great coxwell neighbourhood plan 2014 - 2031 …...great coxwell neighbourhood plan 2014-2031,...

Great Coxwell Neighbourhood Plan 2014 - 2031

Consultation Report

May 2014

Great Coxwell Neighbourhood Plan 2014-2031, Consultation Report May 2014

2

CONTENTS 1. Introduction

1.1 Background 1.2 Scoping Consultation

2. Pre-Submission Consultation

2.1 Consultation Approach 2.2 Village Consultation 2.3 Statutory Consultees

3. Overview of Pre-Submission Consultation Responses 4. Plan Changes 5. Pre-submission Public Consultation Matrix Appendices

A. Responses to Parish Initial Questionnaire B. Pre-submission Consultation Publicity and Response Forms


3

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

In the Spring of 2013 Great Coxwell Parish Council decided to develop a Neighbourhood Plan for the Parish. Area Designation was applied for, the boundary of the designated area to be the existing Parish boundary. Area Designation was confirmed on 2 August 2013. The Great Coxwell Neighbourhood Plan (the Plan) is produced by the Parish Council under the Localism Act 2011 and the associated Regulations (the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations, 2012). This legislation required Great Coxwell Parish Council to carry out a formal public consultation on the Plan for a minimum period of 6 weeks before submitting it to the Vale of White Horse District Council, which is able to bring the Plan into force following independent examination and a referendum. Please note that two distinct periods of consultation were carried out: Scoping Consultation (February 2013 to January 2014) and Pre-Submission Consultation (8 February 2014 to 21 March 2014). In preparing the Plan the Parish Council has tried to go beyond the minimum requirements for community consultation required by law. The Plan has been produced by a Neighbourhood Plan Advisory Group made up of volunteers from the community, drawing on professional support at key stages. This Consultation Report:

Summarises the consultation history; and

Describes the Regulation 14 (Pre-submission) consultation process, responses and consequent changes to the Plan.

1.2 Scoping Consultation

Planning began in late 2012. From the outset the Parish Council and the Neighbourhood Plan Advisory Group (the Advisory Group) determined that the Plan would reflect the views of those living and working in the Parish. Consultation formed an early and continuing part of the planning process, starting with a questionnaire delivered throughout the Parish in February 2013, the response rate to which exceeded 84%. Communication and consultation have been essential and included:

• Identifying what the local community thought before commencing the Plan;

• Using that information to define the aims of the Plan and the key issues; • Gathering evidence on the local needs for housing, and other features of

life;


4

• Liaising with the District Council to include the requirements of their Local Plan;

• Asking local people to comment on the emerging Plan; and • Consulting local people on their preferred options throughout.

In support of this from February 2013 to the beginning of February 2014, the Advisory Group:

• Carried out a survey of residents, the results of which are summarised in Appendix A;

• Publicised the development of the Plan in the local press; • Met with individuals, local groups and organisations to gather ideas and

feedback; • Reported progress monthly in the newsletter, delivered manually and

electronically throughout the Parish; and • Communicated electronically and by way of advertising about specific

events, dates and deadlines; • Offered discussion at monthly Parish meetings throughout the period;

In addition:

• Monthly reports have been published in the minutes of Parish meetings; and

• Local press reported on local development issues and the development of the Great Coxwell Neighbourhood Plan.

To summarise, conversations with villagers framed the structure and content of the whole Plan from the beginning, in particular informing the need for smaller (not large) homes, pointing out a desire for a balance between essential motorised and public transport links with improving the access to services for pedestrians and cyclists (as well as the needs of the elderly, families with young children and the disabled), maintaining parishioners’ quality of community life whilst preventing physical coalescence with the local market town of Faringdon by conserving the local environment. All these things were brought to the table by members of the public of Great Coxwell.

2. Pre-Submission Consultation

2.1 Consultation Approach

The pre-submission consultation began at 09:00 on Saturday 8th February 2014 and closed at 5pm on Friday 21st March 2014 giving people exactly 6 weeks to respond. In practice, responses received a few days after the closing date were accepted. The consultation proceeded along two main lines:

Consulting those within the Parish; and


5

Consulting with the bodies referred to in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (the Statutory Consultees).

In support of this from 8 February to 21 March 2014, the Advisory Group:

• Reported progress monthly in the newsletter, delivered manually and

electronically throughout the Parish; and • Communicated electronically and by way of advertising about specific

events, dates and deadlines; • Offered discussion at monthly Parish meetings throughout the period; • Advertised the Consultation in the local press and by way of posters; • Delivered published copies of the draft Plan to every resident and

business in the Parish, taking the opportunity to speak personally with as many people as possible to encourage the giving of feedback;

• Made published copies of the Design Statement available at key locations throughout the Consultation;

• Created a Great Coxwell Neighbourhood Plan website with copies of the key draft documents and the opportunity to submit feedback online or by email;

• Ran two dedicated public meetings in March 2014 to publicise the formal consultation period and collect feedback.

The structure of this consultation report reflects this approach. A complete set of responses from both the Parish Consultation and the Statutory Consultees is provided in Appendix C.

2.2 Village Consultation

This section summarises the programme from 8 February 2014 to publicise the pre-submission Consultation:

8 & 27 February 2014

8 February 2014

8 February 2014

8 February 2014 10 February 2014

1 March 2014 3 March 2014

10 March 2014

Advertisements placed in the Swindon Advertiser (read by the highest percentage of people locally). (Appendix B) Posters placed strategically advertising the Consultation Events. (Appendix B) Personal delivery of the draft Neighbourhood Plan, Appendices and Feedback Forms to every household and business premise in the Parish. (Feedback Form, Appendix B) Introduction of the Plan Website. (Appendix B) Report to Parish Monthly Meeting. Consultation Event at the Parish Reading Room, 10am to 4pm. Consultation Event at St Giles Church, Great Coxwell, 5pm to 8pm. Report to Parish Monthly Meeting.

Feedback forms were available online and at St Giles Church (open every day)


6

Comments not submitted on a Response Form were accepted subject to identification.

2.2.2 Plan Availability

Throughout the consultation period:

Hard copies of the draft Plan and the accompanying Neighbourhood Design Statement were available for inspection at St Giles Church and the District Council Offices.

Electronic copies were available on the Neighbourhood Plan website.

In addition, members of the Advisory Group were available to answer questions.

2.2.3 Consultation Response

The Village Consultation generated 29 separate responses containing 152 distinct comments representing the views of:

25 residents 3 owners of local businesses 1 agent acting for a landowner

2.3 Statutory Consultees

The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 identified the bodies that had to be consulted and six material responses were received. The following bodies had been notified of the Great Coxwell Neighbourhood Plan and asked to comment:

Environment Agency Cherwell District Council Highways Agency Oxford City Council West Oxfordshire District Council Scottish and Southern Energy Power Distribution (SSE) Thames Water Property Services ((Grd Floor East)) Natural England Oxfordshire Primary Care Trust (PCT) MONO Consultants Ltd for Mobile Operators Association (MOA) Network Rail The Coal Authority (Planning and Local Authority Liaison Department) Homes and Communities Agency National Grid Plant Protection Marine Management Organisation British Telecom


7

Southern Electric South Oxfordshire District Council Oxfordshire County Council Gloucestershire County Council Wiltshire County Council Swindon Borough Council West Berkshire Council, Planning and Transport Policy, Mr A Buckley Oxfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group Wales and West Utilities English Heritage Little Coxwell Parish Council Longcot Parish Council Coleshill Parish Council Buscot Parish Council Eaton Hastings Parish Clerk Faringdon Town Council

Oxfordshire Local Enterprise Partnership (OLEP) Oxfordshire Council for the Disabled BBOWT CPRE MP (Wantage Constituency) North Wessex Downs AONB Thames Valley Police Thames Valley Police Faringdon Library Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust Defence Estates

3. Overview of Pre-Submission Consultation Responses

3.1 Summary

A complete list of the pre-submission consultation responses, together with the response of the Parish Council, is provided in Appendix C. Five key messages emerge:

A majority of parishioners support the Plan policies, in particular expressing a wish to retain the existing rural and unspoilt environment.

There is concern over proposed housing developments in the Parish with a feared coalescence with Faringdon and consequent support for the establishment of a green buffer between the two settlements.

Support for businesses in the village and in the proposed green buffer

must be balanced with the expressed desire for peace and tranquillity to be maintained.

The case for occasional new build on suitable land needs to be supported

where this is not in conflict with other Plan policies.


8

Development issues affecting water pressure, waste water disposal and

the existing flood risk must be addressed accordingly.

3.2 Traffic Policies

Most comments on traffic emphasised the concerns of villagers about the congestion and parking on the village roads, as well as access to the A420 Swindon to Oxford road and the A4019 at the difficult and dangerous Holloway junction. Conflicting views have been expressed and the Parish Council will consider carefully what action, if any, can be taken to mitigate the factors raised, for example by consulting about speed restrictions, providing a limited number of new parking spaces and restricting parking on footpaths.

3.3 Design Policies

The Neighbourhood Design Statement sets out clear guidelines to restrict ‘formulaic’ housing and that supports a sustainable ‘eco-friendly’ environment.

3.4 The Historic Environment

The protection of the local historic environment is at the core of the Neighbourhood Plan, in accordance with Oxfordshire County Council’s environmental strategy.

4. Plan Changes

4.1 In consideration of the comments from the pre-submission consultation a number of detailed changes have been made to the Plan, including some of emphasis. No significant changes have been considered necessary. Appendix B includes details of the changes made as a result of the public Consultation.

5. Pre-submission Public Consultation Matrix

5.1 Introduction

Analysis

Every feedback form and written response was recorded in alphabetical order of surname by a member of the Neighbourhood Plan team;

Individual comments were grouped by responder and given a unique

number, prefaced ‘ID’; A second document was created to hide Parishioners’ individual personal

details and provide room for the Parish team’s response to each individual comment (right hand column, annotated in red); and


9

The feedback was cross-referenced by subject in the Parish comments; Each comment can be mapped to the original form if necessary; Feedback on the Neighbourhood Design Statement (Appendix A of the

Neighbourhood Plan) is marked in green. Plan Response Comments such as those agreeing with a policy, statement or other part of

the Plan, or are deemed to need no change to the Plan, are marked ‘Comment Noted’;

Comments falling outside the scope of the Plan are marked accordingly; Those requiring a change in the Plan are marked with details of the

change and paragraph and/or page references.

5.2 Public Consultation Matrix

PART A PART B

ID Part of Plan

Page No. Repr. Grounds for Objecting/Changes Necessary Response

1 2

Pol. EDQ1

Map 5

Supp.

Grounds for Objecting Encroachment of open area and restriction of roadways. Buffer Zone Supported.

Supports policy EDQ1 Supports policy EDQ1

3 4

SWOT

All Maps

12

Grounds for Objecting ‘Local Groups’ should include ‘St Giles Church’. Please explain what CP means. Generally Support Neighbourhood Plan

Added to ‘Strengths’ To be removed from maps Comment noted

5

6

7

8

(6)

(8)

Pars.

Pol(s).

Supp.

Comm.

Grounds for Objecting I think it's a great plan and clearly a lot of work has gone into it. However, I feel it would become a better and more effective document if it had either a conclusion or (preferably) a summary which brings out the key points we want to get across. Every planner or developer reading the plan should come away having read this section very clear about what our priorities are. This is especially true for the policies. We should highlight the 5 policies we regard as most critical. From my reading of the document and based on what I believe the village sees as most important I would suggest that 6.50, 6.42 and 6.43 would be in this top 5. In paragraph 2.11 we should emphasise that the park was originally developed and is maintained on the back of local fund raising within the village, this being an example of the community spirit we talk about. There is only one policy I disagree with and that is 6.60. I don't agree that village roads should be kept clear at all times because the presence of parked cars provides an impromptu traffic calming effect. Sadly there are some residents who will drive at speed through the village if given an "open" road. When we originally moved into the village we made every effort to park off road but now deliberately leave a car on the road precisely to deliver some traffic calming at least outside our house! I think there are also some houses which simply do not have sufficient off road parking available to them. Changes Necessary Add a concise summary which draws out the vital few points we want any reader to take out and indicate the top 5 planning policies. Modify 6.60 by removing the line "the existing roads and footpaths should be kept clear at all times".

Paragraphs 1.1 to 1.3 have been expanded (see ID128) Do not want to elevate certain policies above others (in terms of relative importance) After the word ‘afield’ (line 2) added ‘created by significant community effort and fund raising’ (see ID101) Paragraph deleted (also see ID147 on page 5) (see above) (see above)


11

9

Pol. CA1 Pol. CA2 Par. 6.20 Par. 6.26

Map 5

Obj.

Grounds for Objecting 1.00. Grounds 1.01. Faringdon Golf Course Falls within Sub Area C of the Neighbourhood Plan within

which there are riding stables, the golf course, a privately-run children’s nursery, a bed-and-breakfast establishment and a business park.

1.02. The Plan advises that Farmland on the Great Faringdon boundary has been the subject of a housing development planning application for 200+ dwellings (Fernham Fields), which has been granted outline permission.

1.03. The character and demands of the area are therefore likely to change over the course of the next decade, and due to development for 200 plus new homes there will be significant additional requirements for local rural jobs of both a Full and Part Time nature.

1.04. Part Time employment is of particular importance to families with young children. Businesses in the area are therefore of extreme value and importance to the local rural economy and employment – particularly where large scale new housing development will create significant additional demands for additional employment.

1.05. Within the Plan section ‘Strengths, weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats’ emphasis is placed upon the following statement:-

The Plan and its policies advocate:- 1). To support existing businesses, such as the riding stables, golf course and children’s nursery. 2). 6.20 Businesses in Sub Area C are important to the economic prosperity of the parish. In principle, development that is required to support these businesses will be supported provided it is commensurate with a small scale business; it does not detract from the rural nature of the sub area; it does not adversely affect any historic assets and their setting; and it would not increase traffic through the village. The preference is for the re-use, conversion or adaptation of suitable existing buildings over the creation of new buildings. 3). 6.26 Small-scale tourism developments will be supported in keeping with the scope and character of the locality (LP Core Policy 27). 1.06. The owners and operators of Faringdon Golf Course are in support of the general ‘thrust’ of the plan. However, it should be noted that Great Britain’s Tourism and Leisure industry and particularly the Golfing industry is in a process of continual evolution. 1.07. Neighbourhood and Parish Plans need to be sympathetic of existing situations and fully supportive of existing Businesses. 1.08. It is therefore essential that the Neighbourhood Plan makes appropriate allowances for the future diversification of this Golf Course Enterprise enabling it to react fully to market

Par. 6.20 is now a Community Policy: the words ‘small-scale’ replaced with ‘appropriate in scale’. Par. 6.26 ha been deleted


12

(9)

(9)

forces to enable it to react fully to market forces to enable this ‘leisure’ facility to remain viable and enable it to continue to offer a tourism and leisure facility which will safeguard existing employment, create new employment and boost spends within the local rural economy to the benefit of other attractions, facilities, shops, pubs, restaurants, etc. 1.09 Within Policy CA1 Support Economic Prosperity and Policy CA2 Encourage Local Businesses these policies contain wording which would be detrimental to existing business and particularly the Golf Course which it is considered is a medium to large Tourism and Leisure Enterprise. Extracts of the existing Policy wording is provided below for ease of reference:- Policy CA1 Support Economic Prosperity 6.20 Businesses in Sub Area C are important to the economic prosperity of the parish. In principle, development that is required to support these businesses will be supported provided it is commensurate with a small scale business; Policy CA2 Encourage Local Businesses 6.26 Small-scale tourism developments will be supported in keeping with the scope and nature of the locality. 1.10. Faringdon Golf Course is an existing Tourism and Leisure Business which it is considered is not of a small scale, therefore reference to small-scale would be appropriate for small enterprises such as a bed and breakfast or guest house enterprise – but not a Golf Course. We therefore respectfully suggest that the Policy wording be modified to reflect this and the word small-scale is removed. Changes Necessary 2.00. Suggested Changes (changes highlighted in red):- 2.01. Policy Changes Policy CA1 Support Economic Prosperity 6.20 Businesses in Sub Area C are important to the economic prosperity of the parish. In principle, development that is required to support these businesses will be supported. (phrase removed:- ‘provided it is commensurate with a small scale business’) Policy CA2 Encourage Local Businesses 6.26 Tourism developments will be supported in keeping with the scope and character of the locality. (‘small-scale’ removed) 2.02. This is to ensure that appropriate growth is not prevented and that the Golf Course has the ability to change, upgrade, develop and diversify the facilities it offers and to react to tourism and leisure market forces. This will safeguard existing employment, create employment and boost spends within the local rural economy to the benefit of other attractions, facilities, shops, pubs, restaurants, etc. in the area. 2.03 Green Buffer Zone

(see above) (see above)


13

10

2.04 The Golf Course currently falls within the proposed Green Buffer Zone identified on Map 5. 2.05 It is considered that it is not appropriate for the Golf Course to fall within this Zone as it is not Agricultural Land, it is a commercial enterprise, with grounds of a manicured, managed and heavily influenced appearance. 2.06 Its inclusion within the Green Buffer Zone is not necessary to prevent coalescence of settlements between Faringdon and Great Coxwell as the course is located immediately adjacent to the A420 on the eastern boundary and agricultural land falls between it on the western boundary and Great Coxwell. 2.07 The Golf Course’s inclusion in the Green Buffer Zone would also be detrimental to any potential upgrading or diversification of facilities of this existing enterprise. 2.08. We therefore respectfully request that Faringdon Golf Course be removed from the proposed Green Buffer Zone.

The green buffer is designed to prevent coalescence with Faringdon, to discourage building development south-westward along the line of the A420 and not to constrain the legitimate business aspirations of the golf course owners. The Parish Council would support applications that respected planning laws and did not adversely affect the character, appearance, or setting of the golf course.

11

12

13

Par. 6.60

Par. 5.13

Par. 5.17

Supp.

Comm.

Grounds for Objecting ‘Ideally’ grass verges should be retained. DESIGN STATEMENT Grounds for Objecting Not managed by Parish Council – managed by local member of village. Remove ‘Although not presently accessible’.

Paragraph deleted Replaced ‘the parish council’ with ‘the community’ (now par. 5.5, bullet point 6) Removed (see ID 17 and ID99)

14 We are not available to come to the Reading Room on Saturday but wish to thank all those who have worked so hard to produce the plan on our behalves.

Comment noted

15

16

Par. 6.51 Pol. EDQ1

Map 5

28

Comm.

Grounds for Objecting In the light of the Vale Planning Authority’s recently-published proposals for further development in the north-east portion of the proposed green buffer, this map will be redrawn as necessary. When redrawn, the map will also show the ‘wooded bund’s’ (p.26, Para. 6.51) exact location, and Para. 6.51 will be amended to describe it more precisely. Changes Necessary

To be amended Amended (now pol. EDQ1, p26)


14

(16)

17

Par. 5.17

11

P.26 Para. 6.51 Suggested amendment: ‘The south and west borders of any developments on or adjacent to Steeds’ Farm, will be separated from the Parish of Great Coxwell by a significant, planted bank or ‘bund’ at least 50’ in width, gently raised, and planted to provide a natural screen of deciduous native trees at least 2’ in height to protect the rural parish, village and Great Barn from noise and light pollution.’ DESIGN STATEMENT Grounds for Objecting Please delete the words ‘Although not at present accessible’. This is at the request of the land owner’s tenant, who is unhappy about the wording. These words have been discussed by the Parish Council and the Neighbourhood Plan team, and all agree that they are irrelevant. L. Gale for A Zinovieff, A Burns, A whiting, W Selby-Lowndes, J King, R May, J. Rounce, P. Gale, K. Mason, I. Mason, E. Agar, R. Agar.

Amended in line with professional guidance Amended (now par. 5.5, bp10) (see ID13 and ID99)

18 19 20 21

22

23

24

25 26

Grounds for Objecting 1. Call it ‘crossroads’ not ‘crossing’ – change this everywhere. 2. In addition to proposals for a village shop, proposals for a mobile shop would be welcome. 3. Pedestrians cannot use the pavements when they are over parked. 4. Transport: formerly buses used to come through the village; this stopped. Need a bus to

come into the village. 5. Jealously guard the Siberia bus stop. 6. Essential to maintain the Siberia footpath. 7. Essential to plan bus stops by the roundabout close as possible to the village. 8. Village needs a car park. Say thank you to whoever got the second rail by the bridge over Siberia.

Amended Noted Paragraph deleted Comm. Pol. (TGA1) Comm. Pol. Added ‘All existing bus stops should be retained.’ (see ID 24) Comm. Pol., added ‘Ensure footpaths are maintained’ Added ‘..as close as possible to the village’ (see ID22) See ID147 (immediately below) Comment noted

147

Grounds for Objecting Serious consideration give to supply parking within the village for the Reading Room and the Park, as in both areas people park on the footpath, creating problems who are walking and with the Park long lines of parked cars which causes problems for other vehicles coming into the village or leaving. The provision of a park for vehicles on land next to the Park, this would also support emergency vehicles getting into the village.

Views conflict (eg see ID8). Some additional parking provision is appropriate, perhaps at the Park. Driving to and parking in the centre of the village, near the Reading Room, or on footpaths, is discouraged.

27

Par. 1.15

4

Comm.

Grounds for Objecting 1.15 In the eastern area, the close named Maitland is in fact Whitfields – we have never heard

After the word ‘Close’ add ‘also


15

28

Par. 6.31

23

of Maitland and Whitfields is on our deeds. Changes Necessary 6.31 Transport and Getting Around – If Steeds Farm planning goes through the village should push for a road from Highworth-Faringdon Road thro’ Steeds Farm on to the old 420 Faringdon road to alleviate traffic pressure on the Hollow way.

known as Whitfields’ (now 1.7) Not a Neighbourhood Plan issue

29

30

(29)

(30)

15

Obj.

Grounds for Objecting Seek amendment. ‘Take measures to support home working’. ‘Encourage businesses run from homes in the village’. ‘Loss of social cohesion and community intimacy’ is stated as a threat to the village. Please be mindful that lack of transparency and disingenuous behaviour, by those seeking to establish businesses from residential properties within the village, impacts greatly on the existing community and their desire to be in a safe and welcoming village too. Changes necessary -Take measures to support home working that does not increase traffic into the village and respects the residential nature of the village. -Encourage businesses run from homes in the village that do not increase traffic into it and respect existing residential property owner rights.

Covered in Policy CA2 on page 23 (see also ID66) (as above) (as above)

31 32

33

Pol. EDQ1

Supp.

Comm.

Grounds for Objecting Importance of creating the green buffer zone to protect and maintain rural character of the village. Strongly agree with proposals re restricting urbanisation measures such as traffic calming, removing grass verges, increased street parking, no further lighting, etc. Am also strongly supportive on comments re house extensions limiting availability of 1-2 bedroom houses and measures to mitigate this.

Supports Policy EDQ1 as stated

Green Buffer Policy

(Map 5)

Supp. (No comments)

34

35 36

37

38

Supp. Obj.

Comm.

Comments follow. Please forgive any that merely reveal our lack of understanding of the Plan or its purpose. It looks like a very good piece of work, congratulations to those involved – very glossy for the consultation stage! 1.Inside front cover, 2.0 should be ‘Principal’ 2.para 2.7: the bus stop is also accessed by the road 3.para 2.11: netball? We thought it was basketball 4.para 2.11: ‘it has no toilet facilities’ should be in brackets, without the colon as it is an

Comment noted Amended After ‘course’, replaced ‘and a field’ with ‘a field and the road’ After ‘and’ (line 1), added ‘basketball/’ Amended


16

39 40 41 42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

addendum to the park commentary, not a separate amenity in the village 5.para 2.11 – not sure we would consider rubbish collection as an amenity 6.para 2.14 would ‘bottom of the village’ be clear to non-residents? ‘Southerly end’ better? 7.para 2.15 ‘visible history’? 8.page 12 – opportunities, ‘small housing units’ – needs to be clearer that this is both very small in number and in the size of any houses 9.page 16 – transport: The section omits reference to traffic in the village itself. ‘There should be reference to not taking actions or making decisions that increase traffic flow in the village, especially through the narrower parts of the roadways in Puddleduck Lane and south of the Reading Room’. 10.page 17 – the comment ‘no street lighting or mobile masts in the village’ – it should be made clear whether this is an aim or a criticism of the current situation!! 11.page 19. We do not think we want a ‘development’ of any sort of significant size. The new small homes should be on an individual basis, and there should again be reference to this not increasing traffic in the narrower sections of the village (see comment 9 above). Without this we could get a development of, say 10 starter type homes in one place that could distort the look and feel of the village and create an unintegrated and separate block. We must remember that smaller units mean a greater increase in traffic density compared to a larger property, as each small home is likey to have between one and two cars whereas a larger property will take up more acreage and still probably bring in only two cars. 12.page 20 – we would suggest a ‘very’ limited number of small new homes. It should be clear that the ‘support the occasional new build’ (BE2) applies to the small house development idea as well as the small homes also need to be ‘occasional’ to prevent a separate development of unintegrated small homes. 13.para 6.7 ‘consultation supported the statistics’ – the stats just show what houses there are, but statistics don’t propose any solution. The consultation suggested that a few small homes might be a reasonable solution to a perceived isue. Accordingly, the comment looks a bit odd? 14.para 6.8 needs to have the general traffic caveat mentioned before and the issue of developments themselves being small and largely separate to avoid the risk of lack of integration. 15.page 21 paras 6.16 and 6.17. We are not sure exactly how the village benefits from tourism. Is there anywhere in the village that benefits significantly, beyond the possibility of a few customers for Reading Room teas or a couple of extra golfers? Even wider, is there much beyond the guest house by Chowle Farm? 16.para 6.20 – again, in what way are businesses in sub area C important to the parish?

Recycling, so disagree Amended Accpetable, leave as it is Amended to ‘Improve the housing mix’ (now p13) Add comment on p16 and in 6.32, after ‘vehicles’ add ‘particularly in the narrower parts of the roadway, eg..’ (now p17) After ‘No’ add ‘(further)’ (now p18) Policy BE1 (now p20/1). Also, see ID98 for a further response Nothing to be gained by adding the word ‘very’ Removed the words ‘statistics with a’ (line 3) (now par. 6.6) After the word ‘settings’ (line 3) added the words ‘including the affect on traffic flows’ (BE1, p21) These paragraphs have been changed (pol. CA1, p22) Existing businesses have to be supported (now in Comm. Pol.)


17

51 52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60 61 62 63 64 65

17.para 6.24 ‘County’ 18.para 6.32 – we are certainly in favour of rights for pedestrians and cyclists but should they be given ‘priority’. Equal rights seems to be adequate – let’s not forget that just about all of us need cars if we are to live in this village. Para 6.44 is happy with ‘equal emphasis on all modes of transport’ 19.para 6.35 But this needs to be subject to the potential traffic issues (where it stops, where it turns, etc.) 20.para 6.36 where is this bus stop to be – Cherry Orchard, the village itself or are we thinking of the stops on the road into Faringdon? 21. Objective CL2 – Desirable, of course, but exactly what is proposed? Clearing the pavements of parked cars and overhanging branches would help but otherwise what? Street lighting would be an obvious one but do we want that? 22.page 26 – if there is a green buffer, should it not be that development on the green buffer should be resisted strongly. The plan says that developments that would detract from the purpose of the buffer will not be permitted. If the buffer is to protect the village it seems clear that developent will detract from its purpose. In addition, the purpose of the buffer should be stated to include maintaining open spaces in the village and visual connection with the countryside 23.para 6.53 maps 3 and 4 have some ‘public access’ areas but do not show any ‘open spaces’ 24.para 6.55 If new developments include bunds, doesn’t that almost certainly stop (or at least harm) ‘visual connection with the countryside’? If the bund screens the development from the countryside, it presumably screens the countryside from the development? 24.para 6.57 traffic in the village is another most important issue to be addressed in that list of topics. 25. Page 29 – we believe Morys is late 16

th century

Appendix page 6 policy E16 ‘cuase’ in second line Appendix page 10 policy HE5 ‘alternations’ in first line Appendix D page 12 ‘Morys’ has no apostrophe General comment – all the relevant maps have the wrong garden layout for Morys and Horslees House. The bulk of the land is part of Morys.

Amended Replaced ‘priority to’ with ‘equal status with’ (pol. TGA1, p24 and see pol. CL1, p25) Comm. Pol. Added ‘subject to the potential traffic issues’ (also ID21) See Comm. Pol. TGA1 Paragraph reworded (page 25) Please see our response to ID10 Replaced ‘open spaces’ with ‘public access areas’ (EDQ2, p27) Paragraph reworded (see EDQ1, p26) Sentence removed Aft. ‘17

th- added ‘(possibly 16

th-)’

Amended Section deleted Amended Need to approach DC or OS (their mapping contains errors)

66

Pol. CA2

Comm.

Grounds for Objecting Before encouraging businesses run from homes in the village an investigation should be made into neighbouring rights of way, potential blocking of access, traffic flow, parking facilities and impact on environment.

In Policy CA2, p23 (see also ID29); a dialogue is needed in each case

Grounds for Objecting


18

67

68

69

70

Pols. Comm. Development – need for small 1-2 bed housing is unlikely to be permitted as an estate in Conservation Area, so will need to be sited on main access road in and out of village not allowed for in Plan. Build in gardens generally means 3+ bedrooms. Business/Commercial Activity – working from home and small scale tourism will both increase vehicle activity in village with couriers and tourism making parking harder and emergency vehicle access impossible unless dedicated off road parking is provided, village shop was tried 30 years ago and in today’s retail climate unlikely to survive or even be started. Transport – no company will send a bus into the village due to lack of space and danger when turning plus risk of being trapped due to parked vehicles. In summary Plan appears to be written to pay lip service to village questionnaire while preventing anything happening so preserving village in aspic.

Point of view expressed See ID29 and ID66 See ID53 and ID54 Comment noted

Pol. EDQ1 Map 5

Supp.

71

Policies

Comm.

Grounds for Objecting The Parish Council must be very careful not to over develop with too many large houses.

Covered in Policy BE1, p21

72 73

74

Par. 5.10

Par. 5.45

Comm.

DESIGN STATEMENT

Grounds for Objecting

Design Statement Errors "as well as being accessed from car park of Annabelle's Nursery" As I understand it there is no public right of way across the Golf Course which surrounds the Nursery. Gypsy Lane is a ByWay not a Bridleway.

Changes Necessary

Delete 5.10. Alter 5.45.

Deleted (par. 5.1, bullet point 3)

Amended (par. 5.14, bp3)

(see above)

148

149 150

151

152

Par. 1.10

Par. 2.40 Sect. 5

Par. 6.20

Pol. 4

Obj. Grounds for Objecting

Ref. Sub Area C. Chowle Farm Trading Estate is NOT a permitted development and is operated in contravention of a planning enforcement notice.

Reference to a ‘Business Park’ is fundamentally flawed as it is in an illegal development.

Support for development at Chowle Fram is misguided and should be removed from the Plan.

Businesses at Chowle Farm do not contribute to the Parish prosperity and are a blight on the environment.

Changes necessary

A review of the points listed above and the revision of the Plan to correct the position. It must be remembered that the Chowle Farm site is legally an agricultural holding and should be

The words ‘known as’ have been replaced with the words ‘self-styled’ (par. 1.12 on p4) and the words ‘business park’ have been replaced with ‘business premises’ (par. 2.4 on p8). There are no references to support for the Chowle Farm Estate businesses in the Plan, but there are indications of the existing


19

treated as such. The Environment Agency, Planning Department and Highways have all objected to the Applications to develop the site and the continued contravention of Planning should not be allowed to continue.

shortcomings at the site.

75

76

77

78

I think everyone involved should be congratulated in producing such an outstanding Neighbourhood Plan, and giving our village the best opportunity of retaining its unique character. There has been a tremendous amount of detailed work and understanding of all the complicated policies. I have no objective comments but give it my fullest support.

Changes Necessary

There is one small typing error which is probably already corrected in the Appendices Policy E16 p.6 is ‘cause’ not ‘cuase’.

I am assuming there will be adequate parking if a shop is implemented, as parking is a problem in the village.

I am very sorry to have arranged a light lunch and easy quizzes on Saturday March 1st

before I knew that there was a consultation in the Reading Room – as it is – not many can come being away on holiday or with other plans – so it will only be 10 or so.

Thank everyone for all they have done.

Comment noted

Amended (see ID61)

Now in pol. CA2, p23

Comments noted

79

Par. 6.23 Par. 6.24

Supp.

Comm.

Grounds for Objecting To encourage new and existing home businesses a reliable and fast broadband service needs to be available. Extending the superfast connection from the Faringdon exchange to the village should be sought. Any development monies received could help fund this.

Now in Comm. Pol. CA2

80

81

Par. 2.17

Map 4

Comm.

Grounds for Objecting Please name in text ‘Turfpit Copse’, part of golf course, this is an ancient copse and should be preserved (as mentioned in original golf course plans – Nature Conservancy). Also, note presence of coral fossils in Adam’s field along Siberia.

Added to 2.18, p9 Added to 2.19, p10

82

83

Pars. Pols.

Map(s)

Supp. Comm.

We support this plan and stand in awe of the impressive work and leadership shown by the Parish Council. We offer a few comments about the Development Plan, shown below. Page 12 Table Comments: Weaknesses should include Poor road access to the north through the Holloway Road. Seasonal flooding on the B4019 between the village and Faringdon, as well as on the entry road to the village near the Riding School and Golf Course. Lack of Fibre Optic Cable and high speed internet access. Difficult access onto the A420 during the rush hour. Threats include a potential reduction in water pressure to the village. (The water pressure is already near the lower acceptable limit.)

Added (p13)


20

84

85

86

Page 16 Transport and Getting Around The provision of safe and assured access onto the B4019 is as important as access onto the A420. Page 24 TGA1 Maintain and where necessary upgrade, transport and accessibility to and from the village Assured, safe and expeditious access to the B4019 is as important to those living in the village as access to the A420. (Some proposals for changes to the junction layout would leave villagers at a disadvantage whilst trying to exit the village.) Page 28 – Map We support the buffer zone but feel that it should include the Fernham Fields site. This is not withstanding the planning permission subject to final agreements on funding for sewage improvements.

Added to ‘comments’ on p17 It is now included

87 Supp. A great achievement which I fully support. NB. Please note my attached copy of my email to Judith Heathcoat re the proposed road realignment.

Comment noted

88

89

90

Pols.

Comm.

Grounds for Objecting Plan p 12 – Strengths. Good road connections, but no public transport apart from East-West. Rail difficult. Appendix C – GS6 bears no relationship with what is happening in Parish. DESIGN STATEMENT Grounds for Objecting 5.9 Barn not locked at night.

Comment noted Saved Policies deleted Removed the words ‘locked at’ (line 5) (now 5.5, bp2)

91

92

12 16

Supp.

Comm.

Grounds for Objecting Not an objection but a reality check. A village shop for a community of our size is not viable and overtaken by supermarket on-line delivery services. Sorry! Changes necessary Extend the Conservation Area – which would provide some protection from bad development and enhance quality. It would be well worth the ‘burden’ of additional bureaucracy.

Comment noted Added to EDQ, ‘Maintain expand and enhance..’ (p18)

93

94 95

Supp.

Changes Necessary NO large lorries on Holloway. 30mph+ on Holloway from top to bottom. Bigger area for backing onto road, OR No Backing to let big lorries out onto top road.

Amended (p17) See TGA penultimate comment Comment noted

96

Map(s)

Comm.

Grounds for Objecting It appears to me that the Conservation Area as shown on the village plan should be more

See ID92 and refer to the


21

inclusive and cover the whole village. In its present state, the plan leaves out much of the Eastern part of Great Coxwell and beyond, older buildings such as Hollow Lodge, Wayland Cottage, Pound Cottage (now known as Bay Tree Cottage) and Oakfield (opposite Annabelle's Nursery) and the terrace of old cottages behind Danes House and Danes Cottage as well as the row of ex council properties on Cherry Orchard some of which were built in the 1930's making them considerably older than many of the houses which are within the main Conservation Area. If the purpose of producing a long term "plan" for the village, is to help it retain its unique character, then I suggest, leaving large parts of the village out of the Conservation Area could possibly be counterproductive. It could allow unwelcome developments to occur and could also be seen as being rather divisive, where some parts of the village are deemed worth conserving and others are not. We are ONE village. I am not familiar with the legal benefits and constraints that Conservation status would confer but I assume that the benefits would, on the whole far out-way any constraints I accept that the existing Conservation Area was drawn up some time ago by an agency outside the village but I urge that the conservation boundary be extended to include the whole village.

Conservation Area Character Appraisal, which will propose boundary changes with the agreement of the District Council and residents affected

97

Comm.

Grounds for Objecting Holloway should be a Quiet Lane or One way only. Help to preserve rural aspect of barn and prevent rat-run.

In comments on p17 (see also ID93 and ID 94)

98

(98)

Pols. Maps

Obj.

Comm.

Grounds for Objecting I object to the size of the area of the buffer zone 3 as no land has been ‘earmarked’ for development in the village. There should be provision for future small scale developments of a few houses but every potential site has been included in the buffer zone. The land to the Faringdon side of the footpath running alongside the riding stables should be enough of a buffer in itself. Siberia should not be included as it belongs to the N. Trust and can never be built on. The other land is either inaccessible or has restrictive covenants on it. Where do the working party believe future houses should be built? Land belonging to Oak Field? Part of the field next to the park? Changes Necessary The buffer zone should be reduced in size (see above). There is no provision for any possible sites for future developments within the village. (There is need for a few 2 bedroomed cottages in the village, as there aren’t any, but every possible site has been included in the buffer zone!!). Also on behalf of: Mr J M Webb, Mrs I M Webb and Mr H J Webb: Grounds for Objecting

It is inappropriate for Great Coxwell, a ‘smaller village’ in the District Council’s Local Plan, to designate land for development. The Neighbourhood Plan supports the building of a small number of new homes (BE1), on a case-by-case basis. The fears of significant development in the future, expressed by an overwhelming number of parishioners, are addressed by the provision of an all-embracing green buffer, as well as ‘green links’ between urban and rural


22

99

(99)

Par. 5.17

Obj.

We object to the inclusion of ‘At least not at present accessible’ as it infers that the land may be accessible in the future. It suggests there is a plan to acquire the land without the owner or tenant knowing anything about it. It was not necessary to include this comment as it was insensitive to both the landlord and tenant. It is irrelevant too. Changes Necessary We wish the phrase in question to be removed from 5.17.

environments. Phrase removed (see also ID13 and ID17) (par. 5.5, bp10)

100

101

102 103 104 105 106

107

108

109

110

111 112

113

114 115 116

Pars.

Supp.

Grounds for Objecting I welcome this Neighbourhood Plan and am broadly in agreement with the approach and recommendations. I feel that there are a few admissions namely: 1.3 More evidence of our community strength e.g. consultation and community planning then raising over £90000 for the creation of the Park. Also creation and management of the Crib scene in the Barn each year. Volunteers run the cafe during Art Weeks each year. People regularly look after their neighbours e.g. meals, shopping, lifts, company, childcare. 1.9 The main path and road link to Faringdon are vital. Could reference the number of farms previously in the village and the archaeological remains near the Great Barn. 2.6 The Community Bus runs Monday to Friday mornings only. 2.7 The bus stops at the roundabout are accessed by the footpath which runs behind the riding stables and this is regularly flooded with run off from Steeds Farm fields. 2.8 Many of the footpaths are very muddy and also there are stiles and gates which are difficult to use especially for those with children dogs and people with mobility limitations. 2.11 The Park is also important for wildlife and there is a wildflower meadow, planted hedges (native species) a willow shelter (made by villagers) and tables and seats for quiet recreation. 2.12 Omitted infant schools, playgroups and nursery. 2.15 would this para be better in the history section and also a reference to Graham Wright's book? Page 12 Opportunities - until our broadband is improved then working from home is very frustrating! How can we encourage local businesses? Small houses should be low carbon construction. Cycle routes off road to Coleshill and Buscot should be developed as the B4019 is narrow and

Comment noted Amended (see ID7) Added Added Added Comment noted No documented archaeological remains are known Replaced ‘several mornings weekly’ with ‘on Monday to Friday mornings’ Added a sentence after ‘provided.’ Covered in Comm. Pol. Added Added Leave In Comm. Pol. CA2 See ID10 Comment noted Added Coleshill and Buscot to the


23

117 118 119 120 121

122 123

124 125

126 127

128

129

130 131 132

133 134

135 136

137 138

dangerous. ‘People with mobility limitations’ is maybe a better term than ‘elderly and infirm’? Page 15 Again comment re housing being low carbon construction. Page 16 In Transport para - Need a shared cycle and footpath route to Faringdon. Work with local farmers/landowners to replace stiles with self-closing pedestrian gates. Page 17 Would urge that the street lights in the Laurels are removed, they are ugly, polluting, using power, unecessary and affect us! Also agree about maintaining vistas between buildings as we have lost ours! 6.35 Does this mean extending the Community Bus service to all day? Volunteer run therefore may be difficult. Page 25 6.43 The Park needs managing, e.g. paths, willow shelter. Page 26 Environment and Design - should the conservation area be extended to include all the village? Page 27 6.56 The area around the Barn is significant. 6.62 Remove the street lighting in the Laurels in line with the rest of the village. Changes Necessary My comments are included in the section above but in summary I feel we need to engage with Highways, transport planners, local residents, National Trust, local farmers etc. to take this forward. DESIGN STATEMENT Grounds for Objecting Neighbourhood design Statement 3.7 Believe that parts of the Court House are 14th century? 3.9 Monthly W.I. Children's workshops, parties 3.10 Picnic tables, information board, wildflower areas, trees, accessible gates. 4.1 Not sure I agree that the village terminates with the church. 5.19 also filed to east of village known as Siberia is organically farmed. 5.25 Path to Badbury Clump needs upgrading, poor access via a bridge, path section always flooded, not well signed in either direction. 5.34 A Management Plan for the churchyard was first written 15 years ago. Linear spaces 5.39 The drains are not well maintained in the Holloway, hedges need laying too. 5.60 see previous comments re removing stiles and inserting self-closing gates. 5.85 agree as large extensions and badly positioned outbuildings can remove vistas.

third TGA comment on p17 Amended Comment noted See Comm. Pol. TGA1 Added to p17 Need to discuss with parish council and residents Comment noted To be attempted Aft. ‘be’, added ‘managed,’ (CL1) See ID92, ID96 and Conservation Area Character Appraisal Comment noted See ID121 See Comm. Pol. TGA2 After ‘century’ added ‘(possibly medieval)’ Added Added Replaced the word ‘village’ with the word ‘ridge’ Noted Added to Comm. Pol. TGA1 Added to par. 5.10, p14 Added See ID120 Comment noted


24

139

140 141

142 143 144

145 146

Supp. Comm.

In the main NP document pg. 23 transport and getting around. Objectives Would it be relevant to add "support people who work out of the village in supporting improvements to A420" and "work jointly with OCC Highways to ensure A420 flows well" maybe this is outside our remit? This really is a great document - thank you for all your brilliant work on this. DESIGN STATEMENT 5.9 the Great Barn is not locked at night 5.13 the allotments are not managed by the PC 5.17 please take out the words "Although not at present accessible". this is not relevant 5.19 All the farmland IS owned.......the IS is missing! 5.22 "significant wooded bank or bund" should read belt/strip 15/20m side. It will not be a raised area 5.39 would it be clearer if "footpaths" were referred to as pavements? 5.69 the Holloway's junction with the Highworth Rd is difficult and dangerous.

A County Council responsibility Amended (See ID90) Amended (See ID12) Amended (See ID13, ID17, ID99) Comment noted This has been replaced with a green link (see EDQ1 on p26) Comment noted Added comment

Statutory Organisation Details Comments ID Response

English Heritage South East, Eastgate Court 195-205 High Street Guildford, Surrey, GU1 3EH 01483 252040 [email protected] 19.03.2014. Ref. HD/P5354/01/PC1. Response by letter.

Thank you for your e-mail of 8th

February inviting comments on your Neighbourhood Plan. As a general comment, 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/. Turning to specific comments, we welcome the description of the historical development of

Great Coxwell in paragraphs 1.5 and 1.6, but would comment that “historic” does not just mean

“listed”. There are many kinds of historic structures, features, sites etc (known as “heritage

assets”), both designated and non-designated.

Paragraph 1.10 refers to the parish being divided into three sub-areas based on an assessment of their characteristics and functional relationship with their surrounding areas. Paragraphs 1.12 – 1.15 provide further detail of Sub Area A. We do encourage the identification of the characteristics of different areas – what makes one area different from another, what makes it special, what should be maintained/reinforced and what is out of keeping. However, having identified the Sub Sub Areas of Sub Area A, there is no further reference to them – we would expect, for example, there to be a requirement in the policies to maintain and reinforce the specific different characteristics of each Sub Sub Area. Perhaps this is covered by the reference in Policy BE2 to the Neighbourhood Design Statement ? We also suggest that there be a cross-reference between these paragraphs and Map 3 and perhaps a clearer explanation of how the different sub-sub-character areas in Sub Area A have actually been identified ? Reference is made later in the Plan to a Neighbourhood Design Statement and Conservation Area Appraisal, both of which we suggest could usefully be introduced here. Have any other characterisation studies been undertaken of the town, such as Placecheck (http://www.placecheck.info/) or using the Oxford Character Assessment Toolkit http://www.oxford.gov.uk/PageRender/decP/CharacterAppraisalToolkit.htm) as a basis to guide future development and to identify any particular issues in the parish ? In Section 2, “Built Environment” is normally used in the context of townscape – the design of buildings, streets, spaces and the relationships between them, rather than home ownership and housing sizes. We welcome paragraphs 2.13, 2.15 and 2.16, although we feel that there could be more detail e.g. when and why was the Conservation Area designated, has there been any

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7

Comment noted After ‘historic (‘ added ‘some’ Added new comments to the village character area narrative Detail to be included in the Conservation Area Character Appraisal As above Yes Consider re-emphasis after completion of the Conservation Area Character Appraisal

mailto:[email protected]


http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/caring/get-involved/improving-your-neighbourhood/

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/caring/get-involved/improving-your-neighbourhood/

http://www.placecheck.info/

http://www.oxford.gov.uk/PageRender/decP/CharacterAppraisalToolkit.htm


26

review, whether or not there is an up-to-date Conservation Appraisal and Management Plan, and perhaps what is particularly significant about the Great Barn and the church such that they have higher grades of designation. We also suggest that the listed buildings in the village are shown on Map 3 as well as or instead of Map 2. We note that there is no reference in the Plan to any buildings or features of local interest (i.e. non-designated, but of historic importance to the parish). Have these been identified, e.g. as a “local list” ? Does the Conservation Area Character Appraisal identify important buildings ? It would also be helpful to indicate the condition of the historic environment and heritage assets in the village: for example, is the special architectural and historic interest of the Conservation Area threatened by inappropriate development? We welcome the identification of the Conservation Area and Great Barn as “Strengths” of the village on page 12. Are there no opportunities for the enhancement or greater access to or understanding of the historic environment of the village? It is disappointing that, given the identification of the Conservation Area and Great Barn as “Strengths” and the welcome comments raised by local people regarding the Conservation Area and the historic character of the village and parish, there is no reference to either the Conservation Area or the Barn, or the historic environment generally, in the Vision for Great Coxwell. We would also welcome a specific reference to the historic environment in the Objectives. The Objective to “Retain the character of the village and parish and the things we value about it” begs the question “is that character and those things clearly understood and identified somewhere ? Presumably local building materials (and styles and architectural features) are identified in the Neighbourhood Design Statement? We welcome and support Policies BE1, BE2, EDQ3 and EDQ4 for their references to the character of the village, its historic assets and their setting, archaeology, historic character and the vernacular of the village and historical assets and their supporting paragraphs. Paragraph 6.1 should say “Planning applications that accord……”. Paragraph 6.5 could helpfully explain a little more about the Neighbourhood Design Statement and Conservation Area Character Appraisal if these are not to be introduced in Section 1 as we suggest above. We hope these comments are helpful. Please contact me if you have any queries or wish to discuss any matters concerning the historic environment of Great Coxwell. Thank you again for consulting English Heritage.

S8

S9

S10

S11

S12

S13

S14

S15

See Conservation Area Character Appraisal Yes Added to page 13, Opportunities Reworded the Vision to take this into account In the Design Statement – refer? They are Comment noted Amended and introduced the supporting documents in the new paragraph 1.2

Environment Agency (Miss Lesley Timms – Planning Specialist (Major Projects) on behalf of Ashley Maltman –

We have no bespoke comments to make on the Plan. However, the Environment Agency, English Heritage, Forestry Commission and Natural England, as the statutory environmental bodies that deliver the Government’s work to protect and improve the natural, built and historic environment have produced a useful guidance note


27

Planning Advisor) 01491 828338 [email protected] 03.03.2014. Ref. WA/2006/000281/OR-13/IS1-L01. Reply by letter.

(enclosed). This may be useful for those involved in the Neighbourhood Planning process. The guidance note covers: • ideas on how to improve the local environment through neighbourhood planning • where to go for information about the local environment • information on environmental assessment • when to consult us.

Marine Management Organisation, Lancaster House, Hampshire Court, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 7YH 03001 231032 [email protected] 13.02.2014 Ref. 493. Response by letter

The area in question does not include either coastline or any stretch of river under tidal influence. The MMO therefore has no comments to submit in relation to this consultation.

Network Rail Town Planning Technician (Western) 3

rd Floor, Temple Point,

Redcliffe Way, Bristol, BS1 6NL [email protected] 24.03.2014. Response by email

Network Rail has been consulted on the Great Coxwell Neighbourhood Plan. Thank you for providing us with this opportunity to comment on this Planning Policy document. This email forms the basis of our response to this consultation request. Network Rail is a statutory undertaker responsible for maintaining and operating the country’s railway infrastructure and associated estate. Network Rail owns, operates, maintains and develops the main rail network. This includes the railway tracks, stations, signalling systems, bridges, tunnels, level crossings and viaducts. The preparation of development plan policy is important in relation to the protection and enhancement of Network Rail’s infrastructure. In this regard, please find our comments below. Development proposals’ affecting the safety of level crossings is an extremely important consideration for emerging planning policy to address. The impact from development can result in a significant increase in the vehicular and/or pedestrian traffic utilising a crossing which in turn impacts upon safety and service provision. As a result of increased patronage, Network Rail could be forced to reduce train line speed in direct correlation to the increase in vehicular and pedestrian traffic using a crossing. This would have severe consequences for the timetabling of trains and would also effectively frustrate any future train service improvements. This would be in direct conflict with strategic and government aims of improving rail services. In this regard, we would request that the potential impacts from development affecting Network Rail’s level crossings, is specifically addressed through planning policy as there have

S16 Comments noted









28

been instances whereby Network Rail has not been consulted as statutory undertaker where a proposal has impacted on a level crossing. We request that a policy is provided confirming that:

The Council have a statutory responsibility under planning legislation to consult the statutory rail undertaker where a proposal for development is likely to result in a material increase in the volume or a material change in the character of traffic using a level crossing over a railway:

o Schedule 5 (f)(ii) of the Town & Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) order, 2010 requires that… “Where any proposed development is likely to result in a material increase in volume or a material change in the character of traffic using a level crossing over a railway (public footpath, public or private road) the Planning Authority’s Highway Engineer must submit details to both Her Majesty’s Railway Inspectorate and Network Rail for separate approval”.

Any planning application which may increase the level of pedestrian and/or vehicular usage at a level crossing should be supported by a full Transport Assessment assessing such impact: and

The developer is required to fund any required qualitative improvements to the level crossing as a direct result of the development proposed.

We would appreciate the Council providing Network Rail with an opportunity to comment on any future planning applications or proposed site allocations should they be submitted for sites adjoining the railway, or within close proximity to the railway as we may have more specific comments to make (further to those above). We trust these comments will be considered in your preparation of the forthcoming Great Coxwell Neighbourhood Plan and associated planning policy.

Sport England, Sport Park, 3 Oakwood Drive, Loughborough, Leicester, LE11 3QF 020 7273 1768 [email protected] 28.02.2014 Response by email

Thank you for consulting Sport England on the above Neighbourhood Plan. Planning Policy in the National Planning Policy Framework identifies how the planning system can play an important role in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy, inclusive communities. Encouraging communities to become more physically active through walking, cycling, informal recreation and formal sport plays an important part in this process and providing enough sports facilities of the right quality and type and in the right places is vital to achieving this aim. This means positive planning for sport, protection from unnecessary loss of sports facilities and an integrated approach to providing new housing and employment land and community facilities provision is important. It is important therefore that the Neighbourhood Plan reflects national policy for sport as set out in the above document with particular reference to Pars 73 and 74 to ensure proposals comply with National Planning Policy. It is also important to be aware of Sport England’s role in



29

protecting playing fields and the presumption against the loss of playing fields (see link below), as set out in our national guide, ‘A Sporting Future for the Playing Fields of England – Planning Policy Statement’. http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/development-management/planning-applications/playing-field-land/ Sport England provides guidance on developing policy for sport and further information can be found following the link below: http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/forward-planning/ Sport England works with Local Authorities to ensure Local Plan policy is underpinned by robust and up to date assessments and strategies for indoor and outdoor sports delivery. If local authorities have prepared a Playing Pitch Strategy or other indoor/outdoor sports strategy it will be important that the Neighbourhood Plan reflects the recommendations set out in that document and that any local investment opportunities, such as the Community Infrastructure Levy, are utilised to support the delivery of those recommendations. http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/planning-tools-and-guidance/ If new sports facilities are being proposed Sport England recommend you ensure such facilities are fit for purpose and designed in accordance with our design guidance notes. http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/tools-guidance/design-and-cost-guidance/

Thames Water Utilities Limited c/o Savills, Hawker House, 5-6 Napier Court, Napier Road, Reading, Berkshire, RG1 8BW 01189 520503 [email protected] 20.03.2014. Response by letter.

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 Great Coxwell Neighbourhood Plan area and the wider Vale of White Horse District. Water and wastewater infrastructure is essential to any development. Failure to ensure that any required upgrades to the infrastructure network are delivered alongside development could result in adverse impacts in the form of internal and external sewer flooding, pollution of land and water courses and / or issues with water supply in the form of no or low water pressure. The level of information contained within the Neighbourhood Plan does not allow Thames Water to make a detailed assessment of the impact additional housing provision within the Neighbourhood will have on local water and wastewater infrastructure. To enable us to provide more specific comments on development proposals we would require more specific information such as the location, type and scale of development together with the anticipated timing of development With this in mind and given that the Vale’s Local Plan is yet to be adopted Thames Water consider that there should be a section on ‘Infrastructure and Utilities’ in the Great Coxwell

S17 Added to Policy NDS14 of the Neighbourhood Design Statement.

http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/development-management/planning-applications/playing-field-land/

http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/development-management/planning-applications/playing-field-land/

http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/forward-planning/

http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/planning-tools-and-guidance/

http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/planning-tools-and-guidance/

http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/tools-guidance/design-and-cost-guidance/




30

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: [email protected] I trust the above is satisfactory, but please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries.

Welbeck Land Limited Meeting with David Barnes 24 June 2014

Requested to iron out any issues and take suggestions from the proposed developer of land on the edge of Great Coxwell Parish known as ‘the Steeds’.

S18 Suggestions added to Policy EDQ1 with addendum to Map 5.

http://www.thameswater.co.uk/cps/rde/xchg/corp/hs.xsl/558.htm


Appendix A Responses to Parish Initial Questionnaire

From the Great Coxwell Parish Council Eight questions and answers to help us form a Parish Plan for the village. Much of the land between Faringdon and Great Coxwell (the north-eastern section of Great Coxwell parish) could shortly be allocated for building development. The first application to reach the Vale Planning authority, the ‘Fernham Fields’ proposed development of 200 homes, is on a portion of land furthest from the village alongside the A420, but if planning permission is gained, proposals for sites nearer the village will follow. Developments on open land (parish farmland) around the village could have a significant effect on the village’s character and way of life. Therefore the Great Coxwell Parish Council decided to find out villagers’ views on life in Great Coxwell now and in the future, to enable a Parish Plan based on these views, so that a meaningful dialogue about the future of the village may be held with the Vale Planning authority. Great emphasis is placed by the planning authorities on the role of consultation and representation in the neighbourhood planning process. 100% of Great Coxwell villagers were consulted, and 84% responded. Below, the original questions are shown in black and the responses in red. Village and Parish Plan: Your Views 1. What provides your quality of life in Great Coxwell? Please tick which apply. rural location………… 79 (94 %) character of environment…………… 70 (83 %) quiet…………… 77 (92 %) safety………………. 61 (73 %) small supportive community……… 69 (82 %) Other– please give your own views ’Friendliness’ ‘area of natural beauty’ ‘no light pollution, rural space, wild life environment’ 2. What changes could improve the village and parish? Please tick which apply. facilities for the young/disabled……..… 24 (29 %) starter homes………….. 20 (24 %)


32

a shop………… 36 (43 %) cycle paths…………. 21 (25%) maintenance of parish footpaths… 56 (67 %) better facilities for village activities… 23 (29 %) Other - please give your own views A bigger/better/improved village hall was mentioned by 9 (15 %), improved parking by 4 (6 %) and a pub by 3 (5 %). Other suggestions included reduction of the village’s carbon footprint (as eg at Coleshill), reduction of light pollution (especially security lights and street lights), hiding of overhead wiring, making Hollow Way one-way and a village heritage trail leaflet. 3. What changes would not be desirable? Please tick which apply – increased road traffic……… 81 (96 %) loss of rural environment ……… 80 (95 %) Other - please give your own views Street lighting, higher building density, loss of green corridor between Great Coxwell and Faringdon. ‘Loss of farming land – it will never be restored.’ 4 . Are you comfortable with doubling or tripling the number of houses in the parish by means of large-scale development? Yes ……………… No…………………… 83 (99 %) Do not mind…………… 1 (1 %) 5. Are you comfortable with the current proposals by developers to build 200 homes between the A420 and the Coxwell Road Yes…………… No…………. 80 (95 %) Do not mind………… 1 (1 %) 6. Are you comfortable with other proposals by developers to build around 400 houses on the opposite side of the Coxwell Road, Steeds Farm, expanding into the parish of Great Coxwell and removing the rural buffer between this village and Faringdon? Yes…………………. 3 (4 %) No…………..………. 81 (96 %) Do not mind……………………………. 7. Are you in favour of small scale building in the parish? Yes……………. 38 (45 %) No……………… 28 (33 %) Do not mind…………… 17 (20 %) Please give ideas of numbers of houses Those replying Yes, No and Do Not Mind all qualified their answers: ‘smaller/affordable/sustainable, retirement (so the elderly –


33

and young people – don’t have to leave the village). Respondents suggested numbers of houses up to 20, centring on the range 6 – 10/20. ‘Small groups and small numbers, with each case judged on its merits.’ 8. If yes, where would you ideally like these houses to be built? Infill within the village itself Yes……………….. 27 (32 %) No………………… 4 (4 %) Do not mind………….. 6 (7 %) ‘The character of the conservation area should be preserved, so that the houses are part of the village’. ‘Keep our village rural – we don’t want to be part of urban spread!’ ‘We moved here because of the small size of the village, its open views, lack of crime and traffic. I was born in a small village, have often lived in one and would be sorry to see its character changed.’ (The individual replies are available on request)


34

Appendix B. Pre-submission Consultation Publicity and Response Forms Poster:

The Great Coxwell Neighbourhood Plan

Consultation Period 8th February – 21st March

YOU CAN HELP!

Visit the website www.greatcoxwell.com

Read the Plan and send us your views

Come to two Consultation events in the village on

Saturday 1st March: Reading Room 10am – 4

Monday 3rd March: St Giles Church 5 – 8pm

See the Plan, enlarged maps and projections

Talk to Parish Councillors and the Neighbourhood Plan team

Tell us what you think

Refreshments

From: The Great Coxwell Parish Council

http://www.greatcoxwell.com/


35

Feedback Form:

Great Coxwell Neighbourhood Development Plan

Consultation Feedback Form

This form is for Great Coxwell’s Neighbourhood Plan Pre-Submission Consultation

Name of the document this relates to: Great Coxwell Neighbourhood Plan February 2014

Please return to Great Coxwell Parish Council, c/o Green’s Farm House, Great Coxwell, SN7 7NG or [email protected] by Saturday 22 March 2014 at 5.00 pm.

This form has two parts – Part A – Personal Details Part B – Your representation(s).

Part A

1. Personal Details* 2. Agent’s Details (if applicable) *If an agent is appointed, please complete only the Title, Name and Organisation boxes below but complete the full contact details of the agent in 2.

Title

First Name

Last Name

Job Title

(where relevant)

Organisation

(where relevant)

Address Line 1

Line 2

Line 3

Post Code

Telephone Number

E-mail Address



36

Part B

Name or Organisation : 3. To which parts of the neighbourhood plan does this representation relate?

Paragraph(s) Policy/Policies Map(s)

4. Is your representation:

(1) Supporting

(2) Objecting

(3) Commenting

5. Please give details of the grounds why you are objecting to the specific areas of the plan. Please be as precise as possible. If you wish to support or comment on the plan, please also use this box to set out your comments.

(Continue on a separate sheet /expand box if necessary)

6. Please set out what change(s) you consider necessary to make the plan able to proceed, related to the objection you have raised. You will need to say why this change will enable the plan to proceed. It will be helpful if you are able to put forward your suggested revised wording of any policy or text. Please be as precise as possible.

(Continue on a separate sheet /expand box if necessary)

Signature: Date:


37

great coxwell neighbourhood plan 2014 - 2031 …...great coxwell neighbourhood plan 2014-2031,...

Documents