Home | Comments | Reasons to Object

Reasons to Object

Below are some reasons compiled from comments both on the comments page and from comments on the planning permission application.

If/when objecting, please do review the list of planning policies and perhaps use their references as specific points - in your own words.

Of course, feel free to make more comments and suggestions in the comments area.

  1. Bloxham has an official Neighbourhood Plan that was brought into the statutory Development Plan by Cherwell District Council on 19th December 2016. This explicitly outlines the stance on new developments in the village. What is the point in having this plan if it is not 'enforced' and instead completely disregarded?
  2. The proposed site sits directly 'alongside' a known flood plain: building in that area could create run-off and contribute to the existing flooding that does happen periodically through the year.
  3. The proposed site will be in very close proximity to the Slade nature reserve. There would obviously be displacement and disruption - in particular during the building processes.
  4. The proposed site being directly next to the recreational park, residents and nature reserve will cause significant environmental problems during any sort of excavation and building work. The air and noise pollution are well known problems during these developments, with the ramifications greatly increased on the effected areas due to their close proximity.
  5. Schools are already at capacity. In particular the Primary School which cannot grow any more, is at a point where placements are becoming harder to secure even for children born in the village. Expansion of the Warriner is already getting push-back and objections for various reasons, indicating that expansion is not suitable there either. Increasing the number of households that require school placements, without having places for those children, will obviously generate traffic - likely through the village - and of course at peak times in order to take their children to other schools.
  6. The village amenities are already insufficient due to increased demand from the other new build developments. Waiting times for doctors and dentists are always increasing: 1-2 weeks for a doctor and many weeks for a dentist/hygienist.
  7. Bloxham has already seen 5 new development sites in less than 10 years.
  8. Bloxham has met its quota of new housing requirements: to argue that there is a need for this housing (and would be 'over developing') in our village is moot: especially when other areas are under their quota. Do we have evidence?
  9. The South Newington Road is already problematic with speeding vehicles entering and leaving the village. Moving the limit before the new proposed access road will not make any difference. Adding a junction will only increase the risk of accidents - in particular from vehicles leaving the village and increasing speed around the corner after the bridge.
  10. Access is not possible via any other means. While it would seem that Hyde Grove would 'make sense' to a developer: it is a cul-de-sac on the edge of an area accessed by two already troublesome roads. Station Approach is seldom used, but for good reason: it is a tight approach and a sharp corner which would not serve for an increase in traffic. Cumberford Hill is also already tight (with no white lines), steep and not suitable for increased traffic (already increased from new builds on Upper Tadmarton Road).
  11. It is understood that the land owner previously submitted the site as a possible option for development, but that CDC actually said it was not suitable to build on. Why should that have changed?