From: Public Access DC Comments Sent: 18 February 2008 15:37 To: Janet Reason Subject: FW: PublicAccess for Planning - Application Comments (08/00119/F) Dan Birch IT Support Officer Planning Housing and Economy Cherwell District Council Ext 1872 Direct Dial (01295) 221872 mailto:danny.birch@cherwell-dc.gov.uk www.cherwell-dc.gov.uk -----Original Message----- From: publicaccess@cherwell-dc.gov.uk [mailto:publicaccess@cherwell-dc.gov.uk] Sent: 16 February 2008 20:24 To: Public Access DC Comments Subject: PublicAccess for Planning - Application Comments (08/00119/F) PublicAccess for Planning - Application Comments (08/00119/F) "Charles and Judith Pettit" has used the PublicAccess for Planning website to submit their comments on a Planning Application. You have received this message because you are the Case Officer for this application or because this is a designated mailbox for PublicAccess comments submissions. Comments were submitted at 16/02/2008 20:24:07 Application Summary ------------------- Application Number: 08/00119/F Address: OS Parcel 9078, 9975 And 7986 Stocking Lane Shenington Oxfordshire Proposal: Change of use of land from Agricultural to Equestrian use (as amended by letter from agent dated 12/02/08 and received 14/02/08 and by email from agent dated 14/02/08) Case Officer: Jane Dunkin Customer Details ---------------- Name: Charles and Judith Pettit Address: Leys View Cottage Shenington Banbury Oxon Postcode: OX15 6LZ Comments -------- Submission Type: Customer wishes to comment on the Planning Application. Comments: Dear Mr Chadwick, Thank you for writing to alert us the owners of a neighbouring property to the above planning application. The additional information from the applicants submitted within the last few days certainly reduces the level of concern we felt when receiving the original letter and checking the details on your website. However, we do still have some concerns. It appeared from the original application that the village might be facing large numbers of additional traffic movements up the very narrow Stocking Lane, with its constricted and blind corner with Rattlecombe Road, with the prospect of horse boxes and similar large vehicles delivering feed etc going into the entrance just by the entrance to the school and opposite the one to the surgery. If the proposal is only for 3-4 horses, and if there will only be one private car going on a daily basis, then this is a different matter, and we would not wish to object on these grounds. As the land in question is almost opposite the front of our house, we are of course concerned about any adverse effect on our immediate environment. We would want to know whether the "Exercise" area will be grassed, or whether it will be turned into hard standing of some type. In this latter case, it would adversely affect our outlook. If the proposal is for a grass field with some jumps, it may offer a somewhat less attractive view than the current one over open fields, but we would not lodge a formal objection. If however the area became cluttered with all sorts of associated items, then this would detract from the visual appearance of the outlook from our house and from neighbouring properties. Any planning permission would need to make this clear. As long-standing local residents we are of course well aware of the number of development proposals that have been submitted over many years for this site, which previously have been for varying numbers of houses to be built. While this application is not inappropriate in the way that a housing development would be, we would like reassurance on the use of the "Exercise" area as noted above, and would urge that if planning permission should be granted, it is given only on the very specific basis of the additional details recently supplied regarding the scale of the facility, so that any expansion of the facility would require new planning permission. We would also urge that if planning permission is granted it should only be on the basis that if at any time the equestrian facility should come to an end, the land would have to revert to agricultural use, so that the change from agricultural use to equestrian use could not be used as a means of more easily obtaining planning permission in the future for a residential development. Yours sincerely, Charles and Judith Pettit PublicAccess for Planning. (c) CAPS Solutions Ltd.