http://www.hanwellvillage.com/ Hanwell Village Community Website http://i2.hanwellvillage.com/longdesc.php?recordID=Wednesday 21 November 2007 08:17 pm The Secretary of State has dismissed the appeal by the developers and refused the planning permission. Wednesday 21 November 2007 08:17 pm http://i2.hanwellvillage.com/longdesc.php?recordID=Saturday 11th August 2007 03:08 pm A letter has been received from the Planning Inspectorate dated 9 August stating that:
"Following the closure of the inquiry, the Inspector is now preparing her report and recommendations for submission to the Secretary of State for her consideration.
The Secretary of State will issue her decision on or before 21 November 2007." Saturday 11th August 2007 03:08 pm http://i2.hanwellvillage.com/longdesc.php?recordID=Wednesday 1 August 2007 11:09 pm PERSIMMON PLANNING INQUIRY

DAILY UPDATE ON INQUIRY :
FINAL DAY - WEDNESDAY 1
AUGUST 2007

DAY 5

MORNING SESSION - CLOSING STATEMENTS

First Graeme Keen presented the closing statement for the District Council, summarising the Council’s main arguments and re emphasising the evidence against the appeal proposals. The statement runs to over 20 pages.

Second, Andrew Tait presented the closing statement for the Appellants, again summarising the key arguments and evidence in favour of granting the appeal. This statement also runs to over 20 pages.

The Inspector thanked all those who had taken part in the inquiry including the Council’s support staff.

She then declared the inquiry to be closed.

TIMESCALE FOR DECISION ON APPEAL

The Inspector explained that, following the inquiry, arrangements would be made to write to the main parties within about 2 to 3 weeks indicating the likely timescale for the Secretary of State to issue the final decision on the main appeal, following receipt of the Inspector’s report. She could not comment further. The Inspector is able to make the decision on the bat roost building.

(NB It is anticipated that the final decision by the Secretary of State will not be issued for possibly 3 or 4 months, or possibly even longer.)

FOOTNOTE: The Parish Council is considering holding a special meeting at the village hall to give village residents feedback on the inquiry and to set out what may happen next.

AJ Wednesday 1 August 2007 11:09 pm http://i2.hanwellvillage.com/longdesc.php?recordID=Tuesday 31 July 2007 12:26 am PERSIMMON PLANNING INQUIRY

DAILY UPDATE ON INQUIRY :
TUESDAY 31 JULY 2007

DAY 5

MORNING SESSION – SITE VISIT

In the morning, the Inspector carried out the formal site visit, taking in Bankside, Hanwell Fields, the edge of Hanwell Village, and the appeal site. She was accompanied by representatives of the Council and the applicants, and for parts of the site visit by Mr Jones and Mr Goode from HFCA. The weather was very sunny and clear, and perfect conditions for getting long distance views of the appeal site.

AFTERNOON SESSION - OUTSTANDING MATTERS

The Inspector explained that the purpose was to review and to resolve with the main parties the outstanding matters including potential planning conditions and potential legal agreements. She also sought to clarify which parcels of land were actually covered by the conditions and various agreements.

Starting with planning conditions, the Inspector spent a considerable time working through the drafting of potential planning conditions to rationalise the number and scope of the draft conditions. It was agreed that a number should be amended, combined or deleted. (These would be applied should permission be eventually granted).

The Inspector then spent a considerable time working through a separate set of planning conditions which has had to be drawn up in relation to the site of “Broken Furrow” (which is at this stage not part of the main legal agreement).

The Inspector then reviewed the position relating to the potential legal agreements. There is a substantial draft S106 Agreement with the County Council for their requirements and separately the Applicants have submitted a substantial Unilateral Undertaking to the District Council to address their requirements. (Again these would be applied, together with the conditions, should permission be eventually granted).

PROGRAMME

The Inspector confirmed that the remainder of the Inquiry programme would be as follows.
On Wednesday 1 August the session would start at 9.30 am. The closing statements would be given by Counsel and the inquiry then closes.



AJ Tuesday 31 July 2007 12:26 am http://i2.hanwellvillage.com/longdesc.php?recordID=Friday 27 July 2007 10:59 pm HANWELL PARISH COUNCIL



SUPPLEMENTARY WRITTEN SUBMISSION TO INQUIRY



Appeals by Persimmon Homes Ltd Land to the north of Hanwell Fields and east of Warwick Road, Banbury



PINS Refs
APP/C3105/A/06/2030989
APP/C3105/C/07/2037369

LPA Refs
06/01600/OUT
06/02158/F



July 2007

V.2



Hanwell Parish Council

SUPPLEMENTARY WRITTEN SUBMISSION TO INQUIRY

APPEAL A

1.
Introduction

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.





for
Hanwell Parish Council

July 2007 Friday 27 July 2007 10:59 pm http://i2.hanwellvillage.com/longdesc.php?recordID=Friday 27 July 2007 10:48 pm PERSIMMON PLANNING INQUIRY

DAILY UPDATE ON INQUIRY :
FRIDAY 27 JULY 2007

DAY 4

PRELIMINARIES

The Inspector reviewed outstanding material from the main parties including potential planning conditions (still progressing slowly), and potential legal agreement. A copy of further technical information was provided by Mr Jones on Light pollution and sky-glow particularly in relation to the Hanwell Observatory.

PRESENTING EVIDENCE - CONTINUED

On the previous afternoon Mr Bateman had completed his evidence for the applicants on the Planning Policy issues, including housing land supply.

Today commenced with Mr Bateman being cross examined by Graeme Keen for the Council on the following main issues:
Planning Policy issues, and Government advice including PPS3.
Status of the Cherwell’s NSCLP.
Cherwell’s LDF and context for LDF.
Housing need and national household projections.
Housing land availability.
Housing 5 year supply and delivery issues.
Delivery issues at Upper Heyford, Bankside and Bicester.
Realistic housebuilding rates.

He then responded to a number of questions from Mr Jones on the following issues:
The SE Plan and urban renaissance objectives.
Sustainable community objectives.
Extent of consultation and engagement with HFCA and Hanwell PC.
Mitigation of impacts and provision of infrastructure.
Current draft s106 agreement and draft planning conditions.
Further consultation with local people on the development and timing of this.
Issues with delivery of facilities as many factors outside developers’ control.
Light pollution at night and impact on the village.
Impact of sky-glow on the Hanwell Observatory at the Castle.

Following that, Mr Jones gave the evidence for Hanwell Fields Community Association and the evidence for Hanwell Parish Council.
(This was based on the two written submissions deposited with the inquiry. These are now available on the website).
He responded to several questions from Andrew Tait for the applicants.

The Inspector then confirmed that that was substantially the end of the evidence from all the parties.

REVISED PROGRAMME CONFIRMED

The Inspector confirmed that the remainder of the Inquiry programme would be as follows.
The Inquiry will continue Tuesday 31 July with the formal Site Visit in the morning to finish about 1.00pm and the afternoon session will begin at 3.00 pm to permit the parties to tie up any “loose ends”. On Wednesday 1 August the closing statements would be given by Counsel and the inquiry closes.




AJ Friday 27 July 2007 10:48 pm http://i2.hanwellvillage.com/longdesc.php?recordID=Thursday 26 July 2007 04:41 pm PERSIMMON PLANNING INQUIRY

DAILY UPDATE ON INQUIRY :
THURSDAY 26 JULY 2007

DAY 3
PRELIMINARIES
The Inspector reviewed outstanding material from the main parties including potential planning conditions (still progressing slowly), and potential legal agreement (still being circulated by the relevant parties to the agreement). Further technical information would be provided by as agreed by Mr Peckford. Further technical information on visual impact was to be presented with Mrs Brockhurst’s evidence. Agreement had been reached with the County Council on the issue regarding long term funding of bus services. The owner of Broken Furrow had confirmed via solicitors that she was now happy to be included in the development.

PRESENTING EVIDENCE - CONTINUED

Mr Batheram gave evidence for the applicants on Transport matters. He was then cross examined by Graeme Keen for the Council on the following main issues:
Accessibility to facilities.
Transport improvements.
Transport funding.

He then responded to a number of questions from Mr Jones on the following issues:
Provision of a high quality vehicles and bus services for Hanwell Fields and the timing of such improvements.
The accessibility of facilities from appeal site, given distances and steep gradients. Reliance on town centre facilities 4 km distant.
Phasing of improved cycle/pedestrian facilities to be provided by County.

After that Mrs Brockhurst gave evidence for the applicants on Landscape matters. She was cross examined by Graeme Keen on the following main points:
Landscape impact and visual impact issues.
Landscape character issues.
Impact on Historic environment ie Listed buildings and Hanwell Conservation Area.
Gateway into Banbury on Warwick Road.

She then responded to a number of questions from Mr Jones on the following issues:
Character of the gap of open land between Hanwell and the appeal site.
Sensitivity of the landscape setting to the village and the Conservation area.
Distances between the appeal site and the edge of the village.
Light pollution at night and impact on the village.
Impact of sky-glow on the Hanwell Observatory at the Castle.

In the afternoon Mr Bateman presented evidence for the applicants on the Planning Policy issues, including housing land supply. He also summarised the new Government Green Paper published Monday “Homes for the future” which contains various proposals to ensure local authorities bring forward more land more speedily for new housing. This will no doubt have some bearing on the Inspector’s conclusions.

REVISED PROGRAMME CONFIRMED

The Inspector confirmed that the remainder of the Inquiry programme would be as follows. On Friday Mr Bateman will complete his evidence and Mr Jones will therefore give his submissions for Hanwell and Hanwell Fields late morning or early afternoon. The session starts 9.30 Friday.
The Inquiry will then continue Tuesday 31 July with the formal Site Visit in the morning to finish about 1.00pm and the afternoon session will permit the parties to finish off any evidence and tie up any “loose ends”. On Wednesday the closing statements would be given by Counsel and the inquiry closes.



AJ Thursday 26 July 2007 04:41 pm http://i2.hanwellvillage.com/longdesc.php?recordID=Wednesday 25 July 2007 10:25 pm PERSIMMON PLANNING INQUIRY

DAILY UPDATE ON INQUIRY : WEDNESDAY 25 JULY 2007

DAY 2

Note: It is worth noting that only one or two members of the public attended on Tuesday from Hanwell or Hanwell Fields, and so it is clearly vital that there has been representation for the Parish Council and the Hanwell Fields Community Association, together with further written submissions. Otherwise it would give the distinct impression to the Inspector that there is currently little concern about the appeal. No members of the public attended Wednesday. The media are occupied with the flooding.

PRELIMINARIES

The Inspector reviewed outstanding material from the main parties including potential planning conditions (progressing slowly), and potential legal agreement (still being circulated by the relevant parties to the agreement). Further technical information on visual impact would now be presented on Thursday with Mrs Brockhurst’s evidence.

PRESENTING EVIDENCE - CONTINUED

Yesterday afternoon David Peckford had given his evidence for the Council on housing supply which sought to show that ample land should be available for housing over the next 5 -10 years and there is no need for the appeal site.

Cross examination of his evidence by Andrew Tait started first thing this morning.
A number of challenges were made to the Council’s evidence on housing provision, particularly in relation to:
Housing delivery and completion assumptions for Banbury too optimistic.
Doubts about compliance with Government guidance.
Obstacles to delivery of the Bankside development in timescale envisaged.
Insufficient account taken of risks to housing delivery.
Questions about delivery from 2010 onwards to meet needs.
Questions about total District supply eg SW Bicester and Upper Heyford.
Affordable housing needs.

After lunch Phillip Smith presented his evidence on the planning policy issues. He sought to demonstrate why the principle of developing the appeal site is unacceptable in planning policy terms. He was then cross examined by Andrew Tait.

Again a number of challenges were made to the Council’s evidence on planning policy, particularly in relation to:
The current Development Plan being somewhat out of date.
The tortuous history of the Non Statutory Cherwell Local Plan 2011.
Questions about timescales for the emerging LDF.
“Prematurity” issues.
Sustainability and infrastructure issues.
Why the site is considered less acceptable than Bankside.

An issue arose about the long term security and viability of the local bus services which the Applicants thought they had dealt with but there is now some query about Oxfordshire’s position on this. The parties agreed to try to resolve this with the County Council officer when the inquiry was adjourned.

The Inspector also sought clarification of the date the Draft South East Plan Report was to be published which will create an important strategic context for the appeal. It was confirmed the report is due 31 July but unfortunately will apparently be published some time afterwards.

REVISED PROGRAMME FOR INQUIRY

The Inspector explained that the remainder of the week should be programmed so that on Thursday morning Mr Batheram would give evidence on Transport for the applicants, followed by Mrs Brockhurst on Landscape evidence and possibly Mr Bateman might start his Planning evidence before the close on Thursday. She expected to adjourn at lunchtime on Friday for the weekend and by then Mr Bateman should have completed his evidence and it might be possible to include Mr Jones for Hanwell and Hanwell Fields.

The Inquiry would continue Tuesday and she suggested the formal Site Visit in the morning to finish about 1.00pm and then in the afternoon session finish off the evidence including Mr Jones if necessary. Then the parties could tie up any “loose ends”. On Wednesday the closing statements would be given by Counsel and then the inquiry would close.



AJ Wednesday 25 July 2007 10:25 pm http://i2.hanwellvillage.com/longdesc.php?recordID=Tuesday 24 July 2007 09:48 pm PERSIMMON PLANNING INQUIRY

DAILY UPDATE ON INQUIRY : TUESDAY 24 JULY 2007

INQUIRY STARTS AT BODICOTE HOUSE

The inquiry started at 10.00 am this morning at Bodicote House.

The Inspector is Ruth Mackenzie MRTPI. There are in fact two appeals taken together - the main appeal for 400 houses and the associated application for the bat roost building. The main appeal will be decided by the Secretary of State from the Inspector’s report.

PARTICIPANTS

The main participants are for Cherwell District Council:
Graeme Keen, Barrister
Phillip Smith, Planning consultant (Planning issues)
David Peckford, Senior Planning Officer (Housing supply)
Colin Goodrum, Landscape consultant (Landscape)

For the applicants:
Andrew Tait QC ,Barrister
Anthony Bateman, Planning Consultant
Clare Brockhurst, Landscape consultant
Mike Batheram, Transport consultant

The only other parties are:
For Hallam Ltd( Bankside site) – Alistair Jones, Planning consultant (who is observing only).

For Hanwell PC and Hanwell Fields Community association – Alan Jones
( who will be able to speak to the inquiry after the main cases have been heard).

PRELIMINARIES

The Inspector reviewed all the submitted material. Additional written submissions to the Inspector on behalf of Hanwell PC and Hanwell Fields Community association were provided on Monday. The Inspector then reviewed other material from the main parties she was expecting including statement of common ground, potential planning conditions (if approved), and potential legal agreement (if approved). There is now apparently a problem with the legal agreement as the landowner of Broken Furrow will not sign.

INQUIRY ISSUES

The main planning issues the inquiry would consider were set out by the Inspector :
The need for new housing and whether the site should be released.
The character and appearance of the surrounding area including Banbury and Hanwell.
Sustainability objectives.
And for the Bat roost appeal, the effect on the landscape.

PROGRAMME FOR INQUIRY

The Inspector explained that although 8 days were set aside for the Inquiry, it was now likely that the main evidence and cross-examination could be complete by say Friday 27 July or next Tuesday 31 July. This meant Mr Jones could be asked to speak on one of those days at the end of the inquiry. After that the inspector would then close the inquiry and carry out a site visit with all parties to assess the proposals on site and consider the impact from various viewpoints.

PRESENTING EVIDENCE

Counsel then made opening statements first for the applicants and then for Cherwell District Council.

Colin Goodrum then gave his evidence for the Council on the Landscaping issues, followed by intensive cross-examination by Andrew Tait. Mr Goodrum has identified a number of weaknesses in the evidence submitted by the applicants’ consultant, particularly on the visibility of the appeal site and on the impact on the setting and character of Hanwell village. This continued until after lunch.

In the afternoon David Peckford then gave his evidence on housing supply which seeks to show that the ample land should be available for housing over the next 10 to 20 years and there is no need for the appeal site. Cross examination of his evidence will start tomorrow. After that Phillip Smith will present his evidence on the planning policy issues.



AJ Tuesday 24 July 2007 09:48 pm 2007 hanwellvillage.com. All rights reserved. admin@hanwellvillage.com