1.1 The following supplementary written submission is being made on behalf of Hanwell Parish Council which represents the village and residents of Hanwell.
1.2 Having commented and submitted objections on various issues on the original application for residential development, Hanwell Parish Council now wishes to highlight a number of important matters arising from the considerable appeal evidence recently made available to the public.
1.3 We wish to strongly support Cherwell District Council’s case for dismissing this appeal and wish to put forward additional comments.
1.4 We would ask that the Inspector should take this further submission into account in reaching her conclusions on this appeal.
1.5 Our submission concentrates on the reasons for refusal and the five main issues for the inquiry outlined in Mr Smith’s evidence for the Council.
2.
ISSUE one:
The principle of development - having regard to the location of the site and the relevant adopted policies
2.1 Hanwell Parish Council strongly supports and agrees with Cherwell District Council’s arguments in relation to the principle of this development being unacceptable.
2.2 We are aware that Cherwell District Council has consistently been concerned about the northern edge of the town and we recall that considerable effort was made in the planning of Hanwell Fields to ensure that a sensitive and definite boundary could be established to this controversial large urban extension of about 900 homes.
2.3 Hanwell village has now come to terms with this on our doorstep so to speak and looks forward to the completion of the development and the maturing of the landscaping.
2.4 Hanwell residents, despite misgivings, are on the whole pleased with the way this development has been planned and now forms a definitive urban edge using the spine road as the well-defined physical limit to development and the open space and landscaping beyond that.
2.5 The development of Hanwell Fields also respects the contours of the land in this area. Banbury forms a “bowl” and the built areas were restricted to the lower slopes of the rising land to the north. We would argue that the present physical limit to development is well-defined, logical and defendable.
2.6 In planning policy terms we agree strongly with the Council that the appeal site is an unplanned development on a greenfield site intruding into the open countryside and beyond the established urban limits of Banbury.
2.7 We are also concerned at the repeated references by the applicants to the selection of Bankside and the Council’s considerable efforts to produce a coherent Local Plan. We feel it would entirely unacceptable for this process to be set aside in favour of what is an ad hoc commercial application with very little community consultation.
2.8 We strongly support the Council’s arguments in relation to its emerging LDF. In our view this is the proper way to consider the future growth of Banbury and assess all the options available in detail.
2.9 Hanwell Parish Council therefore supports the Council’s arguments that the appeal site is contrary to the local and national policy framework and in the absence of real justification the principle of development is not acceptable and should be resisted.
3.
ISSUE two:
The need to release the site for housing - the planning policy considerations relating to housing supply issues
3.1 Overall Hanwell Parish Council supports the Council’s arguments that adequate provision is being made to meet the housing growth requirements of the District and that future provision and delivery can be managed in a flexible way. We do not propose to comment on the complex details set out in evidence.
3.2 We remain very concerned that the applicants have used a legal challenge as a tactic to effectively delay the development of Bankside and then comment on the slowness at which sites are coming forward. One might assume they are not convinced about the planning merit of their own site.
3.3 Hanwell Parish Council is very pleased to note the recent dismissal of the legal challenge, and would now expect that Bankside should be coming on stream shortly to deliver much needed housing for Banbury.
3.4 We agree with the Council’s arguments that the appeal site would in practical terms be unlikely to meet an urgent short term need for housing (if one existed) and significant work would be required before houses started to be provided on the site. Delivery would also depend on the local housebuilding market which appears to be cooling off.
3.5 Hanwell Parish Council would – given the impacts on the village - expect a full community consultation exercise from the developers before any detailed permission were granted – which has not been forthcoming so far - with presumably meaningful opportunities to influence the masterplan and detailed design of the scheme.
3.6 We strongly support the Council’s arguments that the LDF process should be allowed to address the long term housing provision in the District in a comprehensive manner. We also have confidence that the Council will be able to manage future housing provision in a flexible way. We can see no justification for the approval of this ad hoc greenfield development of 400 houses in advance of the LDF process.
4.
ISSUE three.
The sustainability of the site having regard to factors such as the mix of uses, relationship and access to the services and facilities and the opportunity for more sustainable developments elsewhere
4.1 Hanwell Parish Council supports the Council’s arguments that the appeal site is inherently unsustainable and has to rely on existing facilities and infrastructure, principally in the Hanwell Fields development. We would refer to Hanwell Fields Community Association’s experience of the current level of social facilities and the various pressures on them.
4.2 We note the appeal site includes 400 dwellings providing limited recreation space but no other social infrastructure on site. The site is inadequate to sustain a mix of uses or facilities such as primary school, shops or community facilities. It would have to be “bolted – on” to the existing Hanwell Fields development and would be physically isolated from the rest.
4.3 We note the appeal site is also located on the western edge of Hanwell Fields and about 1.5 km from the main facilities. This will lead to many people including schoolchildren having to cross an increasingly busy spine road or just go by car. This cannot be good planning.
4.4 We note that the Council has apparently agreed outline terms of a s 106 agreement with the developers for various contributions to off site provision. We note the applicants’ argument that “the proposal makes best use of existing infrastructure in Banbury”. However, we feel this is a very limited approach to what sustainable communities involve. Because there happens to be some spare capacity in the infrastructure does not make it the best option for a market town like Banbury which across the board – roads, transport, schools, medical services – is clearly struggling to provide additional capacity in its physical and social infrastructure, not only for the town but the hinterland of small villages. We support the Council’s strategy to identify large and sustainable urban extensions to maximise the provision of new facilities and infrastructure.
4.5 We also support Hanwell Fields Community Association’s view that the Hanwell Fields development should be allowed to be completed and consolidate as a sustainable community – in line with the Government’s aspirations set out in many Government planning documents. We note the community association’s comment that if the appeal site were approved, the combined development of some 1,300 houses, and say 3,200 people, would be the largest settlement in Cherwell after Banbury, Bicester and Kidlington. It would be larger than any village within Cherwell and larger than the market town of Charlbury in West Oxfordshire.
4.6 Hanwell Parish Council supports the Council’s arguments that the LDF process should be allowed to address long term opportunities, in consultation with local communities, for more sustainable developments elsewhere in the District in a comprehensive manner.
5.
ISSUE four:
The urbanising impact of the development and effect on the surrounding landscape and the character and appearance of the rural area
5.1 This is probably the greatest concern for the village of Hanwell. We are alarmed that the applicants’ evidence dismisses the various impacts on the village so lightly. We are indebted to Mr Goodrum for the detailed and compelling assessment of this issue in his evidence for the Council.
5.2 Considerable effort was made in the planning of Hanwell Fields to provide a sensitive and definite boundary to this large urban extension of about 900 homes. Hanwell village has now come to terms with this on our doorstep so to speak and looks forward to the completion of the Hanwell Fields development and the maturing of the landscaping.
5.3 This development forms a definitive edge using the spine road as the well-defined physical limit to development with the belt of open space and landscaping beyond that, and beyond that open countryside in the form of farmland - which is for the record actively farmed.
5.4 Banbury forms a “bowl” and the built areas were restricted to the lower slopes of the rising land to the north. The present physical limit to development is we feel well-defined, logical and defendable. The appeal site is currently open countryside in a rural environment and we feel very strongly this should be protected and not built on.
5.5 We agree with the Council’s assessment that the development would undoubtedly have an adverse visual impact on both Hanwell Fields and Hanwell Village and would be significantly more visible in this area than the applicants contend, partly because it is on elevated ground rising from Hanwell Fields and partly the height of proposed buildings. We note the design approach is to try to hide the development behind planting, eg on Warwick Road.
5.6 Hanwell Parish Council is in particular very concerned at the extent to which the important rural gap between the urban edge of Hanwell Fields and Hanwell village would be eroded by the appeal site. Moreover we are concerned that a major issue is at stake in terms of the rural character of the setting of the village. This point is highlighted in the Council’s recent 2007 Hanwell Conservation Area appraisal.
5.7 Currently there is a strategic gap of open countryside of about 860 metres -under a kilometre – measured from the edge of Park Farmhouse and the Castle Grounds to the first roundabout on the spine road from Warwick Rd. This gap still feels like a rural environment and open countryside. However, the appeal site would reduce this to about half – only about 400 metres – and it is our view that this suddenly feels like urban fringe – not a rural environment at all. We feel that this has not been addressed by the applicants’ evidence.
5.8 Surely 400 metres of field cannot be seriously considered as an important strategic gap of open countryside in this context. The topography of the site would make the development even more conspicuous.
5.9 We would also emphasise that Hanwell is a small village of around 100 houses – not a large robust village such as Bloxham or Bodicote. It still has a strong traditional character with a pleasant Conservation area forming its core of Hornton stone buildings along a winding village road. This contains two very important listed buildings and their settings - the 12th century parish Church of St Peter and Hanwell Castle dating from 1498.
5.10 Despite its relative proximity to the urban edge, the existing rural setting is adequate to protect the rural “feel” of the village and vital to its overall character and tranquillity. We feel that the planning of Hanwell Fields respected that setting.
5.11 Hanwell village is also the site of the established Hanwell Community Observatory (which received substantial Millennium funding) with several large astronomical telescopes located in the grounds of the castle and links to Oxford University Department of Continuing Education. This is extremely vulnerable to any increase on night time lighting levels from new development. It is not clear how far this has been specifically assessed.
5.12 Hanwell Parish Council would argue that the village’s environment is very fragile and the overall impacts - visual and otherwise - of a large unplanned development of 400 houses nearby on the appeal site would therefore have significant urbanising and adverse effects. We therefore strongly support Mr Goodrum’s assessments. The quality of our rural setting is fairly hard to define - but we will know when it has gone.
5.13 We agree that the existing Warwick Road “gateway” into the urban area is the appropriate one and strongly defines the urban edge. The appeal site breaks this defined edge and the applicants have apparently had to resort to screening the houses from Warwick Road with planting, which we feel is an acknowledgement that the site is simply unsuitable.
5.14 We also note that the appeal site has new tree planting and established planting which would apparently be destroyed by the new housing.
5.15 We are aware that the development would also have impacts on wildlife.
5.16 Overall Hanwell Parish Council agrees with and supports the Council’s assessment that the development would have a very urbanising impact on the surrounding landscape and the character and appearance of the rural environment. It should therefore be strongly resisted.
6.
ISSUE five.
Appropriate infrastructure - The absence of a Section 106 obligation to mitigate the impacts of the development and provide contributions to a range of matters would mean that the development would not have the appropriate infrastructure. Negotiations are ongoing on this matter and it is hoped that agreement can be reached in advance of the Inquiry.
6.1 We have noted that the Council has apparently agreed outline terms of a s 106 agreement with the developers for various contributions to off site provision. We note the applicants have set great store by this “use of existing provision” and argue that “the proposal makes best use of existing infrastructure in Banbury”.
6.2 We feel this amounts to a perfunctory approach to what a sustainable community involves and in our view it seriously underestimates the physical and social impact on the local community. It does not make it the best option for a market town like Banbury which is clearly struggling to provide additional capacity in its physical and social infrastructure to cope with the continuing growth of the town.
6.3 Hanwell Parish Council strongly supports the Council’s strategy through the LDF to identify and develop options for large and sustainable urban extensions, in consultation with local communities, to maximise the provision of new physical and social facilities, and where possible to provide new strategic infrastructure for the town ( ie more than site provision). We agree this must be the right approach.
for
Hanwell Parish Council
July 2007
Hanwell Parish Council
SUPPLEMENTARY WRITTEN SUBMISSION TO INQUIRY
APPEAL B – Bat Roost
1.
Introduction
1.1 The following supplementary written submission is being made on behalf of Hanwell Parish Council.
2.
Proposals for bat roost building
2.1 We support the Council’s arguments in relation to the replacement bat roost building. We agree with Hanwell Fields Community Association that the bats should remain undisturbed and if there is ultimately an approval for residential development on the appeal site this issue needs to be properly thought out.
2.2 We agree that the proposed building would be an incongruous feature in the landscape and it would be visible from Hanwell Fields.
2.3 There are also issues about the long term management and the vulnerability of such a remote building.
2.4 Hanwell Parish Council would agree that this matter needs to be considered alongside all the other development issues and the building is unnecessary at this stage.
