Dear Ms Barker

We understand that the 'dwellings' the subject of this application have been accepted by all parties as constituting building ancillary to the former use of the whole site as a military airfield and that their occupation for general purpose housing has been authorised through temporary permissions.

This application should be determined in accordance with OSPH2 that about 1000 dwellings will be permitted "...as a means of enabling environmental improvements and the heritage of the site as a military base with Cold War associations to be conserved..." .  The policy does not actually specify that the new settlement will comprise new dwellings or will incorporate those already on the site.  The policy does refer to a comprehensive planning brief that might have envisaged a more comprehensive redevelopment and a development that addressed the whole of the former air base.  Whilst the current application does not comply with the existing brief, the Council will be aware that this has been scrutinised very closely at the public inquiry ending in March this year, and there are matters that are hopefully under reconsideration.  

Retention of these 'dwellings' would appear to be in the longer term contemplation of the new owners and the existing residents' reported reaction also appears to be supportive of that approach.   Retention of homes built to house military personnel should also preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area.  However, as implied by policy OSPH2, buildings are only being allowed to remain and be reused on this site to fulfill specific planning purposes.   In these circumstances the Council should not be granting permission for either permanent or temporary dwellings in the absence of a planning obligation which accords with and goes towards achieving the purposes set out in OSPH2.  

Uncontested evidence was provided to the public inquiry that the rent from the 300 existing dwellings was over £2milllion.  Determining this application in accordance with the development plan, in the absence of any overriding material considerations, requires the  Council to ask for planning obligations such that  an approval can be seen "... as the means to enable..."  the purposes set out in OSPH2.  There a number of pressing needs for funds to enable the conservation of the Cold War heritage, not least the appointment of a curator and education officer said in evidence given by the NOC expert on cultural heritage to be of the 'highest priority".

We trust that CDC will adopt an approach to this application in accordance with OSPH2 and that the reasons which are required  for any permission are clearly spell this out.  

Yours sincerely

Daniel Scharf for The Oxford Trust for Contemporary History