From: Mark Adams Sent: 27 April 2009 16:06 To: DC Secretaries Subject: FW: PublicAccess for Planning - Application Comments (09/00478/F) -----Original Message----- From: publicaccess@cherwell-dc.gov.uk [mailto:publicaccess@cherwell-dc.gov.uk] Sent: 27 April 2009 15:41 To: Public Access DC Comments Subject: PublicAccess for Planning - Application Comments (09/00478/F) PublicAccess for Planning - Application Comments (09/00478/F) "John Hicks" 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 27/04/2009 15:41:27 Application Summary ------------------- Application Number: 09/00478/F Address: OS Parcel 3873 North East Of Hillside House Street From Cropredy To Great Bourton Cropredy Oxfordshire Proposal: The formation of 5 No. Touring Caravan pitches with associated road access across the site and foul waste disposal point. Erection of Timber post and Rail fencing to separate caravan pitches from paddock area. Erection of corrugated metal sheet fence as security screen to cow shed. Siting of secure storage container. Case Officer: Caroline Roche Customer Details ---------------- Name: John Hicks Address: 6 Manor Close, Great Bourton Postcode: OX17 1RA Comments -------- Submission Type: Customer objects to the Planning Application. Comments: While I have no direct involvement with this planning application, I regularly pass this site and have been concerned for some time about the unpleasant state it is in and the effect it is having on the rural scene. After reviewing all the planning applications regarding this piece of land, and noticing that almost all of them have been made retrospectively, and, as yet, most of the planning conditions have not been adhered to, it appears to me that this latest application is likely to go the same way and result in a further deterioration of the area. Additionally, one would expect facilities for some sort of caretaking to be required on the site, which will presumably be the subject of yet another retrospective planning application when one of the 'agricultural buildings' is tranformed into something for which planning permission has not been obtained Finally, less than a mile from the proposed site is a large, well managed site with excellent facilities, none of which the proposed site appears to have. It therefore appears unnecessary to further despoil the contryside. In summary I strongly object to any further development on this site and I should be interested to learn what the planning authorities are doing to enforce their previous conditions. John Hicks PublicAccess for Planning. (c) CAPS Solutions Ltd.