Partial Review of the Cherwell Local Plan
How to object
The deadline is 5pm on Tuesday 10th October.
Individual, personal objections count the most, so KDW has not organised a petition. However, you do not have to use Cherwell’s complicated forms for making objections.
Instead, you could either:
► Complete and return one of the postcards distributed with our leaflets.
You can post it to Cherwell Council or put it in our objection box at Exeter Hall or at the other village locations listed on the card by 12 noon on 6th October and we will deliver it for you.
Please add your own comments in the blank space to make your objection personal. You could mention the effects of this plan on you, such as possible travel difficulties or countryside near you that would be lost. More ideas are given overleaf.
Or, better still:
► Send an e-mail or write to Cherwell saying what you object to and why.
This is the best method because it is personal to you.
It helps to refer specifically to parts of the plan (‘policies’) to which you object and to use some key phrases (Unsound, Not Positively Prepared, Not Justified, Not Effective) which have a particular meaning when the plan is being examined by a Government Inspector. In particular, the Inspector has to decide whether the plan is ‘sound’ – in everyday language, does it make sense?
Overleaf is some wording you could use as part of your response.
Feel free to base your reply on this wording (it is available to copy and paste on our website). We recommend referring to the policies and using the words in bold (see overleaf). It counts more with the Council and the Inspector if you can include as much of your own wording as possible, for example describing your own particular concerns about the impact of the proposals.
However you respond, be sure to give your name & address.
Please send your responses by email or letter as follows:
e-mail:
Post to arrive no later than October 10th to: Planning Policy Consultation, Planning Policy Team, Strategic Planning & Economy, Cherwell Council, Bodicote House, Bodicote, Banbury OX15 4AA
Use our free drop boxes at Exeter Hall, Broadway Post Office, Central Hair & Barbers and La Patisserie before 12noon on Friday 6th October & KDW will deliver on your behalf.
Please note that Cherwell will publish your comments and name (but no other personal details) some time after the consultation.
More information and help is on our website : www.kidlingtondw.org
The Council consultation can be viewed online http://www.cherwell.gov.uk/planningpolicyconsultation
and at Exeter Hall or Kidlington public library.
For Cherwell Council’s Planning Policy Team,
call : 01295 227985
Kidlington Development Watch, September 2017
Examples of wording for objections to Cherwell. Feel free to use and adapt this in your response.
Representations on the Partial Review of the Cherwell Local Plan (Proposed Submission Documents) (use this as the subject for your e-mail or letter and give a date)
From: Insert Your Name, Address & postcode (essential for your objection to be considered)
I consider that the proposed submission plan is Unsound, Not Positively Prepared, Not Justified, and Not effective for the reasons given in my specific objections below.
I object to Policy PR1(a) to build 4,400 houses in this area for Oxford overspill. This is not a proven requirement and not justified. It is based on a highly inflated estimate of housing need in the county. It is unsustainable. It would hugely worsen traffic problems and pollution. Schools and health services would be overstretched. The Green Belt's open countryside in which nearly 4,000 of the houses would be built would be sacrificed for ever and its walks and views lost. Natural habitats and wildlife would be destroyed. Oxford City Council has been allocating land in the city for employment instead of for housing. It has ignored the impact on surrounding Districts and failed in its duty to cooperate. The City Council should do more to meet its own needs.
I object to Policy PR3 to remove land from the Oxford Green Belt. The Green Belt around Kidlington preserves green spaces that are so greatly appreciated and enjoyed by local residents. It protects both the historic city of Oxford from overdevelopment and neighbouring villages from coalescence. Government guidance says that Green Belt is a permanent designation and that unmet housing need is not a reason for building in the Green Belt. The plan is therefore ineffective and not consistent with National Policy.
I object to Policy PR11 on infrastructure because it only sets out “an approach”. It is wishful thinking. No costs are shown and in most cases no source of funding is identified. There are no projects to improve the already congested highway network for private vehicles and no indication of how it will cope with the additional vehicles owned by the occupiers of these new houses and the other developments planned for the area. The plan is not positively prepared because it does not provide for necessary infrastructure.
Other ideas for your response :
Urban Sprawl. Kidlington will become part of a vast urban sprawl encompassing north Oxford, Cutteslowe, Wolvercote, Begbroke, and Yarnton
Unaffordable Houses. Very few of the new houses would be ‘affordable’ in reality. Developers across the country consistently default on their affordable housing quota. Predicted prices for so called starter homes at Barton Park are already beyond the reach of first-time buyers. Most of the new houses are likely to serve the London-commuter and buy-to-let markets, and Kidlington's young people and the county's key workers still won't get the truly affordable housing they need.
Public services to get worse. Underfunded public services, already struggling, will deteriorate further: waiting times to see your GP will be even longer and school class sizes will rise.
Traffic Gridlock. Traffic congestion and air pollution will undoubtedly worsen due to thousands more vehicles on our roads. This is in addition to the extra traffic from the 22,000 houses already approved elsewhere in the District by Cherwell, and over 10,000 more houses to be built in the other Districts just for Oxford overspill. Construction traffic and road works will add to this chaos for years while the development takes place.
Sites rejected by Cherwell this stage are still vulnerable. Sites all around Kidlington were initially identified for possible development. Cherwell has now rejected some of these sites, but the developers will be making strong representations to have them reinstated. They are still at risk. You could say that you support Cherwell’s rejection of these sites. Mention any these sites of particular concern to you and say why you think Cherwell was right to reject them.
Be sure to include your name and address in your response.