Dear KDW Supporters,
As you know, Cherwell’s Planning Committee overwhelmingly voted to refuse the application on Land Behind the Moors by 16 votes to 0. However, Cherwell’s planning officers have not issued the notice of refusal. Instead they seem to have agreed to a request by the applicant to have the application reconsidered at a planning committee on March 19th. They have started a two week consultation on ‘amendments’ to the application, ending on March 16th. This is an astonishing process with doubtful legitimacy. Nevertheless, we think it's important that all objectors to this application should make their views known to the Council again.
The fundamentals of the application have not changed and the same objections therefore apply (such as traffic, flooding and the setting of St Mary’s).
Crucial to the application is the claim (repeated in the latest consultation documents) that the site is “Grey Belt”. We strongly disagree - this flies in the face of commonsense. Councillors saw on their site visit that this was open unspoilt, tranquil countryside, with no roads and no development up to and well beyond the river. It is classic Green Belt. It makes a strong contribution to checking the unrestricted sprawl of Kidlington Town which is recognised to be a large built up area. With a further 5000 new dwellings already planned the area is making a very strong contribution to housing and commercial growth. Further loss of the town's Green Belt is NOT justified.
We suggest that you say, briefly and in your own words, that
- your fundamental objections to this application remain as before;
- you strongly object to the applicant’s claim that the site is Grey Belt (as repeated in their latest submissions); and
- you ask the officers to reconsider their own Grey Belt assessment which (in our opinion) contained inaccuracies and unjustifiable arguments.
The Grey Belt rules are convoluted. If you have time, we have added below a short explanation of the relevant points and how we think Cherwell has misinterpreted them.
Cherwell planners recommend that you submit comments online on the planning website. We recommend doing this by email to [email protected] as it seems more reliable and traceable. You could do both. If you do send an email remember to include the application number (25/01346/OUT), your address, and clearly state that you are objecting to the application. Please do so by Monday March 16th.
Finally, you may wish to complain that the Cherwell officers have not accepted the near unanimous rejection of the application by our democratically elected representatives. That decision was made after a two and a half hour debate during which they were fully informed of the possible financial and other consequences for the Council.
Further Action
Please join the “Campaign to Save the Land Behind The Moors” which is leading this fight and encouraging a large attendance at the committee meeting on the 19th March. Please contact them if you are able to go.
email: [email protected] to receive their Newsletters and for information about the meeting
Follow the Campaign @landbehindthemoors on Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/landbehindthemoors
Thank you,
Kidlington Development Watch
A short explanation of Grey Belt rules as they apply to the Land Behind the Moors.
Green Belt land cannot be ‘Grey’ if it makes a ‘strong contribution’ to one of three Green Belt purposes.
In our case , “Checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas” is the relevant purpose. The Cherwell planners have already accepted that Kidlington is a large built up area and they are supported by a number of recent opinions on this. (The applicant however says that the Green Belt applies only to Oxford.) The recent formal change of status to a town helps to back this up.
However, despite this, the planners claim that the site only makes a moderate, not a strong, contribution to the Green Belt purpose of checking sprawl. In making this assessment they refer to four criteria set out in Planning Practice Guidance which can be considered to weaken a site’s contribution to checking sprawl.
(i) They say that the “weak” and recently planted hedge on the northern boundary would act as a physical feature that would “restrict and contain” development. This cannot be the case or else every field enclosed by hedges would be Grey Belt.
(ii) They say the site is partially enclosed by development including the houses on the southern boundary, namely the houses on the Moors. This just seems wrong. These houses do not enclose the site. They are the boundary of the urban area which the Green Belt exists to contain. They mention three (3!) houses on the western boundary. These do not enclose the site in any meaningful way and are best seen as a continuation of the urban boundary of Kidlington.
(iii) They say the land is subject to urbanising influences and cite the railway line. This is also wrong as the railway line is over 200 metres away from the site (and is not an urbanising influence given that railways run throughout the countryside).
(iv) The fourth criterion, which the planners do not mention, would apply if the site contains existing development. Not even the applicant claims this!
A second reason why the land cannot be ‘Grey Belt’ is that its development is restricted by the setting of the Grade 1 listed St Mary’s Church. This provision may be removed when the Government introduces a new version of its policy (the NPPF) later this year. However, for now, the provision remains and means that the land cannot be assessed as Grey Belt.
We think that CDC’s planners have got their initial assessment wrong as it is unjustified and based on inaccuracies. They should therefore reconsider and revise this so that the Land Behind the Moors is no longer deemed Grey Belt.