Jubilee Hall but I am not sure what is meant by “moderate expansion” in this context – this would need further clarification.” |
| 36 | The village must be allowed to be a living and developing community, We do not have the right to try to limit our successors to what we might think is best at present – circumstances change and each generation must be allowed to respond as they think best. (No to green spaces at The Rec and the two Bloxham School areas.) |
| 37 | Designation to School facilities could endure beyond the 2031 timeframe of the current plan. There is no intention of selling off the land for housing but those running the School in future may want to build on parts of these areas, whilst maintaining their attractive character, to improve the facilities and remain competitive in a difficult market – just as predecessors have done over the last 150 years. |
| 38 | Bloxham is rural village which with any further developement beyond that proposed by this plan would simply morph into an urban messy sprawl. this is a balanced well thougth out document that all future plans must abide by. |
| 39 | I agree that most of them should be protected but I don’t think it’s fair to prevent the 150 year old school from building better facilities on their own land. (No to green spaces at the two Bloxham School areas.) |
| 40 | “This submission is made jointly by Nigel Bankes, Chairman of the Council of Governors, and Paul Sanderson, Headmaster of Bloxham School. It is made on behalf of Bloxham School. Whilst we applaud the efforts made by the village of Bloxham to establish a Neighbourhood Plan to reflect community wide aspirations, we have significant reservations about the content of the draft plan. It makes very little reference to Bloxham School – the main employer in the village and a provider of significant economic benefit; it makes no mention of the support that the school offers to the community; and it attempts to impose Local Green Space planning restrictions on school property that would restrict our ability to develop our facilities and, potentially, our future viability. Section 5.2 of the plan sets out a number of Objectives. The second seeks to promote economic viability. Bloxham School employs 250 staff, over 80 of whom live in the village. In addition to providing direct employment opportunities for people with a great range of skills, the school offers other benefits to the economic viability of the village: pupils, staff and parents use the local shops on the High Street; and a significant number of retired Bloxham School teachers have chosen to remain in the village, many of whom are active in the community. Bloxham School also helps to ensure a safe, healthy cohesive community, the third Objective. With many of our employed staff living in the village, we support safe low-carbon travel as many do walk to work. Within the limitations of school use, we offer recreational facilities to the wider community: our re-furbished swimming pool is open 6 mornings a week for public use; members of the public can use our fitness suite and squash courts most evenings; and we make our other sports facilities available to local clubs when not in use by the school. We note the implied support in the Plan to the Warriner School establishing an all-weather pitch with flood lights and hope that a future application for appropriate lighting to our pitches would also be supported. As an example, the Bloxham junior football team play football in our Dewey Sports Hall; we would be pleased to let them use our outside all weather pitches in winter months too if these were lit. Developing the community theme, Bloxham School prides itself on its close links with the village. We offer support to the primary school, both with teaching and enabling their pupils to use our facilities. We are Friends of St Mary’s, who on occasion use the school’s music rooms, and we are delighted to be able to hold school services at St Mary’s Church at least three times a year. On a smaller scale, our co-operation ranges from storing grit and grit spreaders to building links with the village historical society. Bloxham School has been an important part of the village for 160 years and this should, perhaps, be mentioned in the Our Bloxham section of the Neighbourhood Plan. The original school building, which among others is Grade II Listed, dates from the mid-1850s. Subsequent buildings facing out towards the main approaches have been sympathetic to this original architecture making extensive use of the local ironstone. Bloxham School also brings wider national recognition of the village name from the Bloxham Project started in the 1960s to the Bloxham Faith & Literature Festival, which is now into its third year. Our main concern is the proposal to designate two areas of our school property as Local Green Spaces. These are mentioned in passing at the end of the document (Page 18 and map at Page 25) but the potential impact on the school is immense. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) designates Local Green Spaces (at Paragraphs 76 to 78) as areas for special protection being of particular importance to the local communities. ‘By designating land as Local Green Space local communities will be able to rule out new development other than in very special circumstances. – Local Green Spaces should be capable of enduring beyond the end of the plan period.’ We appreciate the importance of green spaces to the village, which have equal priority to us as a school, but we strongly feel that this proposed designation is not appropriate and is an unnecessary imposition upon Bloxham School as a business as well as an educational establishment. The NPPF states that the Local Green Space designation will not be appropriate for most green areas or open spaces and that the designation should only be used: – where the green space is in reasonably close proximity to the community it serves; – where the green area is demonstrably special to a local community and holds a particular local significance, for example because of its beauty, historic significance, recreational value (including as a playing field), tranquillity or richness of its wildlife; and – where the green area concerned is local in character and is not an extensive tract of land. These two school areas are close to the centre of the village but we question whether they are demonstrably special to the local community. The playing fields on Courtington Lane, in particular, are surrounded by ribbon development, with possible housing development areas on either side. We therefore strongly oppose this proposed nomenclature as inappropriate use of the Local Green Space designation. Additionally, we are concerned at this attempt at planning control. The two school sites are the largest of the five proposed Local Green space areas. Of the other three, two are the Jubilee Park and the Recreation Ground, both whole village facilities, and the third is the Red Lion area, which some members of the village have aspirations to purchase as a community project. Both these school areas are core to our future. There is currently no plan to sell them off for housing development but we and our successors must have the flexibility to manage our estate for the educational development of the school well beyond the 2031 Plan period. In an increasingly competitive independent schools’ market we need to improve our school facilities if we are to remain attractive to prospective pupils and parents. If we do not, we risk losing our appeal with the possibility that we, like many other independent schools, would close. We note the policy at Page 15 of the Plan to safeguard employment land and this requirement should be considered when designating commercial land as Local Green Spaces. The Foreword to the Plan states that it is an ‘opportunity to work alongside landowners/developers to shape a future that retains what is distinctive about our community with: housing matched to need, access to: local jobs, appropriate infrastructure, schools, recreational facilities and open spaces’. As one of the major landowners in the village, which provides most of these needs in some form, we aspire to working in tandem with the village to achieve sustainable development. Whilst we understand that many of the points we have raised above may not have been included in the draft Plan for reasons of brevity, we will be unable to support the plan if the designation of Bloxham School land as Local Green Spaces is retained in future iterations. We look forward to working with the Neighbourhood Plan steering group in the preparation of subsequent drafts of the plan.” |
| 41 | As an employee of Bloxham School I believe they should have the freedom to improve their facilities as and when they see fit, without the constraints of this proposal. |
| 42 | “Whilst I sympathise with the desire to protect the village from large scale building on the School fields, I don’t think it is right for the Plan to prevent a business from managing its own property portfolio. I believe the School to be one of the biggest employers in the village and the pupils/staff provide good business for the local shops. Why penalise them in this way? I don’t see why the School would do anything other than enhance its own facilities on these green spaces, which would be to the benefit of the village. The School is very into sport and it is not going to compromise its ability to play games on these areas. We should trust it to behave responsibly with respect to the village that it has supported for 150 years.” |
| 43 | My opinions are below. (No to green spaces at the two Bloxham School areas.) |
| 44 | No comments: No to school rugby field. Yes to all other green spaces |
| 45 | I believe the school should retain developmental autonomy over the green areas in question. |
| 46 | This is an excellent summary of the extensive material collected and assessed since the inaugural village meeting at the Jubilee Hall in 2011. The emerging/changing nature of NPPF guidance and slow gestation of Cherwell’s Local Plan must have been frustrating for the authors, but I’m grateful they have stuck with the imposed process and produced such a readable document. The evidence base shared in the consultation sessions and online is impressive and has given me insights to many aspects of the village that I had not fully appreciated, despite having lived here for more than 30 years, I’ll be happy to support the Plan in the forthcoming referendum. |
| 47 | I do not wish to see development on any of the areas I have ticked below. (All except Red Lion Gardens) |
| 48 | The protection of the Bloxham School Rugby ground portion of Hobb Hill to the right of the public footpath should be extended to the left of the public footpath footpath to preserve the vista and amenity of Hobb Hill and preclude the possibility of future development of that land which could only serve to exacerbate the flooding problem and the traffic problem associated with the Primary School, on Courtington Lane. |
| 49 | Generally, we are very supportive of both the direction and detail of the Plan. One specific comment regarding Policy EBA – we would support modest development of existing business facilities where there is space in the premises or land already owned. In particular we would support development of small business units of a suitable nature on the site owned by Bloxham Mill. We would very much support the proposed engagement with Oxfordshire CC and with CDC in the areas where, so far, they have been ineffectual or insufficiently supportive of appropriate development to Bloxham. This particularly relates to schooling, highways and the use of Section 106 funding. We strongly support development of superfast Broadband and are unsure of the logic behind Barford Road (and presumably Bloxham Mill) potentially receiving this facility some months after the core part of the village. |
| 50 | Congratulations on such a comprehensive & well thought through document. We have one reservation regarding the need to liaise more closely with Bloxham School (viz their playing fields). Otherwise our comments are as follows; + Section 7 Bloxham Projects; under 7.2 if Oxfordshire CC continue to drag their heels over issues such as our “””urban””” classification, the mini roundabout & repairs to Old Bridge Road we should by-pass them & enlist the help of Banbury’s new MP. + New development play areas at Collins & Aldous Drives appear to be little used which should reinforce our case with CDC in focussing upgrades/extensions to play facilities at The Rec & Jubilee Park. + Section 8 We should press CDC to ensure that they monitor & take action with developers who use inappropriate materials. Collins Drive is a classic example of their neglect. If Chipping Norton can do it (West Oxon DC) so should CDC. |
| 51 | Consultation: Bloxham Neighbourhood Plan 2015 – 2031 Public Consultation Draft Thank you for your consultation on the above dated 08 January 2015 which was received by Natural England on 08 January 2015. Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development. The consultation draft identifies the issues and areas that affect Bloxham Neighbourhood Parish area. The Neighbourhood Forum has identified relevant legislation such as the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Cherwell Local Plan together with Oxfordshire County Council documents where appropriate, this is to be welcomed and encouraged. Section 3.2 refers to Issues and Challenges and identifies the Preservation of Green Buffers (ii) and Protection of valued green areas (x) which is also to be welcomed and encouraged. The provision of green infrastructure, as part of new development proposals, can provide opportunities to enhance and increase open/green space provision, provide links to and across existing facilities, through green chains, green corridors and potentially help towards promoting sustainable transport options such as walking and cycling. NPPF paragraphs 109 and 110 would help the Parish in this area, identifying policy to assist in preventing impacts on areas and enhancing ecology and biodiversity. Subject to the above, Natural England has no further substantive comments to make in respect of the Bloxham Neighbourhood Plan public consultation draft consultation document. For any queries relating to the specific advice in this letter only please contact David Hammond on 0300 060 1373. For any new consultations, or to provide further information on this consultation please send your correspondences to consultations@naturalengland.org.uk. We really value your feedback to help us improve the service we offer. We have attached a feedback form to this letter and welcome any comments you might have about our service. Yours sincerely Lead Advisor Sustainable Development and Regulation Thames Valley Team |
| 52 | Scanned in by OCR and so may have minor errors. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This representation to Bloxham Parish Council’s consultation on Bloxham’s Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) is made by Kemp & Kemp on behalf of Taylor Wimpey Oxfordshire (Taylor Wimpey). Taylor Wimpey is land owner of a site to the south east of Bloxham, referred to as ‘Land off Collins Drive’. A plan outlining the site in red can be found at Appendix 1 of this representation. 1.2 The NDP area follows the boundary of Bloxham Parish. Bloxham is designated a ‘Category A’ village or ‘Service Village’ in Cherwell District Council’s Submission Local Ran (SLP) October 2014. This means the Council considers Bloxham as one of the more sustainable settlements in the district. 1.3 Under Policy Villages 2 in the plan, the Council are allocating an additional 750 dwellings to ‘Category A’ villages over and above any committed development or windfall allowance. They would be delivered through the Council’s Local Plan Part 2 or Neighbourhood Plans. 1.4 This representation demonstrates how the allocation of Land off Collins Drive in Bloxham’s NDP would deliver a comprehensive housing scheme in a sustainable location and would help the NDP to meet the ‘Basic Conditions’ at Examination. 2.0Bloxham’s Neighbourhood Development Plan – November 2014 2.1 The Plan, which covers the period to 2031, builds upon the Parish Plan and has been prepared by the accountable body – Bloxham Parish Council It has been assisted by the Bloxham Neighbourhood Development Plan comprising volunteers drawn from the residents of the Parish. 2.2 The Parish Council have published its ‘Public Consultation Draft’ for a six week consultation before submitting it officially to Cherwell District Council (CDC). CDC will then publish it for a further six week consultation before submitting it for independent examination. 2.3 During the Examination the Examiner will consider whether the NDP meets the ‘Basic Conditions’. In this regard, the Plan must: * have regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State; * contribute to the achievement of sustainable development; – be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the development plan for the area. 2.4 Before the Council puts the NDP forward for Examination, it needs to be sure that the plan meets these conditions. The areas where Taylor Wimpy consider that the NDP does not meet the conditions are set out below. 3.0 The Level of Housing Allocated in the NDP 3.1 Policy Villages 1: Village Categorisation in the CDC’s SLP designates Bioxham as a ‘Category A’ village or ‘Service Centre’ meaning it is one of the most sustainable settlements in the district. The categorisation is based on the following criteria: – Population size. – The number and range of services and facilities within the village (shops, schools, pubs, etc.) – Whether there are any significant known issues in the village that could be materially assisted by an increase in housing (for example to maintain pupil numbers at a primary school) – The accessibility (travel time and distance) of the village to an urban area by private car and public transport (including an assessment of any network constraints) – Accessibility of the village in terms of walking and cycling – Local employment opportunities. 3.2 Due to the sustainable nature of Category A villages, Policy Villages 2: Distributing Growth across the Rural Areas in CDCs SLP states that: ‘A total of 750 homes will be delivered at Category A villages. This will be in addition to the rural allowance for small site “windfalls’ and planning permissions for 10 or more dwellings as at 31 March 2014. Sites will be identified through the preparation of the Local Plan Part 2, through the preparation of Neighbourhood Plans where applicable, and through the determination of applications for planning permission.’ 3.3 Policy HN Housing Need in Sloxham’s NDP states that: ‘Provision shall be made for a further 20 dwellings to be provided through infill, conversions and minor development of 10 or less dwellings. The majority of this provision shall be completed after 2025.’ 3.4 This approach is clearly contrary to Policy Villages 2 shown above which allocates 750 homes to Category A villages in addition to small site windfalls and planning permissions for 10 or more dwellings as at 31 March 2014. Policy HN Housing Need only allows for windfall development in Bloxham, 3.5 As explained in paragraph 2.3 above, one of the ‘Basic Conditions’ the NDP will have to meet when examined is that it should be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the development plan (Local Plan) for the area. In its current form the NDP is not. 3.6 Bloxham’s NDP needs to make a housing allocation or remove/amend policy HN so it allows for a housing allocation in CDCs Loca! Plan Part 2 (as per Policy Villages 2 above). 3.7 Taylor Wimpy would suggest that as Bloxham residents want to have greater control over planning in their community, the allocation is made in their NDP, 3.8 The Local Plan Housing Trajectory 2011 – 2031 in CDC’s SLP shows that in order for the Council to have a Five Year Housing Supply as required under paragraph 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework, it needs to deliver 650 housing completions on sites of 10 or more dwellings in the rural areas in the years 2014/15 – 2018/19. 3.9 As Bioxham is so advanced with its NDP (along with other Category A villages Adderbury, Deddington and Hook Norton) it is very likely that CDC will need to see housing completions in Bioxham in order to meet its housing targets. Therefore, the NDPs assertion in policy HN that development shall be completed after 2025 is unlikely to carry favour with CDC or an examiner. 3.10 In summary a housing allocation in Bloxham’s NDP will: – Help ensure the plan meets the ‘Basic Conditions’ when examined. – Provide greater control to the local community over where the allocation is made (as opposed to waiting for CDC in make the allocation in its Local Plan Part 2). – Help ensure support for the plan from CDC by helping the Council meet its Five Year Housing Land Supply target. 4.0 Land off Collins Drive, Bioxham 4.1 Land off Collins Drive, Bioxham lies to the south east of the village and measures some 3.2 hectares. To the east of the site are properties along Church Street and to the south properties along Milton Road. The north-western corner of the site is situated within the Bioxham Conservation Area. 4.2 The site sits well with the existing built form of Bioxham and is close to existing services and facilities. There are a number of other benefits to the site which are set out below. This will help make the NDP ‘contribute to the achievement of sustainable development’ (another one of the ‘Basic Conditions’) Arboriculture and Ecology 4.3 Taylor Wimpey commissioned The Environmental Dimension Partnership Ltd to carry out an Arboriculture! Assessment of the site. It states that there are no trees within or adjacent to the site that are subject to any Tree Preservation Orders. It also shows that across the site there are, in arboriculture! and landscape terms, five category A items, 10 category B items, 21 category C items, and 6 category U items. 4.4 A Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Bat Habitat Suitability Assessment has been produced for the site by Ecosulis Ltd. It shows that there are three component habitats on the site, namely: – Improved grassland – grazed by sheep; e Hedgerows – along the north, south and east boundaries (the western boundary is made up of wooden fence, brick wall and laurel); and – Parkland/Scattered trees – broad-leaved 4.5 The assessment recommends that mature trees and boundary habitats should be retained where possible. The report also identifies two trees having the potential to supported roosting bats however. In taking this advice, it would be the intention of Taylor Wimpy to retain these important natural assets wherever possible in the final design. 4.6 A badger set has been identified but any proposal can easily meet the required exclusion zone. Landscaping and Open Space 4.7 A Landscape and Visual impact Assessment for the site has been prepared by The Environmental Dimension Partnership. It confirms that the site does not lie within or adjacent to any national landscape designations (although it is within an Area of High Landscape Value). 4.8 The assessment concludes that the site is well contained and visibility of any development would be limited. It also states that the site would be able to accommodate some change without significant effects on the local character or the wider landscape. Transport and Access 4.9 A Transport Assessment and Travel Plan has been prepared for the site. It concludes that the site offers good access to the local highway network. It suggests that Milton Road would be a suitable point for vehicular access, it also states that: – There is no accident problem associated wrth the local highway network with just 2 accidents recorded within the past 5 years on Berry Hill Road; – The site is accessible by sustainable modes of transport, with bus services providing connections to Banbury and Oxford, footways providing linkages to the village centre, and local roads being suitable for use by cyclists; and – Milton Road offers considerable reserve capacity and would be able to accommodate the additional traffic associated with a development Flood Risk and Drainage 4.10 A Flood Risk Assessment has been prepared for the site. It shows that the site is within Flood Zone 1 meaning that it has little or no risk of fluvial flooding. It also shows that development of the site would not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. 4.11 Furthermore a Sustainable Drainage System (SUDs) could be implemented on the site, Ground Contamination 4.12 A Land Contamination Preliminary Risk Assessment has been produced for the site. The assessment concludes that based on the historic use of the site, the information obtained on recorded pollution incidents and the geographical ground conditions, that the site does not present a risk of pollution to potential future residents. 5.0 Policies in Bloxham’s Neighbourhood Development Plan – November 2014 5.1 Development of Land at Collins Drive, Bloxham would satisfy the following NDP policies: * HR2: Be in keeping with neighbouring properties and the village in genera! in terms of materials, style, scale, separation and character – Every attempt would be made with the design to ensure that the new dwellings fit with the local vernacular by building to an appropriate scale and style with suitable materials HR3: Lean towards rural, not urban in respect of gardens, hedgerows, trees and soft-boundaries – Appropriate landscaping for the rural location would form the part of any design. As stated above important trees and hedges would be retained. c HR6: Avoid significant adverse effects upon existing residents re. privacy, noise and light pollution etc.- The preservation of local amenity would be a key aspect of the final design. e HA2: Encourage high-quality, non-estate houses and bungalows sufficiently attractive to meet the needs of households who may wish to downsize – The site offers the potential to deliver a range of dwelling types. As an example, it could be possible to position bungalows towards the north of the site. This would both help protect views of the church and provide housing for a variety of needs. * HAS: New housing to offer adequate parking on the property not in distant parking courts or on-street – The development would be built using the appropriate parking standards to ensure the street scene is attractive to new and existing residents. e HT1: Development that can demonstrate its location and design will not significantly exacerbate traffic congestion at time village centre or other traffic hot-spots – As stated in the Transport Assessment referred to above, access to the site would be from Milton Road. This area is not identified as a Traffic Hot-spot1 in Appendix 1 of the NDP. * CT1: Design an environment that improves linkages between residential areas and services and facilities – There is a public right of way (PROW) to the south west of the site. There is potential to link the development to the PROW and on to the village services and facilities. This will help to sustain the services and facilities and ensure Bioxham remains a vibrant village. * CT3: Protect rights of way and take opportunities to improve general village footpath connectivity – See above * CR2 Support the moderate upgrading / extension of the Jubilee Hall – Taylor Wimpy would make the appropriate developer contributions through the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and or/a ‘Section 106 Agreement’. This would provide funding for a range of services and facilities including potentially the Jubilee Hall. 6.0 Summary and Conclusion. 6.1 In summary, Taylor Wimpey wishes to make the following key points on the Bioxham NDP: Bioxham is a ‘Category A’ village in CDC’s SLP meaning it is one of the most sustainable settlements in the district. Policy Villages 2: Distributing Growth across the Rural Areas in CDC’s SLP states that 750 dwellings will delivered in the ‘Category A* villages over and above small site windfalls and outstanding. permissions as at 31 March 2014. Policy HN Housing Need in Bloxham’s NDP however states that only 20 dwellings will be provided for through infill and minor development of 10 or less dwellings. This policy is therefore contrary to Policy Villages 2. When the plan goes to examination, the examiner will need to consider whether the plan is in conformity with the Development Plan (the Local Plan) or not. It is likely that the NDP will fail at examination in this respect. To help get the plan get through examination, the cap should be lifted in policy HN and a housing allocation provided for. Bloxharn Parish Council could wait for an allocation to be made CDC’s forthcoming Local Plan Part 2 but for full community involvement, Taylor Wimpy recommend that the allocation made in the NDP, Land off Collins Drive is an ideal site to allocate in the NDP for the following reasons: * There are no arboriculture and ecology constraints on the site and key mature trees and boundary habitats can be retained in the design for the scheme. * A Land and Visual Impact Assessment shows the site can be developed without significant effects on the local character or the wider landscape. * The site is in Flood Zone 1 meaning it is least likely to flood or cause flooding elsewhere. * Vehicle access to and from the site can be obtained safely from Milton Road – The road is not identified as Traffic Hotspot’ in the NDP. * It is accessible by sustainable modes of transport including foot, cycle and public transport. * The development would satisfy the majority of policies in the NDP including those which seek sympathetic design, appropriate parking provision, traffic management, improved linkages between residential areas and services and facilities and funding towards services and facilities. |
| 53 | Lets keep Bloxham a village and not allow it to be turned into an urban sprawl. One of the reasons people choose to live in a village is that priceless ability to walk at the most 5 minutes from your door and be in the lovely countryside. Therefore I fully support the policies as outlined in the plan. |
| 54 | I fully recognise the need for additional housing being made available for a growing population but to impose it onto a rural community, which has already seen a high level of new developments on greenfield land, is totally unacceptable. We need to maintain the rural aspects, both within the village & the outskirts, so that we retain our sense of close community. The large residential & commercial developments will have a major impact on the traffic on the A361 & any future developments in the village will only exacerbate the problem further. I totally endorse all aspects of the Neighbourhood Plan especially the need to limit new housing & to retain the green spaces as identified in the Plan. |
| 55 | I agree in principle with the policy statements contained within the Neighbourhood Plan and particularly those relating to giving green belt status to specific areas. I believe that the village is currently at capacity given the infrastructure that already exists. |
| 56 | Received by email We agree with all the stated policies.In particular: HA All new houses should have adequate on-site space for wheelie bins and car-parking — at least two car-spaces per house. HC All the approved sites are liable to flood. Suitable drainage MUST be installed. HT The current approved housing estates have contributed money to ease the traffic probles. Nothing has been done. The new houses will make the traffic worse. What is being done about this? CR We support the upgrade of the Jubilee Hall and the all-weather pitch for the Warriner School. CS The Rec, Jubilee Park, Red Lion Gardens, Bloxham School Cricket Ground and Bloxham School Rugby Field on Hobb Hill. It is essential that all these spaces should be preserved so that they can NEVER be built upon. |
| 57 | “Having moved to the village less than a year ago I perceive one of the major issues to be traffic around the shops. Cars driving over and parking on the pavement in a haphazard fashion is an accident waiting to happen. This area needs to be redesigned to accommodate both pedestrians and customer parking safely. As the southern area of Bloxham expands this is likely to get worse. There are some contradictions in the plans. For example a stated desire to expand recreational facilities on the edge of town which is likely to directly oppose the desire not to increase light pollution on the village periphery. With modern lighting this should be manageable so it would be better to omit the statement regarding light pollution if it is agreed recreational facilities for a growing population is vital. Whilst maintaining green space is important I cannot see how this can be enforced or indeed should be on private landowners or local employers / businesses. Potentially adding long term constraints to local business would seem detrimental to their sustainability. I would prefer constraints put on urban sprawl at the village periphery whilst allowing sensible in-fill or indeed business and employment development.” |
| 58 | “HR1 & HR2 I feel strongly that recent housing developments have not been sympathetic to the rural character of the village and any further developments must be. CT2 it is extremely important that there should only be future development if there are sufficient Primary school places for the children of the village. Bloxham children should not have to travel to other villages to go to school.” |
| 59 | “The authors of the Plan have identified the key features to retain the rural nature of Bloxham and are to be commended for this. As a former resident of Bloxham, now living 1.5 miles away, and still greatly involved in village activities there, I agree it is essential that Bloxham retains its rural nature otherwise it becomes a satellite of Banbury. HR- The type of housing to be built should be varied, reflecting traditional styles and catering for the needs of an ageing population who HA -wish to remain in the village but need to downsize to an appropriate property. The new developments seem to have been imposed upon the village with little thought of their impact, particularly to the amount and flow of traffic. CR -A condition of any new development should be for the developer to make a significant contribution to improving community facilities e.g .refurbishment of the Jubilee Hall. CS – The green spaces of the Rec, Jubilee Park and the Red Lion gardens should be preserved. I have reservations about the Bloxham School land as they may need to change its use in the future, although this seems unlikely as there is no other land for their sports in the vicinity. “ |
| 60 | “Traffic on Milton Rd should be listed as a hot spot Stronger emphasis on conservation area Otherwise – policies great!” |
| 61 | “CS1 Green belt suggests protecting land for all. Bloxham School Cricket / Rugby ground is NOT for all therefore some agreement for partial common use by the community rather than ring-fenced EDC Better mobile and internet connection very necessary HA1 Strongly agree – I do not want to live in a middle-class home-counties ghetto. We need diversity of backgrounds HN2 – Not large estates ….correct. Small estates probably OK. We need to take on our fair share of solving the housing shortage and avoid being NIMBYs.” |
| 62 | “CR1 (All-weather pitch) Yes – excellent idea CR2 (Jubilee extension) – support this CS1 (Green-space) – In favour ELW (live-work) – support all -small scale.employment is life-blood. ERF (Parking) Yes – parking is a REAL issue. EDC (Mobiles) Support with concern re masts. HC1 – 4 (Climate) Support HT1 (Traffic) – Support CT1 – 3 (Low carbon Travel) support HA1 (affordable housing – preference to parish connection) – a must / absolute “ |
| 63 | No more traffic through the village or strained village facilities e.g. school. Preserve green spaces so that future inevitable building does not result in a village ‘concrete jungle.’ |
| 64 | I support all the recommendations in the plan and would like the finalised document to be made available to those larger developers who currently have planning permissions. |
| 65 | I was born in this village and have seen many changes not all was for the good of the village. the only thing this village needs is, no more buildings especially in the heart of the village a bigger primary school as well |
| 66 | The reason why i moved to Bloxham and invested in a property is because of its character which is slowly being eroded with indentikit housing developments. The village can’t cope with more cars on the roads, children in the school or drainage and sewerage channels. As an aside, the Slade is in bad need of work done to make it more usable and accessible. |
| 67 | “Particularly agree with: HN: If the plan’s proposals are unsuccessful, surely there has to be some developer limits placed… why can’t it be limited to a certain number of dwellings over a certain period of time…? Is there any need for more than that? CT2: There needs to be some sort of structure to how school places for Bloxham families are allocated – particularly in regards to residents housed in newer developments with children (already placed in schools elsewhere) compared to those with children born and raised in the village. CT3: We are in need of a crossing by the church. The footpath ends on one side and the corner makes for dangerous crossing – especially for those less able. With the surgery, dentist and church right there, surely that’s enough reason to get a pedestrian crossing built.” |
| 68 | “HR5/6 Will the all weather pitch and lights at the Warriner not have an adverse affect. CR1 I seem to recall the Warriner swimming pool was meant to be joint-use facility. EDC Most mobile companies now share aerials. CR2 The Jubilee Hall needs more than moderate upgrading/extension. Whilst only 1:5 thought the village could support a larger facility it rather depends on the question asked. With a growing population better facilities are needed, improved play area and a trim trail for adults. Small play areas in developments separates communities. CS1 What is the ratio of persons using the Red Lion gardens as a village green? Could the copse and the ridge and furrow field behind Schofields Way be designated ‘green belt.'” |
| 69 | I agree with the Neighbourhood plan. |
| 70 | “I totally agree with all the statements below but feel it will all be too late as the unique village of Bloxham has almost vanished and will never ever come back. Many of the fields which now have planning permission were once designated as ‘green belt’ areas, and it’s only a matter of time before there’s a serious accident on the Tadmarton Road or Courtington Lane at school time. Those with the power don’t care and those that care no longer have any power over their environment.” |
| 71 | “Generally I think the Neighbourhood Plan as presented reflects the opinions of most residents of Bloxham. I support the Themes and Objectives (para 5), and in particular the objective 1D regarding the needs of residents seeking to downsize.” |
| 72 | Network Rail has no comments. |
| 73 | “The level of development in Bloxham has left the village already in a ridiculous state. There is a massive health and safety issue regarding access to school already with cars driving along pavement everyday where children are walking. School has no scope for further development (it’s already been expanded so much you have situation when children are not allowed balls in the playground because it’s so small for the number of children.” |
| 74 | “I have studied your draft neighbourhood plan and much of the related documentation. I am baffled that there is no mention of what I assume is Bloxham largest business – Bloxham School. It is a significant employer and has a substantial footprint in Bloxham. It contributes in many ways to the community as well as to the local economy. Despite the absence of this major employer in your evidence base, you are seeking to block potential development on the School’s land holdings. The School is an important part of the village’s economy and makes a valuable contribution to education. If it needs to build classes or dormitories in the future, it would be most regrettable if it was prevented by this plan. I find the omission of the School from the business evidence base puzzling unless authors of the plan have an inherent objection to private education?” |
| 75 | We support the Plan which covers all the significant points that we would like to see incorporated. |
| 76 | “Community CR recreational facilities: CR b consideration needs to be given to the current refurbishment programme currently being undertaken by the New Management Committee and Project team for the Jubilee Hall and this together with the proposed expansion of the Facilities at the Hall means word Moderate is no longer appropriate and therefore should be removed from the wording in the plan. The use of the word moderate,by interpretation,could restrict the amount of work that clearly has to done to not only take account of many years of neglect but to achieve a result that will reflect the considerable growth in village population. A great deal of work needs to take place to bring the hall up to modern standards ,improve recreational facilities and in so doing capitalise on the effective use of green space for all users 3B: I believe the reference that only 1 In 5 residents think Bloxham could support an additional venue is misleading and that this is as a direct consequence of the reference in the questionnaire to the Church becoming a community centre which now appears unlikely to happen and that this statistic should therefore be deleted from the plan. CS local green space: CS1 I appreciate the designation of the jubilee Park as a Designated green space but account needs to be taken of the fact that the whilst the playing field area is to be retained the Jubilee Hall will need to be expanded with new changing facilities to match the intensive use of the playing field. Traffic hotspots: Could you please make reference in your NDP return to the dramatic increase in traffic using the Milton Road into Bloxham and the effect on the congestion at the mini roundabout at the junction with the A361. I fully support the NDP and offer my congratulations to all concerned for their perseverance and commitment to the future of Bloxham village.” |
| 77 | I fully support the recommendations of the neighbourhood plan especially the protection of all green spaces. |
| 78 | I fully support the recommendations of the neighbourhood plan especially the protection of all green spaces. |
| 79 | “C.S Local Green Space : I don’t believe Bloxham’s School’s Rugby ground needs to be protected. If the school,at some stage, wanted to develop the land adjoining Courtington Lane they should be able to do so. I walk on hob hill most days and would prefer this to be protected. Hob Hill is of greater interest as it has ancient ridge and furrow.” |
| 80 | Bloxham is a village. We do not wish to live in a town. Otherwise I’d have bought a house in a town! |
| 81 | We no longer need or want any more houses in Bloxham. The Primary School & Drs are full to capacity and it is no longer fair to them or the villagers. How on earth will Tadmarton Road cope with all the floods, how is Barford Road field going to cope with the floods, how are the new children going to get to a different schools. More and more houses are being built and we have no sports facilities and the existing parks are dated and need renovation. |
| 82 | Please stop large scale development as we rush becoming suburb of Banbury, overfilling our schools and disproportionately increasing residents who are in Social Housing so that village and school lost their high class reputation and become isolated ghetto. |
| 83 | Thank you for your recent consultation on the above. We have considered the proposal relevant to the Mobile Operators Association and offer the following comments on their behalf. We would like to offer our support to the inclusion of Policy EDC – Digital Communication, within the Bloxham Neighbourhood Plan. We welcome the inclusion of this policy within the Neighbourhood Plan to facilitate telecommunications development and support its provisions which we find to be generally in accordance with the guidance within National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) relating to both development planning and to support for communications infrastructure. We trust you find the above comments of assistance. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any queries relating to the above matters. |
| 84 | Received by email Consultation feedback on behalf of Bloxham Baptist Church Our chapel in Hawke Lane is used daily by up to 200 people (members and non-members) every week but it is not of an adequate size for our Sunday morning worship, nor for some weddings and funerals. Ever since the Warriner School was built we have been hiring the school facilities each Sunday to accommodate our congregation of approximately 120 people. Although we are extremely grateful for the relationship we enjoy with the school, their facilities are not ideal for our needs, but manageable. For a number of years we have been very open to the potential of building a significantly larger community building in Bloxham if ever a suitable plot of land were available. This would not be ‘a church’ but would be a versatile resource owned and managed by Bloxham Baptist Church for the benefit of other community users as well as for its own purposes. An example of a similar project is at Finchampstead and can be seen at http://www.finchampstead.com/Groups/184845/Finchampstead_Baptist_Church/FBC_Centre/FBC_Centre.aspx We note the intention in the Neighbourhood Plan for a moderate extension to the Jubilee Hall. We are hesitant to support this for two reasons: 1. A moderate extension to this existing facility will still not be large enough or versatile enough to meet the needs of the community, and 2. Its location is poor in terms of visibility and the access roads to the Jubilee Hall are inadequate for existing, let alone potentially higher, levels of traffic. In the Neighbourhood Plan questionnaire results, only 2 in 5 respondents felt that the village could not ‘support’ a larger community building. We would suggest that an attractive, versatile building with good access and parking would benefit our community but would also be supported by neighbouring village communities and Banbury. We would favour greater dialogue and some joined-up thinking between the trustees of the Ellen Hinde, Ex-Servicemens, Jubilee and Baptist Halls to find a solution that will really enhance our village. With regards to protecting green space from housing or business development we feel that it is important to protect them but would not want to prevent development if it would improve the access, function or community value of the overall space. We do not believe that we can protect space that is privately owned such as the school sites even if we might feel as in the case of the cricket pitch that it is an inherent part of the village’s identity. |
| 85 | With over 90% ofresidents against ANY developments, this survey is admirable in its desire to APPEAR to give the people of Bloxham a chance to control unwanted building. However there is not a snowballs chance those “Officials” will listen to or respect Residents” wishes. Why? In this country do NOT operate as a democracy i.e. government by the People OR their elected Representatives. But we DO HAVE a Democratic Centralism i.e. Policy decided centrally by “Officials” So these “Officials” WILL allow us to go through the motions of APPEARING to hold a democratic poll whilst all the time having NO INTENTION of allowing democracy to Rule. OK! |
| Overall a very confident and well thought out document especially on housing. Disappointed that no mention of public transport trying to be improved or perhaps encouraging a local mini bus to start up. As an older person with an ill husband I have not met many people and so life is very lonely – no associations or clubs that can visit or friendly meetings to join. |
|
| 86 | In general we support the policies. We retain concerns about the provision of primary school places for all Bloxham children of the appropriate age. We should strive to provide affordable housing for people born in Bloxham and wish to remain here. We have concerns that the long term house build will seek to provide far more houses than necessary. We have major concerns that the character of the village will be changed beyond recognition. We have concerns that the green areas beyond the “proposed” green spaces will be eaten up by housing leaving very little natural countryside. In the light of problems we already encounter with water and electricity supply, we are concerned that additional housing will add substantially to these problems. In terms of water surface flooding, we have evidence of floods to the depth of 2-3 feet over large areas near the recreation grounds and the fields behind Colesbourne Road (dated photos from 2006 – 2014). Our final concern is the increased risk to children and the elderly on the roads throughout Bloxham. |
| 87 | I entirely agree with the policies set out in the Neighbourhood Plan and am particularly opposed to the urban sprawl of large estates recently or currently being built in the south of the village e.g. Barford Road, Milton Road (2) and Tadmarton Road with little consideration for the village as a whole. |
| 88 | I fully endorse the contents of this plan. It appears to be a thoroughly researched and well worded document, and I fully agree with all of the policies. |
| 89 | I write on behalf of my client William Davis Ltd with regard to the Bloxham Neighbourhood Plan consultation. My clients are a house building company who have secured an interest in land to the east of South Newington Road to the south of Bloxham (SHLAA reference BL029). Bloxham has been the focus of developer interest in recent years, with speculative applications seeking to take advantage of the substantial 5 year land supply shortage in the District (that still remains). However, the community’s concerns in relation to the implications of ad-hoc developmentin the village is recognised. In that respect, my clients welcome the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan as a means of providing a local policy context to compliment the emerging Cherwell District Local Plan 2006-2031, both Part 1 which has recently been examined and we expect to be found to be “sound”, and Part 2 which will be progressed shortly.Housing Need My clients do not, however, accept the presumption in the Neighbourhood Plan and supporting papers that given the permissions that have been recently granted in and around the village, there should only now be very limited further development through to the end of the plan period. Policy Villages 1 in Part 1 of the Cherwell District Local Plan (as proposed to be modified) anticipates minor development, infilling and conversions at the Category A and Category B villages, recognising “that there is a need for Cherwell’s Villages to sustainably contribute towards meeting the housing requirements identified in Policy BSC1.” The requirements identified in Policy BSC1 relate to the housing need for the District identified in the most recent 2014 SHMA. However, the Local Plan explicitly recognises in the supporting text that Oxford may not be able to accommodate the whole of its housing requirement in the period to 2031. Consequently under the Duty-to-Cooperate, there may be a requirement for Cherwell District to accommodate a higher level of development than currently planned for, and that would be facilitated through a rapid partial review of the Local Plan. Indeed we would argue on the basis of the publishedfigures and evidence that this is inevitable. Policy Villages 2, as proposed to be modified, refers to the delivery of 750 homes in the Category A villages. That level of provision is in addition to sites that already have planning permission (including those at Bloxham) and an allowance for small windfall sites. It does not yet take account of additional needs that have been identified in the wider Housing Market Area (notably Oxford). The policy states that sites to deliver these homes will be identified in Part 2 of the Local Plan, Neighbourhood Plans and through planning applications (the later of which is likely to continue in the absence of a demonstrable 5 year land supply in the District). Bloxham is the largest of the Category A Service Villages, the best served in terms of community infrastructure and facilities, well related to Banbury and unconstrained by Green Belt. As such it is one of the villages in the District that is best able to accommodate future growth. Consequently whilst your concerns in regard to the number of planning permissions that have recently been granted in thevillage is acknowledged, it would be entirely unreasonable for the Neighbourhood Plan to presume that further development to contribute to meeting the identified needs in the District, let alone the wider Housing Market Area, is not required or appropriate. Indeed, it is apparent that my client’s site would accord with the criteria set out in Policy Villages 2 for the selection of future development sites. Given that the Neighbourhood Plan must generally comply with the provisions and requirements of the emerging Local Plan, you may receive representations from the development industry that suggest that the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan is put on hold or delayed until such time as the need for further allocations in the village is confirmed. My clients view however, is that the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan could continue as long as there is an explicit recognition within it that further residential development is likely to be required in the village to contribute to meeting the identified housing needs within the plan period. William Davis Ltd do recognise the Parish Council’s concerns in relation to the capacity of the facilities and infrastructure in the village. However, that is a common issue around the District and County, and the solution is not to restrict the housing development required to meet existing and identified future needs in otherwise sustainable locations, but to seek solutions to remedy those matters through securing investment in the forward planning and development management processes. That is a matter my clients would be very willing to address in discussions with the service providers, County and District Council and of course the Parish Council. Therefore, Policy HN should be revised to accurately reflect the policy context established by the emerging Local Plan, that further development will be required in the village to meet the District’s housing needs, and the potential that a further review of Local Plan to meet wider housing market area needs may result in a further increase in the development requirement. Furthermore, Policy CT (criterion b) should not seek to phase or delay development required to meet identified needs on the basis of infrastructure constraints that can be addressed through a replanning of provision and/or further investment. Other Proposed Policies: The focus in the Neighbourhood Plan on ensuring good design in the future development of the village to respect the local character and historic and natural assets of the area is very much welcomed. Consequently the intent of Policy HR Rural Heritage and Landscape is supported. Indeed, it is suggested that the policy might be expended to include a reference to the provision of multi-functional green infrastructure that incorporates natural habitat enhancements, strategic landscaping, sustainable drainage features, recreation routes and opportunities for play. Similarly the intent of Policy HA Appropriate Housing is also supported, although it should be recognised that future housing development would need to respond to established needs (in terms of type and size of dwellings) for the village and wider District, and that the allocation of affordable housing is often outwith the control of the developer. Furthermore, whilst design is to a degree a subjective matter, the phraseology used in criterion b is very much open to interpretation and,therefore, that aspect would be difficult to practically apply. We would instead suggest incorporating an aspiration for local distinctiveness to reflect the prevailing character of the village. Policy HC in relation to climate change mitigation has worthy aspirations, and for the main part is appropriate. However, you should take account of the Government’s Housing Standards Review which is seeking to consolidate the current myriad of complex technical standards (including those relating to water and energy) into the Building Regulations. The Neighbourhood Plan policies should not, therefore, seek to repeat or expand upon standards that will be more properly dealt with through the Building Regulations process (e.g. through reference to the Code for Sustainable Homes). The concerns that underpin Policy HT are recognised, but the policy should be expanded to also refer to the potential for the traffic impact of a development to be mitigated through investment in sustainable travel modes and off-site highway improvement works. My clients also support the intent of Policy CT Provision for Safe Low-Carbon Travel (aside from criterion b as set out above), Policy CR Recreational Facilities and Policy CS Local Green Space. Site Reference BL029The Neighbourhood Plan background papers note that the Parish Council do not necessarily agree with the site assessments set out in the most recent SHLAA. In respect of land to the east of SouthNewington Road, the SHLAA states that “in principle the site is unsuitable”, because it was not known whether the site was available. My clients will now be writing to Cherwell District Council to confirm the site’s availability. William Davis Ltd’s aspiration for the development of the site is to deliver a high quality housing development that respects its relationship with the surrounding urban form and sensitive environmental and cultural features. It is anticipated that in due course the development proposals for the site will evolve through an iterative masterplanning exercise that has taken into account the requirements of the various technical and environmental assessments that will be required, and best urban and landscape design practice. This process will address the concerns raised in the SHLAA in relation to the implications for the landscape character of the area. A robust landscape and visual impact appraisal will be undertaken to directly inform a sensitive “landscape-led” design of the development scheme proposals. Whilst the development of the site would inevitably result in the loss of agricultural fields on the edge of the settlement (if approved), the intent of the assessment and design process will be to ensure that the proposals respond to the surrounding landscape character by retaining and enhancing boundary hedgerows and trees within the site wherever possible, and by providing new public open space with additional tree hedgerow planting to ensure a soft transition between the built development and open countryside. Conclusion: In conclusion William Davis are of the view that Bloxham could and should accommodate further growth within the plan period, and the land to the east of South Newington Road would be an entirely appropriate option for accommodating that growth. However, they would like to progress their proposals for the site in partnership with key stakeholders at the appropriate time taking account of the strategic planning context, local aspirations and identified needs in the Housing Market Area, District and village, preferably through the forward planning process My clients will be seeking to discuss their proposals in due course with the District Council, and would also welcome positive discussions with the Parish Council in the context of the emerging Neighbourhood Plan. Yours faithfully Mark Rose Director |
| 90 | We need to protect our recreational areas |
| 91 | BLOXHAM NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN – COMMENTS MADE ON BEHALF OF THAMES WATER UTILITIES LTD Thames Water Utilities Ltd (Thames Water) Property Services function is now being delivered by Savills (UK)Limited as Thames Water’s appointed supplier. Savills are therefore pleased to respond to the above consultation on behalf of Thames Water. Thames Water are the statutory water and sewerage undertaker for the Bloxham Neighbourhood Plan area and the whole of the Cherwell District and is hence a “specific consultation body” in accordance with the Town & Country Planning (Local Development) Regulations 2012. General Comments on Sewerage/Wastewater Infrastructure capacity: New development should be co-ordinated with the infrastructure it demands and to take into account the capacity of existing infrastructure. Paragraph 156 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), March 2012, states: “Local planning authorities should set out strategic policies for the area in the Local Plan. This should include strategic policies to deliver: the provision of infrastructure for water supply and wastewater.” Paragraph 162 of the NPPF relates to infrastructure and states: “Local planning authorities should work with other authorities to: assess the quality and capacity of infrastructure for water supply and wastewater and its treatment take account of the need for strategic infrastructure including nationally significant infrastructure within their areas.” The web based National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) published in March 2014 includes a section on ‘water supply, wastewater and water quality’ and sets out that Local Plans should be the focus for ensuring that investment plans of water and sewerage/wastewater companies align with development needs. The introduction to this section also sets out that “Adequate water and wastewater infrastructure is needed to support sustainable development” (Paragraph: 001, Reference ID: 34-001-20140306). Specific Comments Omission of a ‘Infrastructure and Utilities’ Policy: With the above points in mind it is important that developers demonstrate that at their development location adequate capacity exists both on and off the site to serve the development and that it would not lead to problems for existing users. Given the possible scale of development in Bloxham Thames Water consider that there should be a section on ‘Infrastructure and Utilities’ in the Bloxham Neighbourhood Plan which should make reference to the following: Developers need to consider the net increase in water and waste water demand to serve their developments and also any impact the development may have off site further down the network, if no/low water pressure and internal/external sewage flooding of property is to be avoided. Developers will be required to demonstrate that there is adequate wastewater and water supply capacity both on and off the site to serve the development and that it would not lead to problems for existing or new users. In some circumstances it may be necessary for developers to fund studies to ascertain whether the proposed development will lead to overloading of existing wastewater and water infrastructure. We would therefore recommend that developers engage with Thames Water at the earliest opportunity to establish the following. – The developments demand for water supply and network infrastructure both on and off site and can it be met – The developments demand for sewage treatment and sewerage network infrastructure both on and off site and can it be met – The surface water drainage requirements and flood risk of the area and down stream and can it be met Thames Water must also be consulted regarding proposals involving building over or close to a public sewer. If building over or close to a public sewer is agreed by Thames Water it will need to be regulated by an Agreement in order to protect the public sewer and/or apparatus in question. It may be possible for public sewers or water mains to be moved at a developer’s request so as to accommodate development in accordance with Section 185 of the Water Act 1989. Further information for Developers on sewerage and water infrastructure can be found on Thames Water’s website at: http://www.thameswater.co.uk/cps/rde/xchg/corp/hs.xsl/558.htm Or contact can be made with Thames Water Developer Services: By post at: Thames Water Developer Services, Reading Mailroom, Rose Kiln Court, Rose Kiln Lane, Reading RG2 0BY; By telephone on: 0845 850 2777; Or by email: developer.services@thameswater.co.uk Example Policy: By way of an example of a strong policy, the Marsh Gibbon Neighbourhood Plan (located within the Local Authority of Aylesbury Vale) Section H on Infrastructure and Policy MG20 is the type of policy Thames Water would like to see adopted. Rationale: Developers need to consider the net increase in water and waste water demand to serve their developments and also any impact the development may have off site further down the network, if no/low water pressure and internal/external sewage flooding of property is to be avoided. Thames Water must also be consulted regarding proposals involving building over or close to a public sewer. Developers should engage with Thames Water at the earliest opportunity. Policy MG 20: Water and Waste.: Developers will be required to demonstrate that there is adequate wastewater and water supply capacity both on and off the she to serve the development and that it would not lead to problems for existing or new users. It may be necessary for developers to fund studies to ascertain whether tfie proposed development will lead to overloading of existing wastewater and water infrastructure. |
| 92 | OCC Transport Response Transport Strategy Oxfordshire County Council note the Issues and Challenges relating to transport raised in paragraph 3.2, including: – Avoid exacerbating traffic congestion by more effective off-street parking and safe cycle and walking routes. – Encourage home working and micro and small businesses that avoid additional traffic problems and do not require large industrial style buildings. – Should a need for additional retail provision arise during the course of this plan then sites away from existing traffic hot spots may be preferred. – Strive to ensure additional development is matched by a proportionate improvement in our currently creaking infrastructure. The Neighbourhood Plan seeks to ensure that Bloxham works with the County Council to “address challenges such as highways”; this is considered a positive statement. Objectives relating to transport include: 1G. Build homes where they are less likely to exacerbate traffic congestion 2A. Encourage homes that facilitate home-working 2E. Address any emerging need for additional retail provision in High Street and Church Street in a manner that will minimise additional parking and traffic congestion problems and not detract from the historic and rural nature of our village 3A. Encourage safe low-carbon travel These all appear to be reasonable objectives that would benefit the village. Policies relating to transport include: HAc – Appropriate Housing. Require new housing to offer adequate car-parking within the curtilage of the property and to meet the Lifetime Homes criteria (or its successor) with regard to width and access to the home. Parking courts are not an acceptable alternative. This policy is inconsistent with OCC’s adopted parking standards. Bloxham Parish Council will need to consider whether such requirements can be fully justified at the examination stage. HT – Traffic Containment. Development that can demonstrate its location and design will not significantly exacerbate traffic congestion at the village centre or other traffic hot-spots (see map – Appendix 1) shall be encouraged. This is considered a positive statement. ELWa – Live-Work Accommodation. Proposals for new live-work development that combines living and small-scale employment space will be encouraged within the built up area, provided they: – do not harm local residential amenity – do not exacerbate traffic or parking impacts; and – do not exacerbate flood risk. EBA – Business Accommodation Proposals to develop B1 business uses of less than 150 square metres through new build, conversion or splitting up existing employment space shall be supported, provided they: – do not lead to the loss of A1 shops or of community facilities; – do not harm local residential amenity; – do not exacerbate traffic or parking impacts; and – do not exacerbate flood risk It is not clear what the aims of policies ELWa and EBA are in transport terms. If the aim is not to support proposals that exacerbate traffic or parking impacts, the Parish Council should consider whether this is compliant with National Planning Policy Framework para. 32, which states: “Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.” CT – Provision for safe low-carbon travel All new development proposals shall be required to promote and improve new and existing networks of pedestrian paths and cycle routes by: a. Designing an environment that improves linkages between residential areas and services and facilities within the village b. Scheduling development after 2025 to reduce the likelihood of primary aged pupils having to travel to schools outside of the village c. Protecting and wherever possible extending public rights of way and where feasible taking opportunities to improve the footpath connectivity of the village as a whole.Any mitigation contribution required of a development will need to be reasonable, but these appear to be positive aspirations from a transport perspective. Bloxham Projects Paragraph 7.2 raises some transport related issues. It states that: “Bloxham is wrongly classified as urban by Oxfordshire County Council with regard to parking standards for new developments.” The Parking Standards document was developed through an agreed methodology and confirmed by the Cabinet on the 19th of July 2011, at the conclusion of a lengthy public consultation and engagement process for common agreement across all districts (and the county). Amending this, even in a relatively ‘minor’ way would trigger a full revision and new public consultation. This would have a significant impact on resources and capacity. This work cannot be justified given that: ‘ The proposed change will not have a significant impact to the issue described above concerning planning applications. The key local policy document for determining planning applications is the district local plan. The standards’v category (urban) for Bloxham is, in our professional opinion, appropriate to its character as a large village or ‘built-up’ area. This term should not be construed to indicate anything beyond a parking standard category which has been determined primarily through car ownership rates. It is not indicative of other traits for the village that may be associated with the word ‘urban’. – The difference in the parking definitions between categories is marginal. – Given the recent adoption of the standards, there has not been a significant change in circumstances warranting an early review. It is important to note that the Parking Standards are not a binding document and are subject to implementation by the district council as the planning authority. Ultimately, there are a number of influences that define the character of a new development of which this is only one. At bullet 3 on page 19 the inspector’s report needs to be fully referenced: “A recent inspectors report stated it had granted housing permissions on the basis that OCC had said there was a solution for the issues relating to the Bloxham mini-roundabout.” At bullet 7 on page 19 the following should also be discussed with Oxfordshire County Council: “We will highlight to Cherwell D.C. that as a village we will if appropriate consider seeking developer contributions towards a proper cycle-path towards Banbury;” |
| 93 | OCC Economy and Skills No Comment |
| 94 | OCC Extra Care Housing It is suggested that plans for new homes aim to meet the needs of older people wanting to down-size, and should construct 20% of new homes at level 3 wheelchair access standards. Plans to favour some of the above new homes to meet the needs of older people wanting to down-size are supported as is ambition to build 20% at level 3 wheelchair access standards. |
| 95 | OCC – Archaeology The submitted plan does not contain any reference to protecting the archaeological heritage of Bloxham. Section 6 highlights the need to protect the rural heritage and landscape in Housing policy HR, however this would appear to be concerned with protecting the rural character of the built environment. The introduction to this policy does state that ‘Housing development shall be encouraged to respect the local character and the historic and natural assets of the area’ but does not contain any detail policy to protect these historic assets of the area. We would therefore recommend that this section is amended to contain a policy for the protection and enhancement of the historic environment assets of the area both above ground and below ground in the form of archaeological sites and features as set out below. Policy HR – g – The Historic Environment: The parish’s designated historic heritage assets and their settings, both above and below ground including listed buildings, scheduled monuments and conservation areas will be conserved and enhanced for their historic significance and their important contribution to local distinctiveness, character and sense of place. Proposals for development that affect non-designated historic assets will be considered taking account of the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2012) |
| 96 | OCC Drainage All new housing and developments should be drained using sustainable methods |
| 97 | OCC Education The County Council’s current position on primary school capacity in Bloxham is that Bloxham Primary School has been expanded to the full extent of its site capacity, and further population growth in the village is likely to mean that not all children who live within the catchment will be able to secure a place at the school. Housing already permitted is expected to mean that: – Children moving in already of primary age are likely to have to travel to another school, with the consequent travel costs and inconvenience to parents; – The school will have to turn away younger siblings of out-of-catchment children who were able to get in while local demand was lower, with the consequent loss of amenity to existing residents; – In the smaller villages surrounding Bloxham, which have historically fed to Bloxham Primary School, it is likely that children will need to attend a different primary school, this being made possible by the expansion of that school. (In many cases these villages already lie within shared catchment areas for both schools.) Further housing development in the short-medium term would bring a significant risk that even some children living within the village, applying on time for a school place, may not be able to secure a place at the school. This would be detrimental to community cohesion and sustainability. On these grounds, the county council School Planning team would support the Neighbourhood Plan’s policy on housing need, that only small scale further housing growth takes place in Bloxham in the short-medium term. This situation could change if a feasible and viable solution to expanding primary school capacity in the village could be provided. The school’s current playing field is owned by the County Council, and should the school need to expand the County Council would work with the school and Diocese to identify options for growth, but such growth would be expected to require additional site area being provided for the school, adjacent to its current site. Moreover, to enable the school to grow in an increment that is supportive of effective and efficient provision of education, significant additional accommodation for the school would be required, and to fund this would require a substantial number of additional homes. It should also be noted that the school is already 2 form entry size, and there are no village schools larger than this in Oxfordshire. The Neighbourhood Plan’s objectives (section 5.2) include “3D. Secure primary school capacity which provides a place within the village for all children from Bloxham and our satellite neighbours”. 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. Due to the normal fluctuations in population, it is possible that in some years there may not be sufficient school places within Bloxham for all children from the satellite villages; it is also possible some Bloxham village children may not be able to secure a place, especially if they are late applicants. While the county council would endorse the objective, it notes that it may not be fully attainable, due to the constraints on school size. As pressure on primary school places has increased in recent years, so can pressure on secondary school places be expected to increase in the next few years. The county council would welcome support in the Neighbourhood Plan for the expansion of The Warriner School in Bloxham. |
| 98 | OCC Fire Service No comments |
| 99 | OCC Waste Management No comments |
| 100 | OCC Ecology Key issues: The Parish Council are advised to follow the advice on biodiversity in the Neighbourhood Planning Toolkit. The section on biodiversity starts on page 35 and can be found here. The Parish Council may also find some useful information within the following publications: – Communities & Parish Guide to Biodiversity – Biodiversity & Planning Guide: The District Council’s ecologist may also have comments on the Neighbourhood Plan. |
| 101 | I am sorry to leave it so late in sending in a few comments for the Neighbourhood plan group. However, I have looked at the plan and I could not find any reference to the development of Allotments for the use of villagers. I am aware that over the years a number of people have made enquiries about Allotments, Regrettably a previous council sold of the ground that was available. We must remember that the Parish Council does have a responsibility to provide Allotments if the required number of people ask for them. I would also like to comment on the plans for open spaces. I note that a suggestion has been put forward for joint use of the private schools playing fields been used by the village. I believe the village should develop surfactant playing fields for use by the village, without the need to use private facility’s which have never been made available to the village, even though they have been there for many years. With an open mind it can be done, especially with the funds available. And or a flexible mind. Finally, little has been said about the development of small industrial units for the use of local people and their business. I will not go into this in any detail as the detailed argument within the plan covers the reasoning clearly. I do like the thoughts for houses for life. I strongly believe there is a need in the village. I full understand that in a plan you will not get everything you wish for, but if you do not have a wish list you do not have goals. |
| 102 | “Overall this is a good Plan for the future of the village. There has been too rapid an expansion of the village in recent years(far more than any other village in the north of the district) with housing. This Plan will enable the infrastructure to catch up. The traffic through the village A361 and Milton Road is now at over capacity and more housing would aggravate this. There is no capacity in or around the village for further housing above the 20 further dwellings incorporated in this plan.We already have a further 225 dwellings with current permissions and the suggested 20 will make this 245 dwellings in an already unsustainable village with flooding, traffic and infrastructure issues. HN, HA, HR and HC policies are particularly relative to Bloxham and need to be retained as part of the Plan to ensure the village is both protected in the future to retain its character and not have developments more associated with urban areas. Recent permissions have wrongly leaned towards urban rather than rural density which has /will put pressure on the infrastructure. Re HA (a)Bearing in mind the saturation of affordable housing in the village with recent developments or permission granted which has little local take up, consideration should be given to developers providing monies but not houses for affordable housing in other areas where there are good transport links and school spaces and where overall the locality is sustainable in real terms not a tick box. Re HC(b) Flooding is a key issue in Bloxham and the words “”whever appropriate” should be removed. This should be a standard in our village and across the country. CR(a)The words “In Principle”” should be added as it is in the detail that this would ultimately be viable and acceptable e.g. finance,lighting. There should be an a condition that a joint-use agreement in perpetuity with the village be signed with preferential rates for the village groups and residents. The reason being that much of the monies for this would come from finance provided developments in the village past and future. CR(b) Bearing mind the new management committee and a new Project Committee for the Jubilee and the need to both expand and refurbish the hall the word “””moderate””” should be deleted as so not to restrict these committees to do the work needed to match the hall with the use of the park. Should the development of the church not take place the Jubilee hall will become more important to the village and expansion more important to accommodate the village needs. CS All 5 areas represent recreational facilities or key areas of open space and unique areas which define the being and character of the village. The loss of these views or function would make the village indefinable. These are important areas to protect from housing developments at the heart of the village. “ |
| 103 | “There is nothing in the plan I can disagree with. There needs to be more provision in the Plan for dwellings suitable for older people wishing to downsize not wishing to go in to retirement homes/flats or first time buyer development houses. It is right we preserve all open spaces within the confines of the village and totally agree with the Local Green Spaces identified.” |
| 104 | We need green spaces otherwise the village will be over run with concrete. We need areas where we can meet as a community. Also they must help a little with drainage. |
| 105 | “I fully support the aims and objectives of the Bloxham Neighbourhood Plan and have the following comments to make. 1.Housing Need (HN2) Appropriate Housing (HA) Bloxham has been subject to a considerable amount of development as illustrated in the documents. Notwithstanding the large number of houses built, there has been a failure to supply good, high quality accommodation for people who wish to downsize and who wish to feel safe in their neighbourhood. I agree that in future there should only be minor developments in order to meet the above need, thus freeing larger existing properties for families. I agree that new homes should provide adequate parking as parking on pavements is commonplace on new estates where parking courts are far from homes. Vulnerable people of all ages undoubtedly feel unsafe if they are unable to park close to their homes. 2.Traffic Containment (HT) Any proposals for new developments should take into account the traffic conditions. The A361 is already a busy and dangerous road, but due to significant development in Bloxham and Adderbury, the Milton Road is increasingly busy. The infrastructure in Bloxham needs to be improved considerably to support the growing population but developers seem to be able to get away with lip service with regard to their obligation to finance improvents to the road and transport network. Cycling is dangerous for young people in Bloxham and there is lack of connectivity from Milton Road/Barford Road to the centre of the village, with narrow pavements along the busy A361. Parts of the village can certainly not be safely accessed by wheelchair. There are accidents waiting to happen. 3.CT – Provision for Safe Low Carbon Travel With current growth levels in the village there will not be enough places at the primary school for the coming 4-5 years. It is likely that a considerable number of children will need to be transported elsewhere for their education adding congestion to local roads at busy times. Further development in Bloxham should certainly not happen until this situation has resolved. 4. CR – Recreational facilities I fully support the proposals for funding for projects allowing community joint use of the Warriner Sports facilities. I also fully support the development of the Jubilee Hall and Park to match the growing recreational needs of the village. I note that all parts of the village have a park within a fifteen minute walk and I support the development of good common facilities, rather than ghetto like play areas on estates which could possibly discourage a sense of sharing and community within the village as a whole. C5 – Local Green Space I support the need to protect green spaces for the greater good of the village in collaboration with landowners. It is important that we maintain the major green spaces as part of the village heritage and for the common good. |
| 106 | “I support the proposed document, but have some concerns that details are not thought out fully. Bloxham should decide if it wants to be closer to Banbury with housing, or outer villages such as Milton, Milcombe and Lower Tadmarton, Barford StM. This question was not asked, but it may help shape decisions. My preference would be to extend away from Banbury, rather than closer to it. After seeing many villages where gardens are in-filled by developers, I believe that having more properties built in existing plots does not work. It creates a town/city feel to a village and only helps line developers pockets, or residents who move on make some more money when they sell. Gardens should be protected unless there is a legitimate reason for development, e.g. garage or extension to existing building. The main road between the Warriner school and Bloxham school is dangerous. Motorists speed along the road far too often and do not take into consideration 2 schools where pupils are of varying ages are often nearby. There needs to be some form of traffic control that reduces the speed of motorists and protects the children and makes the village a safer place to live. The Warriner school needs improving too. There needs to be a better solution for children to be dropped off and picked up for school. The school should get permission to build better sporting facilities and buildings to educate our children.(Assuming it has the money, or perhaps the current developers can pay?) We should protect the farm land in the village from development, where it is used on a daily basis. The farms are what make a village, and without them, Bloxham will become a town very quickly. The plan should concentrate more on stopping farm land being sold to developers. The airfield or unused land is a better place to develop housing, rather than selling off farm fields for large housing development. Land should be categorised by the local council by its usage and then protected as much as possible. Infrastructure to support the current village should be understood before development is approved again. E.g. public transport, road safety, water & electricity supplies, capacity of schools and future growth. Having a developer build a small playground near some new houses will not improve the schools in the village or roads. It just makes money for developers who do not live in the area or have children in the schools or have to get the bus into Banbury. Finally, this is the first village I have lived in where there appears to be an underdeveloped village hall (Jubilee park and near Co-Op) and central play area for children (Jubilee park) and teenagers. Most villages have invested in new playgrounds over the last 6 years, modern buildings with better facilities, land for recreation such as tennis clubs etc. Bloxham has a rundown play area and village hall in the park that appears to have had little investment in 50 years.” |
| 107 | Fully support the plan. |
| 108 | This is a very impressive document which covers, in our opinion, all the areas of concern to our village. We are concerned about the amount of building taking place and the pressure on the village and feel that this document will help to guard against any development that doesn’t embrace the feeling of the village. It is a fair document. We would like to see plans for a larger village hall considering the increase in population but realise funding could be an issue. Particular thanks to John Groves and the steering group for their hard work and clear vision in producing this plan |
| 109 | Fully support the plan. |
| 110 | I completely support the Bloxham Neighbourhood Plan . Produced by people people who know and care about our village.Still greatly concerned that the government do not understand our local concerns and have the power to dismiss the things we care about. |
| 111 | Response to consultation on Bloxham Neighbourhood development Plan The document provided for consultation is substantiated by robust evidence and this should be featured within the text of the Final Plan submitted for Examination. Below are issues that I would welcome being considered by the steering group: Renaming of Policies to enable greater ease of use. The following are some main points that I wish to raise:- 1. Village boundaries: Cherwell District Council (CDC) in the Submitted Local Plan (SLP) have not submitted evidence of the establishment of settlement or built up boundaries for villages, it is therefore important for the BNDP to show areas where boundaries should be protected to prevent coalescence of villages; for example on the Milton Road, as developments continue to be proposed in both Adderbury and Bloxham then Milton risks losing its identity. There should be a statement to not support further ribbon development. 2. Policy HT Traffic Hotspots: Policy The Milton Road is not shown as a traffic hotspot, this should be remedied. Due to the recent developments on this road, the increase in minor traffic incidents has increased. The road is also subject to repeated traffic flow constraints arising from Thames Water remedial works, to repair the existing pipe work that is proving unable/unsuitable to cope with the additional strain imposed on the system by the need to maintain a supply to present developments. 3. Policy HC Sustainable Development: Bloxham’s Neighbourhood Plan needs to build on Cherwell District Council’s Submitted Local Plan part 1. Policy ESD 2; by only supporting developments if they comply with the Energy Hierarchy and seek to reduce energy use, by utilizing ground sourced heating, grey water reuse, low energy, timed street lighting. If pumped drainage solutions are required for any development then this should only be supported if it can be shown that there is resilience in this provision by the use of a backup generator. Agree that all developments should be supported by sustainable Drainage Strategies. As waste water is a major issue in Bloxham possibly a Policy on Infrastructure covering waste water, could be added stating that “Developers need to consider the net increase in water and waste water demand to serve their developments and also any impact the development may have off-site, further down the network. If no/low water pressure and internal/external sewage flooding of property is to be avoided, Thames Water must also be consulted regarding proposals involving building over or close to a public sewer. Developers should engage with Thames Water at the earliest opportunity”. Possible Policy: Water and Waste. “Developers will be required to demonstrate that there is adequate wastewater and Water supply capacity both on and off the site to serve the development and that it would not lead to problems for existing or new users. It may be necessary for developers to fund studies to ascertain whether the proposed development will lead to overloading of existing wastewater and water infrastructure, prior to approval of the development.” 4. Policy HN Sustainable Communities: BNDP needs to build on CDC’s SLP Policy BSC1 B89b; “Cherwell District Council recognises that there is a possibility that Oxford may not be able to accommodate the whole of its new housing requirement for the 2011-2031 period within its administrative boundary. The urban capacity of Oxford is as yetuknown and untested but is the subject of on-going work.” Taking this as a reference there is no proven evidence that of the 750 dwellings divided between Category A and B villages (i.e. 35 villages.), noted in the Submitted Local Plan, that Bloxham would be required to accommodate any additionald evelopment other than the figure of 20 additional dwellings shown in the BNDP. BNDP needs to show clearly the amount of development since 2005 both built and approved. The plan also needs to show the amount of windfall approvals granted forthis period of time and the amount of development given approval since the cut off date of March 2014. It is time that the “open season” on Bloxham was shown as speculative development that cannot be supported by the present infrastructure. Infill could greater emphasis be placed on infill housing e.g. New homes on infill sites will be permitted where the proposal respects their immediate environments and their design maintains and contributes to local distinctiveness. Where the development comprises more than three units the homes should be grouped to allow a small landscaped area for use by the development residents whilst maintaining the privacy of the houses. 5. Policy HR BNDP needs to build on the CDC SLP Policies for Our villages and Rural Areas; C214 “- whether best and most versatile agricultural land could be avoided – whether significant adverse landscape and impacts could be avoided” The visual landmarks that create the identity of Bloxham should be protected, such as the open aspect in front of Bloxham School, designated in this plan as a green space. The visual aspect of this area of land provides not only a showcase of a classical building that looks beautiful in its surroundings it also enhances this area of Bloxham, but as a cricket pitch used by Bloxham School it has a significance for many residents and I am sure both current and former pupils of Bloxham School are awareof its impact. Residents enjoy the view of the buildings when walking on the Public Right of Way that runs through this area.To retain this would be in line with both TheNational Planning Policy Guidance (the Guidance) states “that land could be considered for designation even if there is no public access (e.g. green areas which are valued because of their wildlife, historic significance and/or beauty)” , and with the NPPF. Two recent approvals for developments in Bloxham have allocated tracts of green landfor community use, as these areas were a major consideration in the granting of approval, these need to be shown as “Green spaces” to enable them to be retained as such. Footpaths. The visual aspects from foot paths throughout the village and thesurrounding fields need to be afforded protection and the BNDP needs to show only support for development that do not detract from such paths, or seek to change theiroutlook. 6. Policy HR BNDP needs to build on CDC SLP C214 and C227, especially the following points: – if the necessary infrastructure could be provided locally. – whether land considered for allocation is deliverable now or whether there is a reasonable prospect that it could be developed within the plan period or within the next five years. Recent applications have failed to meet the time scales set and yet have been renewed. – Whether the development would have an adverse impact on the flood risk. – Avoid significant environmental harm, – Support the Neighbourhood Planning process. 7. Policy HAc that, there should only be support for developments that show adequate car parking within the curtillage of the dwelling. If this should prove to be a stumbling block then appropriate wording could be :- New homes with one or two bedrooms should be provided with at least two car spaces on their plot. For new homes with three or more bedrooms each property should be provided with at least three car spaces on their plot. Where it is difficult to meet all the parking requirements on plot, for example proposals for terraced housing with narrow frontages, additional parking in bays or service roads in front of the properties will be considered acceptable to help meet the parking standards – providing they are built to “Secured by Design” standards and are clearly visible from the properties they serve. The use of parking courts do not appear to be working in the village causing owners to park their vehicles on pavements, thereby blocking them for pushchair/wheelchair access, or parking on the road narrowing the width so as not allowing vehicle to pass safely. Minimum road widths on new developments are not suitable for the passage of refuse vehicles if vehicles are parked. This issue should be positively adressed/assessed for CDC Local Plan part 2. 8. Conservation Area: There needs to be an additional section and Policy covering the existing and future development in the Conservation Area of Bloxham. 9. Archaeology: There needs to be an additional section and policies covering the archaeology aspects of Bloxham together with protection of the surrounding Ridge and furrow fields. 10. Hedgerows: Would appreciate a section/ Policy for Greater definition given to the Enhancing, Protecting and Provision of new Natural Environment Habitats, Trees and Hedgerows;- Proposals which are accompanied by a Tree and Hedgerow Survey will be supported when the designs demonstrate sympathetic development around trees of high or moderate quality in accordance with current BS5837 national best practice. Proposals will be supported that are landscaped and include planting trees that respect the local distinctive landscape character and the proposed development. Proposals will be supported that can demonstrate net gain in biodiversity in accordance with the DEFRA Biodiversity Impact Calculator. 11. The Slade should the BNDP make reference to the Slade as a valuable Nature Reserve that the Parish Council are seeking to take responsibility for from OCC? |
| 112 | “I think more houses in Bloxham is fab more and more younge families want Bloxham but can’t afford the huge houses that are already there I myself are trying to get to Bloxham for the sake of my adhd son and so I can have my operation “ |
| 113 | “In general I think the NP covers all areas that are of concern to residents, both at present and in the future, setting out a vision that will hopefully protect the ‘rural heritage’ of our village. Some general points/comments: RECREATION: 1) Although we have both Jubilee and the Recreation ground as football pitches, in effect we only have Jubilee pitches during the Winter period due to flooding issues with the Recreation ground. 2) Is there a reason we don’t highlight areas that could potentially be used for Sports or Recreation in the Plan? THE SLADE: There is no mention of the Conservation area (The Slade) and how this could be improved for the village to use. BUSINESS: Do we need to highlight the types of business we would like to attract to the village i.e a Bakers, another village shop etc? If congestion in the village centre is always going to be an issue, are there potentially other ends of the village were we could accommodate these new businesses? TRAFFIC: Although the roundabout is mentioned as being ‘not fit for purpose’ and the school area is always congested with traffic at peak school run times, this hasn’t seemed to deter developments so far. Are we able to add traffic figures to the plan to highlight how bad congestion is at peak times in these areas? HOUSING: I feel it is extremely important to emphasise that any new developments must be in keeping with Bloxham’s ‘Rural Heritage’ and how much detail are we obliged to give in the NP in terms of the types of brick, window frames etc. Do we leave ourselves open to developers interpretations of what THEY feel is in-keeping with our ‘Rural Heritage’? As mentioned in the beginning, this is a huge leap forward in allowing Bloxham residents to take more control of how their village grows in the future. The effort and time the Parish Council and Steering Committees have taken to get the NP to this stage – along with residents filling out questionnaires – shows just how committed we are in working together for Bloxham’s future. Thank you.” |
| 114 | I fully support the neighbourhood plan. The expansion over the last few years has been massive in proportion to the size of the village and risk destroying forever the character of the village. Amenities, schools and infrastructure cannot support continued expansion on such a large scale. |
| 115 | I support bloxham plan |
| 116 | I support bloxham plan |
| 117 | I would like to express my appreciation and thanks to all of those people who have been involved in the preparation of this comprehensive document. A very considerable amount of work has been involved and the result, in my view, appears to properly reflect the way forward for our village. |
| 118 | I Fully support the plan |
| 119 | “South Newington Parish Council (SNPC) congratulates Bloxham on embarking on the neighbourhood planning process and producing a draft plan and wishes the village success with the remaining stages. SNPC trusts the notes below on the draft plan (Version 5.00) will be helpful. The paragraph numbers of the draft are used as reference. 2.3. To Chipping Norton – The OCC ‘Oxfordshire Lorry Routes’ booklet published in February 2012 designates the A361 as a ‘Link to smaller towns’, it should not be used by long distance HGV traffic. Although the reference to the difficulties in South Newington is welcome it might be more advantageous to make a separate reference to the HGV issue and give the difficulties in Bloxham and South Newington as specific examples of the problems created by inappropriate use of the A361. There are as many bus services to Chipping Norton as to Banbury apart from one morning service terminating in Bloxham and a late evening service terminating at Milcombe. Having different comments in adjoining paragraphs about bus services to Banbury and to Chipping Norton therefore seems inappropriate. 2.4. The Character of the Village – An important aspect of Bloxham is its role as a hub for services to the surrounding villages – primary and secondary schools, doctors and dentists, shops, post office, etc. Development within the village that overloads these services and makes them unavailable to the satellite villages will have an adverse effect on the sustainability of these villages as well as Bloxham itself. South Newington would like to see more emphasis placed on the importance of Bloxham’s hub role and the effects of unbalanced development upon it. Whilst Bloxham is on the Cotswold-edge its character and the appearance of the older buildings has more in common with other ironstone villages than those commonly thought of as ‘Cotswold’. Suggest this is made clear because it potentially has an important influence on the buildings design and building materials considered appropriate. 4.1, 6th bullet – SNPC would like to see a stronger statement about the problem of parking and road congestion by the shops in the centre of the village. (Compare with 5.2, Objective 2E and Policy ERF.) 6. Our policies HN Contextual information, last bullet – Please also mention lack of space for children of satellite villages. HT – “shall be encouraged” seems to be in contradiction to policy HN to limit development to only 20 more dwellings in the plan period. Would it be more appropriate to say something like “will be more favourably considered”? CTb – Could provision for children from satellite villages (South Newington, Milcombe and Milton), for which Bloxham provides the nearest primary school, also be mentioned? 7. Bloxham projects Oxfordshire CC and Cherwell DC, 1st bullet – Could provision for children from satellite villages (South Newington, Milcombe and Milton), for which Bloxham provides the nearest primary school, also be mentioned? Cherwell DC, 5th bullet – Should reinstatement of the bridge in Old Bridge Road (presumably an OCC responsibility) be mentioned in the context of Red Lion Gardens and it uses? |
| 120 | I agree with the whole concept of the plan, particularly HN1-3, HR1-4, HA 1-4 and HC 1-3. \nBloxham is a rural Village and any increase in housing should be designed to keep it as such, and not turn it into a small town. There are few villages in North Oxfordshire that are escaping development, but Bloxham has had way more than it’s fair share already, and the village is being violated and abused by developers, who totally ignore the views of those living here, because they know it is a lovely place to live, and houses will sell at a high price. The village cannot support the large scale developments,and whilst we accept that we will have to have some development, it is time that the village should have a say in how this is implemented, and hopefully this Neighbourhood Plan will enable this to happen. |
| 121 | “Policy HR 1b: Agree strongly with this statement. Bloxham is a lovely village with some beautiful homes. We need to make sure this generation leave its own legacy of homes that we can be proud of and not the bog standard red brick thin walled houses that are all over the country. Policy HRd: Take out 110 litres. Leave it as ‘Housing shall be designed for maximum person/day water usage as set out in the Code for sustainable homes Level 3 or its successor” – This will leave it flexible to adapt to Central Gov Policy changes Policy CR : Why is this policy only seeking contribution towards ‘pitch spaces’? Recreation is a lot more than just football. Football is only played by a very small proportion of the village and I would suggest the existing facilities are mainly used by residents from Banbury and the wider areas as well as Bloxham. The Community Policy should be widened to include all the recreation facilities the village needs to ensure a happy, healthy and cohesive community. As well as pitches this policy should seek new developments to contribute to Play provision on ‘whole village areas’ rather than small on site play equipment. This provision should be for all ages of the community, from the very young, teenagers, and older community members Allotments: The recreation and leisure facilities report from Nov 2014 shows a real deficit in play space and allotments and a growing shortage of cemetery provision. This really needs to be highlighted and addressed within the Neighbourhood Plan Policy CRb: Please remove the word ‘moderate’ from this policy. This word can be interpreted in many different ways and is therefore not appropriate in this policy. The New Management Committee at the Jubilee are currently looking at the future of the hall and this word is too restrictive to any future plans. The hall has been overlooked in recent years and with all the development in the village, the hall and play space now needs to be looked at and improved to make it ‘fit for purpose’ facility for a village of this size. The evidence for 3B in relation to 1 in 5 think Bloxham can support an additional venue may need to be revisited as there was a reference in the orignial questionnaire to the church becoming a community space. This may be a cause of confusion, and if this doesnvt happen many people may have responded differently. Policy CS: What are ‘very special circumstances’? This should be clarified. Selling a piece of land for £1million for housing could be considered ‘very special’ by the landowner. Policy CS1: Please amend the boundary of green space at Jubilee Park. We support the pitches being designated as protected green space but any future plans of the Jubilee should not be restricted by designating the area around the pitches as Green space. Other areas: We would like to see a policy to look at the traffic/parking problems outside the shops including construction of a layby or similar. If this was to be addressed it would stop that road becoming a single carriageway at key times of the day when cars cannot pass quickly and would resolve overnight the traffic problems that occur in this area and have a knock on effect all the way to the Milton mini-roundabout. On your question below we have ticked no for protecting the Rec. This is because as the Rec currently stands, it is not a great facility for anyone. The play equipment is substandard and ancient, and the field is only really used by footballers and dog walkers. It could be a great facility for all the village, with football and cricket pitches, tennis courts, wildlife areas and a play space for all ages. If it had all these then it would be worth protecting. ” “ |
| 122 | “An excellent plan; a skilful, distillation of a great many views. opinions and thousands of hours discussion. We are in total agreement with the plan and will support it in full “ |
| 123 | “I have lived in this beautiful Oxfordshire village for over 25 years, and up until the last few years it had grown at appropriate levels and in line with what is sustainable. Over the last 3 years or so the level of speculative and wholly inappropriate developments has blighted our village. We are a rural community, but increasingly we are running the risk of becoming a suburb of Banbury not a separate village. I appreciate we need to develop local housing, but there are far more appropriate sites in the region particularly some of the brown field locations. Bloxham is not a sustainable village on almost any front, our infrastructure and services are already stretched to breaking. The village has had more than its fair share of ad hoc speculative developments, and it needs to stop. Hopefully our NDP will help this process. Local development tends to be one of the main topics of concern in any local meetings or gatherings. Therefore I am fully supportive of the development and contents of our Bloxham NDP. Policies HN 1,2, and 3 are reasonable “””rules””” for any potential future small developments, particularly given the very high levels of recent years. Any developments should be strictly in line with the look and feel of a rural village environment (HR1), not outside any of the approved (planning consent given) development locations (as at Feb 2015), and supportive of our farming and rural heritage. All our green belt and farming lands should stay as that, Green Belt. It’s what makes Bloxham different, and keeps us a village not a suburb. The BNDP has been a great catalyst for our village and the whole team led by John must be congratulated on an excellent piece of work. I really hope the local wishes, wants and needs that these locally developed plans were intended to convey and deliver within the national planning frameworks, are adhered to, and accorded appropriate gravitas by the Westminster politicians. We will see.” |
| 124 | Firstly, we would like to thank all those involved for giving up their time to produce this important document.We agree with the policies in the plan.
Whilst we understand that Bloxham should take on new dwellings, this shouldn’t be to the detriment of existing residents of the village. We agree with policy HN1 in particular as we feel that the village could not sustain another large development. |
| 125 | English Heritage:Thank you for your e-mail and letter of 8th January inviting English Heritage to comment on the Bloxham Neighbourhood Plan Policies. Before we set out our detailed comments on the Report, we have a couple of general comments.The nature of the locally-led neighbourhood plan process is that the community itself should determine its own agenda based on the issues about which it is concerned. At the same time, as a national organisation able increasingly to draw upon our experiences of neighbourhood planning exercises across the country, our input can help communities reflect upon the special (heritage) qualities which define their area to best achieve aims and objectives for the historic environment. To this end information on our website might be of assistance http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/caring/get-involved/improving-your-neighbourhood/. I have also appended a list of sources of guidance on considering the historic environment, including a number of self-help tools for communities, which you may find helpful to consult.
We appreciate the level of detail that has been provided on the village’s historical context and resultant townscape (or perhaps more accurately ‘village-scape’) character, including the identification of a number of key positive features of the conservation area. The Council’s conservation area appraisal was prepared in 2007 and provides an important resource for understanding the character of the conservation area, which would be relevant evidence for the Parish Council to consider in preparing the plan. We recommend ensuring that the policy in the neighbourhood plan refers to the Council’s conservation area appraisal as a material consideration in determining planning applications and to require proposals for new development to demonstrate how the area’s positive character features identified in the appraisal have been protected in its design. The preparation of a Neighbourhood Plan also provides an opportunity for the community to review the conservation area appraisal to determine whether it continues to provide a suitable basis for decision-making in the conservation area. This might include reviewing whether the issues identified previously are still the most pressing, or whether these have been resolved or new issues have arisen. The community may also use the neighbourhood plan to identify any potential changes to the area covered by the designation, which they wish the Council to consider. We note that the document presently expresses the community’s dissatisfaction with the impact some recent development has had on the character of the village and the conservation area. It would be helpful as a guide to the suitability of future development proposals for the evidence base of the plan to include a critical review of these recent developments to identify specifically what features (e.g. the materials, massing, scale, placement or spacing of buildings, green environment, or mixture of hard and planted surfaces, etc.) detract from the character of the conservation area. This could also be used to develop guidelines for new development, including identifying design features that these should include in order to be considered suitable, which may then be expressed as part of the plan’s policies. We note a number of spaces identified as potential local green spaces. One of the criteria that may justify the designation of local green space is that it should have a local historic significance, we recommend clearly identifying any historic significance these spaces may have for the community in order to provide a robust justification for their designation? Cherwell District Council has recently embarked on a programme of local listing of historic buildings and other heritage assets of local significance, including publishing criteria by which these will be chosen. Preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan provides an important opportunity to identify any features that the community consider meet these criteria, and indeed to provide policies to ensure they are given proper consideration in planning decisions. We would recommend considering local listing for key historic buildings and places that make an important contribution to the character of the Parish but have not met the criteria for national designations such as listed buildings and scheduled monuments in the past. We have noted that many Neighbourhood Plans in their early preparation overlook the presence of archaeological remains of interest within the area covered. Exploring opportunities to reveal more of the area’s past through projects such as development of Parish history trails can contribute to the sense of identify of the community as well as providing opportunities for local businesses, including public houses and village shops. The County Historic Environment Record (maintained by the County Council) provides an accessible resource of information about previously recorded archaeological finds and remains within the parish, which you may wish to consult. I hope these points are of assistance in drafting the plan but would be pleased to answer any queries they may raise or to provide any further information that may be available from English Heritage. |
| 126 | We strongly feel that Bloxham has reached its optimum in housing provision, and that any further development will endanger the nature of the village and put an undue strain on the infrastructure |
| 127 | Bloxham School needs the option to use its own land for any necessary expansion. It is a lovely school with intentions to improve relationships with the local community. I can’t imagine that any building in the future would be to the detriment of the village. Any more development of the outskirts of the village should be frozen for at least five years to allow for any traffic improvements that might be possible. |
| 128 | There is a need for a communal hall seating about 200 people similar to that of Kings Sutton. I would like to see the Ex-servicemens Hall, Ellen Hinde Hall, Jubilee Park and the Baptist Church join together to build a new facility incorporating the different needs of each Charity for the mutual benefit of each and also the community. The ‘commercial centre’ is too congested causing constant traffic problems and we need a long term vision for the future. “ |
| 129 | Bloxham Neighbourhood Plan Public Consultation: Response from CPRE Oxfordshire (Banbury District.) Villages all have their defining characteristics; in Bloxham these are very clear and distinctive. Most people arriving in Bloxham for the first time and indeed most arrivals would be from Banbury. Arriving this way the first feature that defines Bloxham is Bloxham School with its fine, prominent buildings ahead of you with the great open space of its playing fields on the left. Few other villages have such a “statement” of arrival. Then, on descending the hill, the next distinctive set of features is the area around the bridge with the Red Lion, which would make an excellent community centre, on your left, with its garden area and the range of old properties beyond the bridge on the left, the bridge itself and concluding with the front elevation of Tony Baldry’s house facing you. Above all of this dominates the superb spire of the parish church (along with Adderbury and Kings Sutton one of the finest in north Oxfordshire) which with its grace and height is a marker of the heart of Bloxham. These are the features which make Bloxham a distinctive village with its unique character area the essence of which is worthy of preservation. Another area of the village worth noting is the old main road that pre-dates the existing one with many distinctive cottages on what is now a quiet and pleasant lane. We note a number of green spaces highlighted in the plan but are averse to attempting to “rank” these; suffice to say that all are important to the vibrancy and health of the community although we are of the view that the school playing fields should be regarded as sacrosanct. Put simply; future generations of children will need them. We are only too well aware of the rate of recent housing developments in the village which has been considerable and are of the view that with the present schemes completed the time has come to ease off the rate of development and to take stock of the village’s growth for a while. One subject which we feel should be incorporated in the plan is that of public transport which seems not to be covered. Even with the present growth, let alone any more, in order to ease traffic congestion on the Bloxham – Banbury road we feel a more frequent bus service is desired. When a service is only hourly as at present it deters potential users due to the inflexibility in planning their journey. A half hourly frequency is far more attractive and itself would encourage more use. In particular attracting passengers onto buses at the peak morning and evening times would reduce congestion. The growing number of young residents would benefit from better bus services including later evening services as they will, inevitably, wish to go out to Banbury for their evening entertainment. The present service does not allow youngsters who do not yet drive to enjoy an evening out in Banbury independently of a parent or other lift provider. A growing number of older residents would also benefit such as those who have given up driving or have given up driving after dark. We believe there is a precedent for this as we understand that plans are afoot to double the frequency of buses between Banbury and Deddington via Adderbury as a result of housing growth with developer funding for an additional bus which would operate hourly to those villages to give a half hourly service combined with the existing hourly Oxford route. By the same arrangement a Banbury – Bloxham hourly service could be overlaid on the existing Chipping Norton service. This response is brief for the simple reason that we consider the plan to be a well executed and comprehensive document, well researched which we support and endorse. Clearly a lot of effort has gone into its preparation and it is hard to find fault with it! |
Click for recent planning applications.
Click for emergency contacts
Click for Bloxham Weather
Click for Local Traffic Report
Click for Air Train Bus Info
Recent Comments