From: Mark Adams Sent: 29 April 2009 09:32 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: 29 April 2009 08:43 To: Public Access DC Comments Subject: PublicAccess for Planning - Application Comments (09/00478/F) PublicAccess for Planning - Application Comments (09/00478/F) "Nick Seed" 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 29/04/2009 08:42:56 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: Nick Seed Address: The Barn, Crow Lane, Great Bourton, Oxfordshire Postcode: Comments -------- Submission Type: Customer objects to the Planning Application. Comments: Application Reference 09/00478/F Dear Sir/Madam, I object to this planning application for the following reasons: 1. The caravan site would be in open countryside and would constitute inappropriate land use for a green field agricultural location. 2. It would be a blot on a high value landscape, and be highly visible from local footpaths, the road and some houses in Great Bourton. Being located in the valley, the site is visible from a considerable distance and cannot reasonably be screened. 3. It is not attached to a village or community so will likely require additional security at some point - security lights or buildings for personnel which would also be out of keeping with the location. 4. Great Bourton already has an excellent caravan site with proper facilities, which is not visually intrusive. It contributes to the local economy and is connected to it. Another site here is simply not needed. 5. The proposal includes a large metal shipping container and corrugated metal fencing which are both completely out of keeping with the landscape. The application doesn't appear to offer any justification for needing such a storage container. 6. It adds significant hard landscaping to otherwise permeable fields. This may impact the drainage of an area which already is already prone to flooding, and further destroys the ancient ridge and furrow landscape. 7. The application is accompanied by a document (Owls Hall Environmental) illustrating a good quality Kingspan cess-pool. However, a cess-pool has already been installed at the site which is nothing like that; it appears to be a metal tank which would not meet the requirements of the relevant sections of part H2 of the building regulations. Accordingly, it possibly presents an environmental hazard. Please see photos related to this application at http://cherweb.cherwell-dc.gov.uk/AnitePublicDocs/05528846.pdf 8. The previous planning application to rebuild the cow shed (06/00593/F) was made on the basis of a stated intention to use the site for keeping specific livestock. As far as we are aware the applicant has not subsequently kept livestock on the site. 9. Furthermore, it appears that the current application would effectively mean that the only route between the cow-shed and the remaining paddock would be partly via the caravan site. This undermines credibility that it would ever be used for livestock, reinforcing the suspicion that the applicant had little or no intention of using it for that purpose when making the previous application. 10. The cattle shed appears to be of unduly high specification for livestock, including such things as insulation - despite the fact that the planning application for it clearly showed it being entirely open on one side. It also appears not to have been built in accordance with the related previous planning consent. This doesn't support reasonable credibility that it was actually built for agricultural use. 11. The response to the "Have you consulted your neighbours or the local community" question in the application seems to be a sham. The question is answered in the affirmative but the response offers no evidence that any relevant consultation took place. None did that we are aware of. Taking a broader perspective, this is another retrospective application from this applicant which was triggered by enforcement. It is already being implemented without planning permission. Looking at the planning history for the site, it seems that the applicant plays games with the planning system to get what he wants regardless of whether it is in accordance with relevant planning policy. This appears to demonstrate that one can flout the due planning process with impunity. Unsurprisingly, this has left all of the villagers I have spoken to wondering (i) what the enforcement officers are doing about works done thus far which are not compliant with planning restrictions and (ii) why the planning process seems to be applied inconsistently. PublicAccess for Planning. (c) CAPS Solutions Ltd.