Q20
I would like trees to be planted in the horse fields
I wouldn’t object to them being accessible, but they do not need to be accessible in order to justify keeping them for nature and for the views across them.
The Horse Fields should be maintained for wildlife and rural nature of the village. To obtain this we should not have to allow people access as they will have an effect. The Council should have a responsibility to maintain the horse fields, the village should not have to buy them in order to ensure they are protected.
The Council should gift the horse fields to the community. The three developments are all very different. The Horse Fields development being the only one to have an significant impact on the village.
I would be happy with any of the Horse Fields ideas in Q15-18 depending on the use of Memorial Field
As much as we should be concerned as to whether those fields should be build on or not, in the most likely event that the housing continues, we should be concerned that what is built has architectural integrity, that it is built in a way that adds to and does not detract, that a sense of ‘village’ within the city is maintained.
I do not oppose some housing on the horse fields – new younger families would benefit the village BUT any housing on these 3 sites must be well-designed, well-built and have excellent provision for parking AND there must be binding protection for the Memorial Field
It seems that the view of FIOV is that the former Iffley Mead playing fields (not in the conservation area) is of lesser importance than conservation of the horse fields and Court Place Gardens. Last newsletter endorsed building of 84 new houses on the playing field. THIS IS NOT OK. Huge access problems to the field – only access is adjacent to special needs schools with large taxis transporting children. Traffic congestion and accidents will happen.
We attend Iffley Church every week and have lots of ties with the village and belong to lots of societies, i.e. history, music, friends. We live in the Iffley Road but much of our social life is in the village.
Though living outside the village just off the Iffley Road, I have long-standing associations with the Iffley community via the church and societies (history, music and friends).
Since no consultation of Meadow Lane residents was done, proceeding with the two adjacent developments may be maladministration.
I do not believe the Council will back down and the village would be better served to work with OCC to mitigate over-development and ensure design is in keeping with the area, and to extract greater safeguarding promises for the Memorial Field. Oxford needs housing. This survey should not have lumped all three proposals together.
Visual access is important but making the fields too accessible for community use could be destructive. If we truly want to preserve these fields, we can still benefit from them and appreciate their natural beauty as they are. Do we really need to justify their existence by making ‘use’ of them? They are glorious and inspirational in their natural state.
With the next Local Plan (2040) consultation starting, please think again – OCC – about not building on the Horse Fields. Use brownfield sites. We need to protect Iffley’s rural character and conservation area – and the quiet route along Meadow Lane. More housing = more traffic – already a problem in Iffley’s narrow roads. Protect green spaces – Climate Emergency.
Please think across all three sites. All of the social housing can be built on Iffley Mead and Court Place to which the majority seem to agree. Court Place could take additional student accommodation. Iffley conservation area should be fully protected and made accessible. There has NOT been adequate consultation about building on the horse field as evident from widespread opposition.
We think the failure to consult Meadow Lane residents about the proposals for 2 adjoining developments is a major administrative error. The plans should be put on hold pending proper consultation.
Crowdfunding unlikely to be sufficient unless there is help from elsewhere e.g. Oxford Preservation Trust? To claim a public amenity, there should be public access. Just looking over a gate at a green field does not help (see the Glebe Field).
FOIV should positively engage with OCHL to maximise the acceptability of the proposals to meet/preserve heritage of Iffley
From the comments of the thousands who signed the online survey and the hundreds the informal street follow up, it is clear that opposition to 29 new households on the Horse Fields extends far beyond Iffley homeowners: bicycle commuters, joggers, tourists who come to see the church, dog-walkers from elsewhere in E Oxford all prefer Iffley as it is. Their children appreciate seeing the occasional deer and fox. Traffic congestion is already a serious problem: it would be immeasurably worse with 29 new homes.
FOIV membership fees should be used to commission expert advice to oppose planning and also to obtain greater understanding of conservation area regulations, since the FIOV constitution requires the Committee to protect the Iffley Conservation Area
I admire the enthusiasm with which Iffley residents rally to protect the remaining green spaces in the village, yet I declined to join them. The issue is so much wider and deeper. [has lots more to say – all typed]
This questionnaire is very helpful for clarifying the issues involved
The Horse Field is all but invisible from Church Way and only visible from Meadow Lane since the hedgerow has been removed. This makes it an ideal site for development with minimal impact on the majority of Iffley residents. The main traffic issues are secondary to casual visitors (walkers, river users etc). As the Horse Field is a grazing field it is not a wild flower meadow and biodiversity will be low. There are no views to the river because of private land ownership.
In my opinion, there are too few people to fund the purchase of £3m to reclaim the Horse Field. Should the Horse Field be developed for housing, the exit road would transform the Church Way/Tree Lane junction into a roundabout. There is far too little space for a roundabout – unless destructive acquisition were made. Large vehicles barely pass these rural lanes as it is.
Any houses built should be heat pump, v well insulated, electric charging points. All sewers, water supplies, telecom should be updated infrastructure. Any roads built should have speed bumps and VERY VISIBLE 10MPH SIGNS. NB ANY 20MPH SIGNS IN IFFLEY ARE OBSCURED BY TREES ETC.
If horse fields remain as they are, I feel trees should be lopped so that we can actually see the meadow. My preference is for it to be used as a community space e.g. an orchard, a place for bee-hives.
Horse field is just a field, not a meadow! Hardly seen before the hedge was vandalised. The campaign against is disingenuous and duplicitous cover for nimbys. Iffley needs new younger blood and should plan its part in providing necessary much needed housing. Focus on community use of Memorial Field.
Thank you to the new committee
More chaos for all of us on narrow roads through the village
Oxford does need more housing. However, much more care should be taken to select the correct suitable sites. Iffley Village is unsuitable. There was insufficient consultation on the 2036 Local Plan which now needs to be completely reviewed. I have NO confidence that Oxford City Council can or will manage conflicts of interest relating to OCHL. This must be a matter for judicial review.
Oxford is short of dwellings, especially for new buyers. The historic throttling of new dwelling within easy walking or cycling distance of jobs and amenities in Oxford have contributed to high prices and congestion. Development is being squeezed into the county with severe impacts on distances travelled, mostly by car, travel times, congestion and pollution. Most new housing around the county is car-dependent for everything – work, education, shopping, health-care, etc. New dwelling within the ring road need not be so – the city region can become quieter, cleaner and greener. We’d all benefit. Now is already late to help shape development already in design. Suitable buildings & streets, incorporating green space, could enhance and enrich Iffley.
By trying now to reopen past decisions we lose vital influence on design and layout. Iffley and most of Oxford is rich in green space. Welcome new residents and share the privilege of living here. More neighbours could help those who labour to serve our needs – pubs, shops and someday maybe even a cafe. PS the questionnaire contains many one-sided, leading questions and in Part II primarily explores a particular view of what should happen on the Horse Field site.
Important also to fully protect the Memorial Field. Oppose building on both – whould be made a community resource, perhaps managed by OPS or BBOWT
It is important to protect both the horse fields and memoral field to retain the character of the village. Both these fields should provide a resource to the community.
I feel very strongly that Iffley Village is already beyond capacity, and that any further development will not only put an untenable strain on the local intrastructure, but it will also fundamentally alter the unique character of the village. Iffley maintains a distinctly rural feel, very much thanks to the wild and open nature of the Horse Fields and Memorial Field. It would be a tragedy to lose these beautiful resources. The biodiversity issues are serious and there are other spaces in Oxford where ‘affordable’ housing would be more appropriate.
In short, to destroy the meadows and wildlife is criminal. Leave Iffley as it is. Flooding and road access is a major concern.
Traffic: Iffley Village has a ONE WAY IN and ONE WAY OUT road. If 150 new homes were built in the village that woudl probably mean 300 extra vehicles minimum. Health: We remember the large vehicle which was stuck coming out of the Hawkwell House Hotel, which meant residents
living on the Church side of Church Way couldn’t get through. Apart from the infrastructure impacts and health due to POLLUTION, we are concerned that PARKING and CONGESTION will impede the EMERGENCY services.
The Horse Fields should be kept green for the reasons I have selected above, and returned to public access as it used to be, with a link to the green space by the river. On this particular site, I feel it is appropriate to give priority to environmental and climate change demands over housing, particularly if 84 new houses are built across the lane in the former playing field.
FOIV strives to represent all Iffley residents, so this survey should not be restricted to current FIOV members. Some of the topics may concern former members and non-members who should be consulted. There is no mention of how the proposals, if approved, could be actioned, the likelihood of success under current local and national planning policies, their implications for Oxford’s housing needs and the long-term costs and responsibilities of land ownership for Iffley. Several aspects of Part II are inaccurate and misleading and no reminder that anyone can comment on planning applications (=’permission’!)
Thank you for putting together this survey with the very useful background information. The new committee are to be commended for consulting the membership. They should also take
the previous survey by the Friends of the Fields into account as FIOV has a duty also to non-members and those who visit.
This questionnaire is very badly worded and heavily biased. The Horse Field should be put to use either for animals or for housing. It should NOT become another empty field we have no access to as the Glebe Field is. My over-riding concern is TRAFFIC.
Form appears to be a photocopy
FOIV should use its funds to object to any planning application for the Horse Fields. Thank you for consulting. Why was the Local Plan not challenged?
I find it difficult to understand building on most of the ‘greenfield’ sites that give Oxford its unique character. Very few of the homes will be affordable to all but people already on the housing ladder and will do nothing to help people without homes. BROWNFIELD first. As a result of Covid and more people working from home, office space may become redundant. It is surely sensible to review the Local Plan with this and the Climate Emergency in mind.
Oxford – and Iffley – is a special place because of the green space and it’s what makes it a good quality of life urban area to live in. The balance of housing and green space should be preserved and used as an example of how to create sustainable communities, not raided until it loses all that makes it good.
A poor, seemingly one-sided questionnaire which will provide no accurate sense of Iffley opinions.
It seems that an overwhelming majority of Iffley village residents are opposed to these developments. However I wonder with the changes to planning laws proposed this year by national government whether OCC are required to take our views into consideration.
We need our remaining Green Fields. We could have a new memorial in the Memorial Field. Public access is generally inimical to wildlife.
FOIV committee should engage with OCHL to ensure that the design of any housing is aesthetially pleasing, as carbon neutral as possible and that village views are maintained and enhanced. Diplomacy is necessary here – especially as FOIV will need credibility to negotiate the future of the Memorial Field which hopefully will be accessible to public.
Restoring the Horse Fields would cost money and funding is always easier to obtain if ‘education’ in some form is part of the plan. BUT we should ensure that the view from Church Way remains a view of a grazing field. Any educational or community activites could be
accommodated discreetly off Meadow Land and not sited as suggested in the ‘Vision for the fields’ leaflet. Public access must be safely compatible with grazing. (The above comments assume we could lease the fields)
Impact of increased traffic on village safety and pollution should be assessed. More important to crowd fund for the Memorial Field first if we can’t do both.
Traffic and especially parking will be dreadful. It is already a major problem. Iffley Village is a unique village place to live. There are MANY brownfield sites nearby which seem ideal for development.
Iffley desperately needs a community area for the village and somewhere for children to play which is safe. If any land becomes available it should be used for this.
Play area for children is essential
With the exception of the Memorial Field, more ‘community’ assets should be concentrated in Memorial Field incl wildflowers. Too expensive for community funding. FOIV would benefit from more cooperation with local councillors and OCHL and maybe Rose Hill Low Carbon Hub, Env Agency and Bucks and Oxford Natrue Cons to create ‘Riverside Highway for mammals.
The questionnaire does not explore the possibility that development can be made acceptable with offsets/amenities for the village, and what these might then be. This is a pragmatic middle way that is implicitly being rejected.
Iffley is already struggling with too much traffic. Added housing will only exacerbate this problem. We need outdoor space for mental heatlh, wildlife and for conservation. Please do not destroy every patch of green.
All three development should NOT be considered together. are the questions on page II merely relate to the Horse Field. Similar question should have been asked of respondents about the Memorial Field!
County Council refers to the MINIMUM number of houses in the Horse Fields, and the future of the Memorial Field is “to be decided”. this is inadequate. We need to know NOW what is being proposed. 2 Public RIGHT OF WAY should be established through the Memorial Field and the Horse Field. 3 the Oxford Preservation Trust should improve access to the Glebe Field through discussions above.
The Council purchasing the sites from Donnington may have spared the village worse development. Few have ever had access to the Horse Fields. Court Place isa university development with little impact on Iffley Village. Previous housing was poor. More should be done to explore innovative and sustainable building methods. e.g. prize-winning social housing in Norwich. A close eye should be kept on the potential for sustainable development of Iffley Mead. Rosehill developments don’t bode well.
As a resident of Maywood road I am sympathetic to the Horse Fields – in particular because of the effect on Meadow Lane. But NOT to any suggestion that the designated 29 houses be switched to Iffley Mead. The designated 84 houses to be built there are already too many for a site of limited space and equal access problems. Access runs directly past a special needs school with a high volume of traffic at start and end times (special needs pupils are mostly delivered by taxi): strict controls will be needed during construction – and after: for 84 homes will need significant parking space – in ADDITION to 10% open (green) public space. Serious issues also of untilities and fibre optic supply to such a volume of housing.
Houses have (demonstrably) been built in the Iffley Conservation Area before now. I would not dismiss the idea of the Horse Fields development out of hand, but an open to hearing the outcome of the Council’s impact (analysis), and consdering plans once they are submitted. Oxford, after all, needs houses, particularly at social rents.
[crowd funding]Open to more than just the village
Extra housing (although desperately needed for key workers). will cause dangerous traffic problems for Iffley. That is our main concern, although depriving all surrounding communities of the open rural areas here would be sad. Overall, congestion and potential accidents on roadway access is our main concern
To enter the village on new development should be via Meadow Way not Church Way
As recently as ten years ago, Les White farmed sheep on the Horse Field. An activity that he pursued, for no commercial gain, for some 40 years until a stroke left him without the energy to continue at the age of 85. this natiural habitat should not be destroyed for the council to make a profit. Les’ field should not be destroyed to quickly after his death.
I fully support all the committee efforst to keep thses fields green, and support the use of FIOV funds for this purpose
It is extremely unlikely that FIOV or anyone else, will put a stop to the development of the horse field – which seems to be the only concern of the ‘survey’.Of course development of ‘brown-field’sites is preferable to green-field sites but this city has a chronic shortage of affordable homes and Iffley is not exceptional – it needs to play its part in accommodating affordable homes in particular. The current committeeseems determined to halt development on their own doorstep – it is notable that so many live on Meadow Lane. I do not think FIOV represents the views of the village – or the greater good anymore. It should be helping to shape the development for the good of the village not just trying to stop it. Its a waste of FOIV members’ money and its NIMBYISM. The reality is that Iffley is just inside the ring road. It is part of the city and it’s far better to develop within the city than the REAL countryside. (other comments added to the notes but not put here)
The attitude of the Council towards Iffley can be judged by the stealth with which it effected the purchase of the Fields from Donnington Trust. It is a continuation of the view I actually heard
expressed by a city councillor, some years ago, “Iffley was the great lost opportunity for post war housing”
The four visions for the horse fileds given above are not mutually exclusive. The key thing is to retain a rural ambiance. For maximum biodiversity, they probably should not be accessible, but for human benefit, there is a good case for some access. Keep them green.
The entire planning policy needs review in the light of : 1 changed shopping and work practices affecting demand for retail and office space. 2 The climate EMERGENCY. 3. Changing construction possibilities and the potential to develop existing poor housing into more dense and more suitable new build.
How will the Oxford Flood Alleviation Scheme which is going for planning permission this Autumn affect the water table/flood plains to the proposed building sites for housing in the village and the River Thames near Iffley lock? The Environment Agenccy are spends (sic) 150 million on this scheme to stop flooding in Oxford. To protect housing, businesses, transport and people’s safety in Oxford.these 3 building sites are on Flood Zone areas for the River Thames and if there is flood water coming donw stream from Botley it will put pressure on the water table in these areasin the Thames floodplains and water meadows.The Environment Agency partners are South Oxfordshire Council, Oxfordshire Council, Oxford City Council, thames Water, Highways England, University of Oxford etc. These organisation cannot deny that thesebuilding plans are ina historical flood zone area of Oxford City so why are Oxford City Housing Ltdapplying for planning permission to build 150 homes on these plots of land?
The local plan was drawn up before the pandemic and should be revised dramatically in the light of changed circumstances. This includes the reduction in the UK population due to Brexit, as well as the closure of many retail and office sites. The obvious solution is to repurpose these abandoned business premises and turn them into housing. Meanwhile the climate emergency is the existential threat facing us all and the highest priority should be to protect our remaining green spaces. We can’t morally protest about Brazil destroying the Amazon rainforests, while we destroy the fields of Iffley.
I take the three questions above on non-housing use to be alternatives, and have indicated an order of preference
I find the increased traffic by cars and other four wheeled vehicles the most disturbing aspect. Dangerous. It is great for walkers and cycles. Fresh concern over exit from Iffley Mead fields (sic) – not into Meadow Lane. (At 1 put strongly agree to Horse Fields and Iffley Mead only but disagree to all three)
My only further comment concerns frture uses of the Horse (and Memorial) Fields. The questionnaire raises the notion of ‘community’ access. Such access would bring distrubance and probably litter. Even worse, these days many people own pet dogs, which of course are predators. Under the absurd conventions of our era, persons who visit public spaces, even wild ‘access land’, are permitted to bring their dog(s). Obviously a green space shere dogs roam hs
little value as part of authentic nature. Therefore the issue of ‘public access’ to preserved fields is difficult.
I totally agree more housing is needed in Oxford and surrounding area. However I strongly feel to build on the Horse Fields is a big mistake and losing these areas in the village is wrong for the character of the village – once its gone its gone forever.
As someone who lives in housing association flats in the village, and has no private garden, I would love to have access to horse fields.
In many ways the impact of the Iffley Mead playing fields development (84 units) is going to be far greater than that on the Horse Fields. So important to keep the focus there as well. If crowdfunding a buyout, surely it would make more sense to buy out the Memorial Field
It is appalling to think of up to 184 new houses with cars using the narrow road into/out of Iffley village. The Horse Fields being the last surviving 3% of wild flow meadows never treated with agricultural chemicals need to be preserved for their rarity and benefits as lungs. If it goes ahead, the essential character of the village would be lost.
As a side note, I think there should be an effort made for occasional face to face meet and greets with the more vulnerable members of the village
Although I think that there would be most ecological benefit in restoring the fields as wildflower meadows, in practice I would give my support to any realistic scheme for protecting them which could achieve a consensus.
One of the most significant concerns about any development is the access. Currently, Church Way struggles to cope with the traffic already passing along it, and there are fairly frequent occasions when incoming traffic meets outgoing traffic, particularly along the part of Church Way from Meadow Lane to Iffley Turn, where the road is essentially only one lane wide, causing considerable blockages and considerable difficulty with reversing vehicles, as traffic builds up in both directions.
The court Place development is different because it already has (poor quality) housing, so I do NOT agree that all three sites must be considered together. Horse Field (& Memorial Field) and Iffley Mead plaing field SHOULD be considered together. The Court Place development is likely to be beneficial with increased public access to part of the university owned land. Access is the main problem for the Iffley Mead development. Traffic increase and loss of amenity are the main drawbacks of the Horse Field development. Public access to Memorial Field and Horse Fields would be a worthwhile improvement. Limited development may be a price worth paying for this.
I would like to see the Horse Fields and Memorial Field developed for community use as happened 100 years ago, with horse grazing, cricket and scouting among activities prusued
then. Now a ‘nature classroom’ would be good to see, but some recreation alongside it. Court Place is somewhat different, since housing is to be replaced rather than built anew, but the density will be higher and will certainly impact Iffley and Rose Hill.
If the fields are for community use NO DOGS to be allowed due to the threat to wildlife.
The owners cannot be compelled to provide public access, even though they should be stopped from development. Iffley’s rural character must be maintained. Cars must not be allowed to park on Iffley’s roads – all new properties must have their own off-road car park.
We cannot compel access to someone else’s private land, but we must stop developers destroying the integrity of the ancient village, its architecture, its conservation status, its biodiversity, its culture.
I am very concerned by the extent of the three developments proposed and their impact both on the rare City rural nature of the Village and on its community. Specifically I think the likelihood of traffic congestion is high, as well as stress on the utility companies, rubbish collection, etc. Any development must provide at least one off-road car park per property.
Filling in every green space in the village with housing development will destroy the conservation area and the village character. All developments (if any) must be built sympathetically, with a look and materials consistent with the ancient village (not the already existing new developments)
Not sure if grazing and nature area/wild flower meadow are compatible – either way strongly agree that development of Horse Fields should not go ahead.
Building on a flood plain is stupid; building in a conservation area is inconsistent with conservation – conversation of green spaces, biodiversity and the natural rural environment and must be contrary to the Councils’ own stated policies. Identification and redevelopment of ugly, under-used or redundant buildings in Oxford should be a priority.
This is a small village, to be swamped by three developments , which will destroy the conservation area, the historic area and the culture of the village. Additional car traffic, delivery vehicles, emergency vehicles, service vehicles etc will cause congestion, and on-street parking must be prohibited with off-road parking provided.
Traffic congestion between Henley Avenue and Iffley church is already a problem. IF (?) construction is to take place on the Horse Fields, the exit cannot be into Church Way in the vicinity of Tree Lane. The principal vehicular exit has to be via Meadow Lane to Donnington Road, making a bridge over Boundary Brook ESSENTIAL.
We also need to be aware of potential developments ie the Tree Hotel. Neither Landlord nor Tenant seem prepared to renovate it – how long before the landlord proposes redevelopment?….
We need more housing in Oxford. Objections to these developments is (sic) ridiculous and petty.
The village is already over congested with traffic from those living here, contractors, lorries and vans, hotel parking and the many visitors enjoying the natural beauty of the village and local environs.
Thank you for conducting this survey. Would have preferred separate questions on social and commercially driven housing.
Pleased FOIV finally consulting members; strongly opposed to Horse Field development; frustrated by this questionnaire a) the three developments present diifferent issues b) unclear how to respond to incompatible options for the fields c) meadows on Abingdon Road are ‘brownfield’ – the real issue is to redesignate usages (commercial/residential).
Any housing must have a very low towards zero carbon (CO2) emission, which includes incorporating PV cells and solar hot water panels as well as heatpumping for space heating. Villagers near to the developments, if they do take place, should be compensated to make their homes warmer in winter.
Only yhte Horse Field and Court Place should be considered together as the Iffley mead Playing Fields are outside the Conservation Area and access shoyld not be via the village and Meadow Lane. Development of the Horse Field will bring more traffic into the village. As there is inadequate off-street parking on the Court Place development) only one space per two properties) it is likely that some Court Place residents will choose to park in Church Way at the Church end and access their property via the cycle/pedestrian access, which will bring more cars into the Conservation Area, which shoud be avoided.
The rural character of Iffley Conservation Area is of importance to all of Oxford, not just the local residents. Iffley therefore has a duty to protect the remainimg green spoaces
Re Q.7. p.1 ‘Review of Developments in Climate Change’ – housing will destroy climate resilience of old meadowland, add to CO2 production, undermine zero CO2 and air quality targets and cintribute to river pollution by sewer-storm overflow, raw sewage discharge from STWs ansd suurface water run-off. RIVER HEALTH IS VITAL. How many extra deaths from ramping up climate change will OCC/OCHL be responsible for? I’m glad I’m not in their shoes!
I would like to express great appreciation for the clear and constructive presentation of the highly divisive
Oxford needs homes. Iffley would benefit from a more mixed, younger community. The Memorial Field will likely be kept and have public access while Glebe
The Horse Field and Memorial Field must be opened up to ccess
This is a poorly designed survey full of repetition and leading questions. It does not ask any questions on e.g., affordability or zero carbon of proposed new housing or allocations. Very poor
A pity the survey is so heavily biased in the choice of words and wording.e.g.no.5 ‘can’ rather than’ should’ would make more sense.No. 4’s ‘increased traffic’ is a significant concern’ is true everywhere in the world!! There is no mention of the need to house more people IN Oxford to REDUCE traffic. Iffley is within the ring road and Oxford is despertely short of housing. Weare
lucky to have the riverside paths, flood plains, the Eyot, Christchurch Meadows, Florence Park, University Parks and many green spaces near us. We should be willing to share, nd not force workers to commute into Oxford from Bicester, Abingdon, etc.
1. Should have been anonymous butu every form is numbered. 2. Original intent was to get the feeling of the village. This has been reduced to FOIV members only, presumably including the many new members who are not villagers. This makes any results totally unrepresentative. 3. Why is the survey concentrated on the Horse Fields? There is a good chance of saving the Memorial Field for public access. The Iffley Mead development is fr larger and more intrusive – but does not of course impact the village so directly.
I believe not putting this to ALL villagers invalidates the findings.
Re the last point [Q.19] – ideally good idea but not sire if it is practical to raise £4 million +.
In principle I am not opposd to the building of houses on the Horse Field, although the plans will be crucial. Th Memorial Field is a different matter. I find the antics of the FOFI group repellent. They are behavig like textbook NIMBYs and the idea that they can turn the Horse Field into some sort of ‘nature classroom’ is simply farcical. They are masking their selfish concerns under a cloak of environmental breast-beating.
Please do not ignore the Memorial Field in all this, it is far more visible and attractive to most in this community and is in danger of being built on by your neglect. I cannot see how all three developments can really be considered together, the [unreadable] are completely different.
The proposition that the 3 developments should be considered togther is unlikely – they are each at different stages of the planning process with three different [areas?]. Action should be takn NOW on Memorial Field BEFORE it gets anywhere near planning.
Appears to be a photocopy
1. Court Place, accessed via Rose Hill and already developed, is probably best considered separately.7. Court Place is redevelopment. I do not think it reasonable to oppose that. 12. If never built on, a general rather than full archaeological survey would seem sufficient. 19. The sums involved will presumably need to recover its cost – i.e., £4.5 m. plus the significant expenditure it has already incurred. In short, £5m. is not likely to be feasible.
Thank you for bringing our views together to create a single, much more powerful voice to oppose the destruction of a blessing tht can never be replaced. In other words, thank you for preservng this bit of heaven on earth.
Hooray for the new Friends of Iffley!
There seems very little concern by FIOV about Iffley Mead development for 84+ homes. That is a huge increase and should be vigorously opposed in order to reduce the number of homes. Vehicular access would be appalling. The Horse Fields devt is a big concern on highways grounds. I do not object to Court Place development.
I believe that we should protect small rural places and fields such as within Iffley village. A big concern is the increase in traffic, also the lack of provision for schools. We need more schools in the Iffley/Rose Hill/Cowley area.