Planning Documents

Documents relating to planning issues affecting Iffley Village.

Oxford Local Plan 2040 (LP2040) Consultation

Oxford City Council (OCC)’s draft Local Plan 2040 (LP2040), is out for consultation; closing date 5 January 2024. Plans to build on the Horse Fields (HF) remain unchanged, despite the huge number of objections to OxPlace’s application last year. We urge you to write in again, because this is a chance to get the HF removed from allocation in the LP2040 altogether. You can respond
online here: https://consultation.oxford.gov.uk/planning-services/oxford-local-plan-2040-reg19-
consultation
For relevant documents visit
https://www.oxford.gov.uk/info/20067/planning_policy/1460/oxford_local_plan_2040
Click on ‘Downloads’ at foot of page, or click link below
https://www.oxford.gov.uk/downloads/download/1386/oxford_local_plan_2040_submission_draft_-_site_assessments >
SPS13 Site Assessment 389 Land at Meadow Lane 130923 PDF, 258.16 KB

Please mention SP13 ‘Land at Meadow Lane’ (changed from ‘SP42’ in the earlier Local Plan 2036)]
Feel free to draw on our main points of objection, summarised below:

  1. Conservation Area status
    Any development of Land at Meadow Lane fails to conserve and protect the ‘strong rural characteristics’ identified as a key feature in the Iffley Conservation Area Appraisal (2009) and will deliver very substantial harm to these assets.
  2. County Council Principal Quiet Route
    Church Way and Meadow Lane are part of the designated Principal Quiet Route OXR 18, heavily used for leisure and active travel by cyclists, joggers, walkers, families with prams, mobility scooters, and horse-riders. This fact seems to have been missing from the allocation as presented to the Inspector for LP2036. Any development of ‘Land at Meadow Lane’ fails to take into account the substantial harm that increased vehicular traffic will have on the Quiet Route at a time when OCC policy is to increase active travel and reduce congestion, air pollution and carbon emissions. Increased traffic around the village is a major concern.
  3. Ecology
    The HF ‘easily meet the criteria to be classified as an Oxford City Wildlife Site’ (Bioscan). The fields were allocated in LP2036 on the basis of a cursory look over the gate with no proper ecological survey. The site includes a large, active badger sett and the fields are foraging grounds. This is a protected species and should have been mentioned in any ecological assessment prior to allocation. We are very
    concerned that OCC allows such inadequate assessment to form the basis of decision-making with an irreversible impact on our environment.
  4. Flood Risk and Drainage
    In the light of climate change, OCC should not allow any development within Flood Zones 3a or 3b, except in wholly exceptional circumstances. FOIV remains deeply concerned about the proposal to build 30+ houses on the last remaining acres in the Iffley Conservation Area. It is felt that there was insufficient consultation about the original allocation plans, and that many local people including those on Meadow Lane, had no idea what was being proposed. We note that for the HF application there were over 1,000 formal responses on the City’s Planning portal – a huge number – with some 98% of those objecting to it, including from statutory
    consultees such as the Environment Agency; plus BBOWT; Buglife; Windrush Against Sewage Pollution; Cotswolds Rivers Trust; CPRE Oxfordshire; Cyclox; Oxford Badger Group; Iffley Fields Residents Association; Oxford Rivers Improvement Campaign; Oxford Civic Society; Oxford Pedestrians Association; Oxford Urban Wildlife Group; plus a Holding Objection from Thames Valley Police. We fundamentally oppose the principle of building on this site since it does not comply either with SP42 [now SP13] or the Council’s development plans as a whole. This site is not suitable for development. The draft LP 2040 is simply repeating the same policy, based on the same erroneous assessment. We expect OCC to take notice of the huge opposition to the HF proposal, and an alternative vision – such as a nature school – to be acted upon or at least taken into consideration. Since OCC owns this site, there is no excuse for not applying the core principles in LP2040 of addressing the climate emergency, promoting green transport/cycling infrastructure. The need for affordable, social rent housing can be met on nearby Iffley Mead, another publicly owned site, which is also allocated for development (SP14 in LP2040). In response to OxPlace’s December 2022 application, FOIV engaged experts in five key areas: Heritage/Conservation (Orion Heritage); Landscape/Environment (Alison Farmer Associates); Ecology/Biodiversity (Bioscan Ltd); Transport/Traffic (Velocity); Drainage/Flooding (Water Resource Associates); plus Mark Wood Associates, by crowdfunding, on Planning. The experts concluded that the application should be rejected, and the Planning office sent it back for thorough revisions. We await OxPlace’s revised application and have retained the experts to review the re-submitted documents. An independent Crowd Funder will be set up to invite donations to pay the experts.

Oxford Local Plan 2040 (LP2040) Consultation Read More »

FOIV response to Iffley Mead development consultation August 2023

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.

FOIV response to Iffley Mead development consultation August 2023 Read More »

Horse Fields application and affordable housing

The affordable housing would be better delivered nearby on Iffley Mead: The proposed provision of 32 affordable homes can be met nearby at the Iffley Mead allocated site by increasing the amount of affordable housing built there and reducing the proportion of housing built for profit. This site can support denser housing as it lies outside the Conservation Area. This is a clear, proximal and more sustainably sited alternative for the proposed housing provision, with much lower environmental impact on the meadows and quiet route. The question of such alternatives has not even been considered in the application, despite the established policy requirement to avoid environmental harm where possible.

The suggestion that a higher proportion of affordable housing could be met at Iffley Mead is not a suggestion that the numbers of houses proposed at Iffley Mead ought to be increased. It is a suggestion that the proportion of those houses given over to what the Council calls ‘affordable’ tenure types (ie shared ownership and social rent) might be increased from the current figure of 50%. This would require the City Council and the County Council to work together for the common good, including protecting the biodiversity and public benefits of keeping the Horse Fields and Memorial Field undeveloped. As the City Council have felt able to propose 100% affordable at the Horse Fields there would appear to be no basis for suggestions that greater than 50% at Iffley Mead is ‘unviable’. We are looking to the City and County to adopt a joined up approach to land use planning in accordance with their obligations under law and planning to seek the least environmentally damaging options for delivery of housing.

Horse Fields application and affordable housing Read More »

Responding to Horse Fields Planning application

As you know, this application is now live; deadline is 10th February. We have compiled some pointers for those who wish to object to this application in the Iffley Conservation Area. We are well aware that some members do not support this stance, and of course they can make their views known to the planners also.
Horse Fields – as they areand as they may become…
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE HORSE FIELDS AND MEMORIAL FIELD, IFFLEY VILLAGE – TIME TO LET THE COUNCIL KNOW HOW YOU FEEL!

The long-anticipated planning application for the Horse Fields development (reference 22/03078/FUL) has been made. For those who want to object to or otherwise comment on this application, the clock is now ticking. The City Council has indicated a deadline for receipt of comments of 10th February.

A step-by-step guide on how to make comments on the application is provided at the end of this note.

ELEVEN KEY ISSUES AND CONCERNS TO RAISE WITH OXFORD CITY COUNCIL

An initial review of the application plans and documents by Friends of Iffley Village (FOIV) committee has identified the following immediate concerns about the application[1]. FOIV committee believes that this review already vindicates concerns that this site has never been suitable for development and consequently that the proposals represent unsustainable development that does not comply with planning policy. They urge members to object and to encourage others to do so, either by filling in the on-line form on the Council’s website (see attached instructions), or by e-mailing their reasons for objection to the case officer Michael Kemp at MKEMP@oxford.gov.uk

1. Harm to the Iffley Conservation Area: This is a greenfield site that makes an essential contribution to the integrity and setting of the designated Iffley Conservation Area and which is critical to the retained rural character of the village. These meadows are as unique as other irreplaceable heritage assets in the city that no one would dream of building on. The developers themselves acknowledge that there will be significant harm to the Conservation Area, and to the local landscape setting. The proposed widening of Meadow Lane will create a suburban access road, thus losing the distinctive ‘rural quality’ of the lane valued in the Conservation Area Appraisal. The addition of pavements, changes to the Church Way gate entrance and the junction of Meadow Lane and Church Way will further suburbanise these lanes, harming the rural character of Iffley.

2. The affordable housing would be better delivered nearby on Iffley Mead: The proposed provision of affordable housing can be met nearby at the Iffley Mead allocated site by increasing the amount of affordable housing built there and reducing the proportion of housing built for profit there. This is a clear, proximal and more sustainably sited alternative for the proposed housing provision, with much lower environmental impact. The question of such alternatives has not even been considered in the application, despite the established policy requirement to avoid environmental harm where possible.

3. Road access, traffic and conflict between vehicles and other users of the Meadow Lane ‘Quiet Route’. Development of the Meadow Lane/Horse Fields site would generate significant traffic and parking problems along Meadow Lane and spilling into surrounding areas, both during construction and after completion. Amongst other things, this will significantly degrade the attractiveness, safety, tranquillity and use of the County Council’s own designated ‘Quiet Route’ (OXR18) along Meadow Lane which is intended to protect this sustainable pedestrian and cycle link between Iffley Village, Rose Hill and Littlemore into the City. The Quiet Route is used by thousands of walkers, joggers, cyclists, horse riders and disabled users as a car-free route into east Oxford or further into town, or as part of the much loved ‘Iffley Loop’ walk. A significant length of this Quiet Route will be urbanised, opened-up to increased volumes of motorised traffic and reconfigured to allow two-way use, destroying its tranquillity, safety and character as noted earlier.

4. Parking and highway safety: The proposed development proposes too few parking spaces for the cars it will generate: less than a 1:1 car parking ratio, with only 17 spaces, unallocated except for 2 houses off Church Way, for 32 homes and an estimated 161 people. Overspill parking along Meadow Lane outside the development will present a hazard for two-way traffic, likely requiring widening, loss of vegetation and highways improvements that will further urbanise the route and harm the conservation area. The junction between Meadow Lane and Church Way is already hazardous and not suitable to take the additional volume of traffic, potentially entailing further urbanising works and signage. A cycle path would decant cyclists through the development onto a busy blind corner on Church Way. The National Planning Policy Framework states that ‘development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.’ This is clearly the case in these proposals.

5. Unsustainable location: The application suggests that it encourages the new occupants to prefer sustainable transport modes, but the development is not in a sustainable location, being further from schools, bus stops and supermarkets than the Council’s own policies recommend. Use of sustainable modes will be further discouraged by the harm to the tranquillity, safety and attractiveness of the Meadow Lane Quiet Route. These factors will simply encourage increased car ownership and use, not reduce it.

6. Loss of wildlife/biodiversity: The applicant acknowledges that there will be significant loss of biodiversity locally due to the development. Its own ecology surveys, and those commissioned by FOIV, show this to be a site with high biodiversity value, consistent with its position at the junction of several wildlife corridors. As well as a resident badger population, including a rare white badger (‘Luna’), the site is acknowledged by the applicant as being of ‘county importance’ for invertebrates and to support other protected species. It is the only known site in the City for no less than 9 species of rare bees, beetles and moths, and many of these are also very rare in Oxfordshire generally, and of high conservation importance nationally. The applicant has failed to recognise that the land comfortably meets the criteria for designation and protection as a City Wildlife Site. In part this is because the applicant’s wildlife surveys are deficient and missed important species, including protected species such as grass snakes and bats. In fact, no bat activity surveys were done at all, and consequently the presence of the rare barbastelle bat was completely missed. We don’t yet know exactly what they propose to do with the badgers as full details have not been provided, but they cannot survive within a development site.

7. Displacement of biodiversity: The applicant admits that the development will cause ‘net loss of biodiversity’ and that this means it fails national policy tests. It proposes to pay sums of public money into a pot for habitat creation to offset this somewhere else in Oxfordshire. No detail is provided about this. ‘Exporting’ biodiversity outside the City to make room for development degrades the City environment, is poor and irresponsible practice and does not comply with relevant guidance and policy.

8. Ecosystem services: The Council has undertaken no assessment of the ecosystem services the site provides in its present state. As public land, local people think it should be made available for use for education and appreciation of its wildlife value. Local people have created an alternative vision of a Meadow School which local schools say would meet a defined need and which is much more in keeping with the Council’s own policies for access to and contact with nature and the wellbeing and societal benefits that this generates, as well as protecting carbon stored in soils and trees and helping to prevent flooding.

9. Drainage, flooding and sewage: The surface water drainage design proposed for the development is straight out of the 1970s with almost everything piped and stored underground. This is no longer an acceptable approach to sustainable management of surface water and increases the risk of flood risk and pollution due to system failure. Oxford Sewage Treatment Works is already c.39% under-capacity and OxPlace has failed to secure commitments that it can safely process additional waste water from161 residents. This puts further pressure on Oxford Sewage Treatment Works, adding to system overload and more raw sewage releases into the river. Please object to this archaic and non-sustainable approach. We hope and expect the Environment Agency will object to this archaic and non-sustainable approach.

10. Broken promises on Memorial Field: The Council’s proposals for Memorial Field are unclear. The Council has long promised that Memorial Field will remain undeveloped and preserved, but there are various references to proposals for landscaping and amenity use, and use as open space. Using Memorial Field to deliver landscaping and amenity space means that it is being treated as part of the development site, breaking the Council’s promise. These uses are contradictory and generate practical challenges that have not been considered at all.

11. Poor design standards and error-strewn documents and plans: Overall, the application is poorly put together and contradictory in many respects. It refers to the location as ‘Iffley ward’ which does not exist. Some reports use out of date plans, and other reports are missing. Photos are incorrectly labelled. It seems rushed and disjointed. The architectural design is a departure from what was previously proposed and uses incongruous materials, increased density of housing and reduced provision of green space, increasing the harm to the conservation area.If you agree with FOIV committee that this is a wholly inappropriate, unsustainable and ill-conceived development proposal, please feel free to amend and use any (or all) of the above eleven reasons why it should be refused permission and/or add your own reasons. Submissions in your own words are best, but cut and paste submissions are better than not making your voice heard at all! Remember: your comments should be received by the Council no later than 10th February.

The next section gives step by step instructions on how to make your comments on the application.

TO OBJECT OR MAKE OTHER COMMENTS ON THE APPLICATION, YOU CAN WRITE VIA E-MAIL OR POST TO THE CASE OFFICER, MICHAEL KEMP OR YOU CAN DO SO ONLINE.

1. BY E-MAIL OR POST

The e-mail address is MKemp@oxford.gov.uk and you should include the planning reference 22/03078/FUL in your correspondence. The postal address is:FAO: Mr Michael Kemp
Planning and Regulatory Services
Oxford City Council
St Aldate’s Chambers
109-113 St Aldate’s
Oxford
OX1 1DS

2. ONLINE

STEP BY STEP INSTRUCTIONS FOR HOW TO SUBMIT AN OBJECTION OR OTHER COMMENTS ONLINE:

1. Got to www.oxford.gov.uk and this page (below) should open. Click on ‘planning’ (circled yellow at the bottom left below)
2. The next page you will see is this one (below). Click on ‘Planning Applications’) in the top left of the menu (circled yellow below)
3. The next page you will see should be this one (below). Click on ‘view and comment on planning applications’ (again circled yellow below):
4. This takes you to this page (below). Click on the big green/turquoise tab saying ‘view and comment on planning applications’ (again circled yellow below).
5. This takes you to his page (below). Insert the planning reference 22/03078/FUL into the space circled yellow below and then click on the blue ‘search’ button to the right of it.
6. The next page you see (it might take a few seconds) will be this one (below). If you want to look at the plans and reports submitted by the developer OxPlace and/or the comments other people have written, you should click on the ‘documents’ tab (circled yellow) which takes you to a list of files which you can click on to download (NB if you leave this open and inactive you will get logged out after some minutes and have to log back in again).When you are ready to make your on-line comment, click on ‘make a comment’ (circled red)
7. The ‘make a comment’ page (below) allows you to enter your name and address (this is necessary) and to register objection, support or neutrality, and to give reasons from a checklist and to scroll down to provide a written comment. It is a good idea to write your comment on a separate file (e.g. in a MS Word document) and cut and paste it into the comment box as otherwise it is easy for you to be timed out and to lose what you have written.
[1] FOIV committee also has professional consultants working on reviewing the application submission and we anticipate that more issues (and more detail on these eleven key issues) will emerge in the coming weeks. FOIV will keep people updated on developments via notices, e-mail drops and social media. Please note that you can make more than one submission to the Council – for example if you think of something you forgot to say after you’ve objected, or agree with something that emerges later.

Responding to Horse Fields Planning application Read More »

Donnington Cycle Track application is live

Deadline Thursday 15th December 2022

Ref 22/02446/CT3 Removal of existing fencing and formation of footpath and cycle path and associated landscaping works. | Donnington Recreation Ground Freelands Road Oxford Oxfordshire OX4 4BT

You can have your say – see the link below. FOIV have concerns that the route favoured by the Council is unnecessarily damaging as it will clear a substantial number of the group of mature willows and other trees adjoining Meadow Lane – this causes it to fail to comply with new statutory provisions under the Environment Act 2021. FOIV maintains there are less damaging ways to address pedestrian and cycle damage to the football playing surface, and deliver a surfaced cycle link around the edge of the recreation ground. The submitted option simply creates a new ‘desire line’ (diagonally across the Rec from Meadow Lane to Arnold Road) that may just move the damage to another part of the playing fields. The proposed route will not prevent people continuing to cross the Rec on the current ‘desire line’ ie diagonally from Cavell Road to the current exit. This exit is to become a kissing gate – not great for disabled users. The new proposed exit is on an incline that might lead to added danger for users of the Quiet Route caused by cyclists coming too fast on to Meadow Lane.

See link to OCC planning portal
https://www.oxford.gov.uk/info/20066/planning_applications/328/view_and_comment_on_planning_applications

Donnington Cycle Track application is live Read More »

Oxford Local Plan 2040

From Oxford City Council: consulting on the Oxford Local Plan 2040 Preferred Options document. The Local Plan 2040 will set out the planning strategy for meeting the needs of the city and once adopted, will be used in determining planning applications for a wide range of development. It will guide how development happens, helping to support the transition towards a zero carbon city, ensuring high quality design, being conscious of health and wellbeing, and addressing inequalities.

Last summer [the Council] asked you what issues the new Local Plan should cover. [The Council] have listened to what local communities, businesses and other organisations told them and are now considering a range of policy options. The Preferred Options document gives you the chance to comment on the proposed approaches to a range of issues. The consultation period runs from 3rd October 2022 until the 14th November 2022. 

OCC website (www.oxford.gov.uk/localplan2040) have published the main Preferred Options document, background papers and studies on key issues, and a draft sustainability appraisal. Comments on these documents can be submitted online, using the consultation portal, found here:https://consultation.oxford.gov.uk/. There is the opportunity to respond to the main document using our detailed online questionnaire, or to complete the shorter online questionnaire. If you prefer to respond in writing or email, please email planningpolicy@oxford.gov.uk.

Paper copies of the main Preferred Options document are available to view in libraries.

The planning policy team will be at a number of locations across Oxford, throughout the consultation period, where people can come and chat to us. Details are available on the website: www.oxford.gov.uk/localplan2040

Oxford Local Plan 2040 Read More »

COURT PLACE GARDENS Update

Comment on the new construction at Court Place and Gardens from Friends of Iffley Village (FOIV)

People have lived and farmed in Rose Hill and Iffley for thousands of years. Court Place takes its name from the mediaeval Manorial Court on this site built next to the universally admired Romanesque church of St Mary the Virgin (c.1160). With all the land owned by The Poor Men of Donnington and bordered by then unspoiled meadows and fields, Court Place encompassed the legal, spiritual and economic centre of Iffley, Rose Hill and Littlemore.

Court Place has long attracted generations of distinguished tenants and self-absorbed undergraduates, church-crawlers, moody poets, dogwalkers, courting couples, at least one saint (Saint John Henry Newman) and authors galore eg The Revd Charles Dodgson (Lewis Carroll). Then in the 1960s, the University began encouraging post-graduates who brought with them, families! A modest range of asbestos-infested houses was built which are now being demolished in favour of pan-collegiate family housing development by Oxford University Developments (OUD), a joint venture between the University and Legal & General; all within an enhanced landscape including all-ages, all-ability pathways both within Court Place Gardens and Oxford University Woods. Please see the map.

With the community’s interest at heart, FOIV has been involved from the beginning with OUD and Legal & General to ensure the new Court Place will be sympathetic to its setting. We are now working with the constructor Feltham to ensure the impact of the work is minimised and a legacy for our community. Feltham has committed to exceeding the minimum conformance standards in the Considerate Contractor Scheme, Peter McCarthy (peter.mccarthy@feltham.construction.co.uk) is our primary point of contact.

Troth Wells
Chair, FOIV
July 2022

On your behalf, FOIV is responsible for preserving, conserving and enhancing the quality of life where we live, from providing welcome packs to overseeing planning and traffic issues. Join us at friendsofiffley.org. For any traffic or planning issues contact Phil Hart at planning@friendsofiffley.org. Contact FixMyStreet.com to get action on road issues.

Court Place: a lasting legacy – Current status reports by Oxford University Asset and Space Management and Nicholson:Lockhart Garrett

Residents are very aware of the disruption and permanent harm new building – and intended new building – can have on our increasingly fragile eco-balance. At Court Place, Oxford University Developments is seeking to enhance the quality of the new housing project in two specific ways:

First, by increasing the range of plants and animals found in the Rivermead Nature Park and OU woodlands, by removing low-quality trees and shrubs to give new, better specimens more room to grow and let more light reach the ground, encouraging natural regeneration of young trees as well as providing visitors with a new, all-weather woodland path (see map). This work is being done under the leadership of Iain Critchlow, the University’s Director of Asset and Space Management. Quality trees within Court Place Gardens are being retained and protected to ensure there will be no damage to existing root systems. A new planting scheme will encourage biodiversity through the use of species rich grassland mixes, native shrub and tree planting.

Secondly and equally important, ecological survey work has been ongoing at Court Place Gardens by Nicholson:Lockhart Garratt since 2017, led by Jo Alderton, including habitat surveys, water sampling for newt eDNA and badger surveys. In relation to bats we have inspected every tree in Court Place for potential bat roosting along with daytime and nocturnal surveys of the buildings. Feltham Construction is working to ensure no bats are harmed during the demolition/construction phases and roosting features for bats, swifts and owls will be integrated into the new buildings.

Acknowledgement

FOIV thanks Feltham Construction for sponsoring this insert into the Iffley Parish Magazine as part of their community outreach programme.

https://friendsofiffley.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/CourtPlace.jpg

COURT PLACE GARDENS Update Read More »

Donnington Playing Fields cycle path consultation is extended to 05/06/22 

1 Comment

From Oxford Direct Services:

“Consultation has been extended to 05/06/22 and updated on the city website.

“Signs (replicating info on this page and including the address https://www.oxford.gov.uk/donnington-cycle-path) up in 4 locations.

The sign at the proposed entrance coming off Meadow Lane includes (along with all the others): “A small number of trees will be removed to allow the path to connect to Meadow Lane. Replacement trees will be provided nearby to compensate for this” with the image:

“We’ve run out of the red and white tape originally used to denote the trees impacted (I’ll get some ordered in today). There’s quite a lot of low-level growth there now (including nettles!) that would be a shame to disturb. I’m of the opinion that the sign’s text and images gives a reasonable indication of the trees that will be impacted.

If/when submitted, the publicly viewable planning application will include the detailed tree impact drawing and will be open to comments from the public.” Oxford Direct Services.

FOIV has responded: ‘We are concerned that the consultation does not offer any alternatives to the one route on offer. There should be a discussion of other possibilities. On the one proposed route, there are no details about the number of trees that would be felled, and undergrowth area cleared, to make enough space for a cycle/wheelchair route to descend/ascend in a graduated manner from Meadow Lane to the track. It could not go directly up as the incline is too steep, ie the level difference is too great.
So, on the one proposed route, we feel that the proposed destruction of the trees is unnecessary. Cheaper and equally effective routes could be adopted that would achieve the ends that OCC/Oxfordshire County Council/ODS have set themselves.
We think there should be further consultation.’

Donnington Playing Fields cycle path consultation is extended to 05/06/22  Read More »

Update on Quickways and other consultations Oxford County Council

Subject: Decisions Meeting (27/01/2022b) – Cabinet Member for Highway Management

From: Christian Mauz, Technical Officer (Traffic & Road Safety), Oxfordshire County Council|

18th January 2022

  • Oxford: Various Locations – Proposed “Quickways” Active Travel Measures,
  • Oxford: Various Locations – Proposed Exclusions and Amendments to Eligibility for Parking Permits,
  • Oxford: St Michael’s Street – Proposed Prohibition of Vehicles,
  • Bodicote/Banbury: Blackwell Drive and White Post Road- Proposed Waiting Restrictions,
  • Faringdon: Town Centre – Proposed 20mph Zone,
  • Didcot & Long Wittenham: B4016 Ladygrove & Sires Hill – Proposed 40mph Speed Limit,
  • Watlington: Pyrton Lane – Proposed 20mph Speed Limit Zone & Traffic Calming Measures,
  • Charlbury: Hixet Wood – Proposed No Waiting at Any Time Restrictions,
  • Minster Lovell: B4047 Burford Road – Proposed Extension of 40mph Speed Limit 

Following objections received during the consultation process – the proposals you commented on (see list above) will be presented at The Cabinet Member for Highway Management decisions meeting on Thursday 27thJanuary 2022 (at 10am). Papers for the meeting will be published on the Council’s website by the close of play on Wednesday 19thJanuary 2022, and will be available here: https://mycouncil.oxfordshire.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=1167&MId=6680 Alternatively (if the link doesn’t work) go to: https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/cms/public-site/meetings-and-decisions and follow the link for “Meetings calendar”. 

IMPORTANT NOTES: (These reflect the situation as at 10am on Tuesday 18th January) 

These proceedings are open to the public -Please note that Council meetings are currently taking place in-person (not virtually) with social distancing at the venue.  Meetings will continue to be live-streamed and those who wish to view them are strongly encouraged to do so online to minimise the risk of Covid 19 infection. 

If you wish to view proceedings, please click on the Live Stream Link (available on the relevant meeting page).  However, that will not allow you to participate in the meeting. Places at the meetings are very limited due to the requirements of social distancing.  If you wish to attend this meeting in person OR address the meeting, you must contact the Committee Officer by 9am four working days before the meeting i.e. Friday 21st January and they will advise if you can be accommodated at this meeting and of the detailed Covid-19 safety requirements for all attendees. 

  • Requests to speak should be sent to Cameron.Maclean@Oxfordshire.gov.uk together with a written statement of your presentation to ensure that if the technology fails then your views can still be taken into account. A written copy of your statement can be provided no later than two working days before the meeting (i.e. 9am Tuesday 25th January).
  • Where a meeting is held remotely and the addressee is unable to participate remotely their written submission will be accepted.
  • Written submissions should be no longer than 1 A4 sheet. 

Whilst I appreciate that not every response may have been responded to directly, I can assure you that all comments received during the course of the consultation will have been reviewed and appraised by County Council Officers and will also be included in the report that will be presented at the meeting. Similarly, your full response will be made available to the Cabinet member, Council Officers and County Councillors in the time prior to the meeting. Any responses that were unable to be included within the report will have been appraised by Officers and will be presented verbally if necessary during the course of the meeting. 

Hopefully this covers all of the potential questions that you may have – however do get in touch (via email) if you have any further questions or queries OR if you need any additional information, and finally feel free to pass this information on to others who may be interested and may not have access to the internet/email. 

Kind Regards, 
christian

Update on Quickways and other consultations Oxford County Council Read More »