Author name: Chris Steele

FOIV appreciates the opportunity to provide our views at this stage in order to inform any potential development on this site, mindful of the considerable challenges it poses for any development. Below are some of the key issues for consideration:

1. FOIV recognizes the need for social and truly affordable housing, and thinks that development of the Iffley Mead site could go towards mitigating this need since in our view any development on public lands should target provision of affordable housing. In particular it could provide housing for key workers for both the County and the City, and FOIV would support that as a key design objective. FOIV suggests that 100% affordable should be the target and if not, then full justification for its lack or shortfall would need to be demonstrated at outline stage. It should be remembered that this is public land even though vested in the County Council as ‘owner’, and should be used for the public good. 
2. The development of this site should be seen in a wider context, and the scope for it to relieve development pressure on other far less suitable (or unsuitable) – such as the Horse Fields in Iffley (SP42) – should also be a design driver.
3. To that end, FOIV suggests that the City and County Councils think holistically about all the proposed developments in this area. If the whole area were under a single authority, a scheme might emerge which would minimise the harm done to all the interests in the locality. The Iffley Mead site presents an ideal opportunity for such ground-breaking collaboration and FOIV will be looking for signs of such cross-thinking.
4. FOIV believes that a fruitful collaboration of the County and City would make this proposal much better. We suggest that the 30 affordable homes planned for the Horse Fields could be accommodated on the Iffley Mead site to help address the acute need for affordable homes, but also to avoid permanent destruction of the Iffley Conservation Area, wherein the Horse Fields lie, and their importance as a nature site. 
5. Such a scheme could evolve if the Iffley Mead land were owned by a community land trust, such as the Oxfordshire Community Land Trust. This would provide truly affordable housing for the key workers and staff that councils are finding difficult to recruit in Oxford. The cornerstone of their model is that any housing they build can remain for rental at affordable rates in perpetuity as it is not subject to right to buy. 
6. FOIV is aware that this consultation is being undertaken in order to attach conditions to the sale of the Mead to a developer, and that any purchaser will be able to alter the illustrative scheme in their final planning submission. FOIV’s submission therefore concentrates on issues which could result in binding parameters and conditions being set at outline stage. There are several very obvious problems and constraints with the site: among them, the access, and the disposal of waste water.
7. The problem of access through Augustine Way caused the last FOIV Committee to consider the scheme unsound altogether.
8. Regarding water use, the development needs to demonstrate, even at outline stage, how Thames Water’s requirement for consumption of 110L ppd is to be met. Additionally, there will need to be clear and binding parameters set show how the scheme will cope with the pressure from the residents’ usage and run-off on the infrastructure for surface water and foul drain. In particular, to demonstrate how the site will connect to the local foul sewer network and how it ensure that there will be no sewage- and surface-pollution of the river from the scheme, given the current lack of capacity of Sewage Treatment Works to process existing foul/waste water; as well as demonstrating that there will be no pollution from these sources to Iffley Meadows SSSI opposite and downstream, recognising that the drainage system that flows through the foot of Meadow lane, by the Horse Fields and crosses properties abutting the Thames through Iffley Village.
9. The site will also need to demonstrate how it will achieve a 10% net gain in biodiversity given that this will be a mandatory requirement by the time of any application. This will require high quality and robust ecological survey information to avoid the errors and omissions that have affected other applications locally in relation to this issue.
10. There is a LP-recognised wild-life corridor that crosses the present site, used by badgers, bats and other species and this should be safeguarded. As we know, light pollution is damaging for nocturnal creatures – especially given increased lighting everywhere. Thought should be given to the lighting design to keep light pollution in check, for example using movement-triggered systems, low wattage lighting, careful placement and so on.
11. FOIV strongly endorses the proposal to plant additional appropriate trees at all the boundaries of the present site (on the understanding that planting saplings not become an excuse for cutting down mature trees), and the need to ensure the protection and enhancement of biodiversity in accordance with local and national planning policy.In a related way, FOIV also strongly objects to the proposed unnecessary cutting down of trees in the Meadow Lane copse to make way for a cycle path exit on to Meadow Lane. Mature trees should be preserved at all costs on this and surrounding sites.
12. The height of the buildings should avoid any reduction of amenity to the school and other properties adjoining the site. Green spaces, vegetation and trees are essential also.
13. FOIV understands the proposal that any scheme should be car-free, but there is a disconnect between what this term means in the ‘real’ world and what it means to City and County transport/parking planners. Given the near certainty that it would likely mean new residents choosing to park in nearby areas, rather than not have a car, this would certainly reinforce the idea of a CPZ for the surrounding streets, which are already very congested. It is highly unlikely that residents would not own cars.
14. There are concerns over the way that facilities and amenities are described. The bus services are not good at present, and not everyone can or wishes to participate in ‘active travel’, especially when the weather is inclement. The trip to the railway station currently involves changing buses, and is not quick. The nearest shops are a good distance away, and the local GP surgery may not even know about this proposed increase to its patient intake; ditto the dental practice.

Please acknowledge receipt of this response, which we are sending via our County Councillor Brad Baines since the survey consultation document was not suitable for our submission.