Planning Documents

Iffley-Meadow-Lane-Exhibition-Boards-FINAL-PRINT

FOIV Committee

planning@friendsofiffley.org

FOIV Committee

planning@friendsofiffley.org

Iffley-Meadow-Lane-FAQ-Nov-21

FOIV Committee

planning@friendsofiffley.org

2101388FUL-1-Court-Place-Gardens-Oxford-OX4-4EW.PDF

FOIV Committee

planning@friendsofiffley.org

FOIV Committee

planning@friendsofiffley.org

22 October 2021

Dear DevComms and other recipients

OCHL Newsletter and online consultation on SP42 Meadow Lane/Horse Fields and Memorial Field, Iffley. Response from the Friends of Iffley Village (FOIV).

Thank you for the OCHL Newsletter which we understand has been widely distributed to households in the area, and the link to the online questionnaire.

Rachel Falconer, lead on the Horse Fields, has been in correspondence with Helen Horne (28/9-5/10) and again on 7/10, as well as with Susan Brown (11/10), outlining FOIV’s queries and concerns. We look forward to receiving responses to the issues raised.

As you are aware, the stance of the Friends of Iffley Village is that the Meadow Lane fields should remain as green space; most recently publicly stated by then FOIV Chair, Mike Starks, at this year’s AGM: ‘The Friends of Iffley Village (FOIV) argued back in 2018 that both fields [includes Memorial Field] should stay green and that remains our stance…’.

Without prejudice to this position of objecting to proposed development on the Horse Fields/Meadow Lane, we offer the comments below. We have encouraged people to respond individually too.

The recent FOIV survey of its members shows that most of them (78%) are opposed to the proposed development, with 92% concerned about increased traffic. With regard to the OCHL newsletter, many of our members’ wider concerns also come to the fore. You may be aware that over 58,000 people have signed an online petition in support of saving the Horse Fields*.*https://www.change.org/p/oxford-city-council-save-the-fields-in-iffley-village-for-community-and-nature

Please note there are discrepancies between the information provided in the newsletter and what is online. Some of these – such as the reference to ‘the latest emerging masterplan’ (under Landscaping, Ecology and Biodiversity on your portal) will only be seen by those visiting the website. In the brochure, the phrase used is ‘emerging proposals’ which suggests that things are not yet set in stone, ie already decided. The significance of this is seen below, under the section on the portal’s Key Proposals (p 4).

Below please find our specific responses in regard to: A) the OCHL Newsletter, B) the online Questionnaire and C) the online Portal.

A) The newsletter

1) The glossy newsletter appears to be more like a sales brochure than a consultation document. The proposed development is spoken of in glowing terms, with aspirational comments – such as a ‘target’ of Passivhaus standards, rather than factual information – and other marketing ploys such as using stock photos of large communal spaces and playgrounds whereas space is actually very limited on the proposed site. The document seems ill-thought out and quickly assembled.

2) On p 2 it states: ‘Had OCHL not been successful in purchasing the land, it would likely have been acquired by a private developer, with less certainty on the type and quality of home provided’. This suggests that the Planning Department would allow a private developer to get away with lower quality housing. We sincerely hope the Planning Dept applies the same and correct criteria to all developments, not favouring certain individuals or developers. Please confirm.

3) The density of the proposed development is inappropriate to the space and the rural setting. In addition, there are to be 17 parking spaces, deemed ‘an appropriate number’ in the brochure – why not spell it out? Seventeen parking spaces for 31 houses will likely be seen an insufficient – especially by those purchasing the full-market price houses.

4) Overspill parking will affect the already congested Iffley roads, but it will impact especially adversely on the Oxfordshire County Council-designated Quiet Route (OXR18) that runs along

Meadow Lane and Church Way from town through to Littlemore. More parking on Meadow Lane will displace visitors’ and service vehicles, but more significantly also those of the carers who need to park there to attend residents in Lucas and Remy house.

5) This Quiet Route is used by hundreds of vulnerable road users every day, including horse-riders, people pushing buggies, mobility vehicles, joggers, cyclists and pedestrians. The County Council has designated Quiet Routes as part of its Active Travel work. Clogging up a key Quietway like Meadow Lane, both with more parked cars and a busy entrance/exit for 31 new houses just does not make sense. Has OCHL taken this key concern up with Oxfordshire County Council, and if so, what is Oxon CC’s response? Please advise us.

6) The diagrammatic map does not give relevant factual information. For example, it does not make clear what type of houses are proposed where; nor how high they actually will be; nor how many rooms they have. Among the leafy greenness there are significant problems to be addressed. For example the SP42 recommendations criteria state: ‘Development should be relatively low-density and two-storey with front and rear gardens and stone-walled boundaries.’

Some of the proposed dwellings do not have front and rear gardens and it is not obvious how many storeys they will be. What is the answer?

The positioning of the proposed houses fronting Meadow Lane suggests that the ancient hedgerow will be dug out; and the one between the two fields. Is this the case?

7) Oriel Meadow, glibly referred to as ‘linking’ from Memorial Field, is not labelled on the plan map. Currently it only has permissive access for the public. Has OCHL negotiated public access as of right with Oriel? If not, it appears the brochure is disingenuous and we ask that OCHL clearly retract this on its website and in subsequent consultation communications.

8) The SP42 recommendations criteria state that the ‘impact of development on views through the riverside edge landscape of the Cherwell meadows to the west, and views back to Iffley from the west should be considered’. The newsletter/proposals do not suggest that these have been considered. The proposed houses placed at the top of the field near the Church Way entrance will adversely affect the stirring view down the slope of the field and beyond; a view which is a welcome relief for the senses of the many who pause there. Please advise how you have met the requirements of SP42.

9) The wonderful old green hedge bordering Meadow Lane is given little or no mention. It is a haven for plant and wildlife offering sanctuary for birds and other creatures. This is an inherent part of Meadow Lane and a much-loved natural element. It enhances Oxford’s rural aspect and deserves to be considered properly as a natural asset. The same is true of the hedge dividing the two Horse Fields, which also looks as if it is to be removed in the site plan. Please clarify the extent to which you plan to remove these hedgerows.

10) There is little evidence in the newsletter of consideration of the Climate Emergency, despite Oxford City Council having policies to respond to it. The wording in the newsletter seems full of tick-box marketing phrases such as ‘a landscape-led development with potential for a new publicly accessible green corridor through the Memorial Field linking to Oriel Meadow, combined with new landscaped… to promote wildlife’. How will nature corridors along the Thames be maintained?

11) Drain management of waste water and of surface water run-off by the attenuation SuDS, as indicated in the proposal, are likely to be very problematic and the concern is that they will result in increased local flooding and pollution of the river. Should a combined system be installed, the geo-physical nature of the field, local flood risk levels, loss of absorptive capacity and extreme rainfall events of climate change make sewer-storm drain overload and raw sewage discharges into the river likely to increase (1,822 hrs during 2020 in Oxford East). A separate system will increase pressure on the nearby sewage pumping station, given the c.13,000 litres per day domestic waste water production from this proposed development. What steps is OCHL taking to address these issues?

12) Building houses next to the stream at the western boundary is cause for great concern, not only because of the direction of flow on the Horse Fields but because any changes to bank height are likely to affect drainage patterns in both fields, shifting the location of surface-water pooling as well as increasing flood risk and flooding in lower Meadow Lane. What evaluation of the future flood-risk and flooding of Meadow Lane has been done?

13) The Horse Fields/Land at Meadow Lane has a large and active badger sett. What steps are in place to protect this protected species from the contractors in the first instance, and then from the houses and their inhabitants, should the development actually go ahead?

14) The newsletter does not mention the two other developments planned for Iffley Village at Court Place with its increased number of units, or at Iffley Mead just 200 m across Meadow Lane where at least 84 homes are to be built. Together the proposed three developments will hugely impact on Iffley, its nature and greenness, its streets, parking, quiet route, traffic, sewers and services thereby rendering this pleasant rural spot enjoyed by the whole Ward of Rose Hill and Iffley, and beyond, into another urban sprawl. What overall assessment has been done of the combined impact on Iffley?

15) Should developments go ahead, much thought will need to be given to handling the construction phase and traffic implications on this congested village. What are your plans?

In conclusion: the newsletter is misleading and does not address some key points of concern – set out above. How can building on an ancient meadow actually help nature? We feel our objections to this development are reasonable and well-founded.

B) OCHL’s online Portal for Land at Meadow Lane

i) Home page

– ‘High quality affordable homes’ p 1 – is highly misleading on a controversial point. Only 15 will be this, and only 12 of this 15 will be social housing = 3 affordable. And ‘affordable’ means 80% of Oxford market rates which is not affordable to most. The remaining 15 or so houses will be sold at full market price. Can you confirm that you will make this clear in your future literature and consultations – ie the extent to which the Council is seeking to develop a rural Conservation Area with housing to be sold at full price?

ii) Under Background

‘As part of the wider contextual analysis of the site the team have undertaken extensive ecological surveys establishing a number of different species on site’ – please could you make these surveys available to FOIV and the public. 

– The comment about ‘no bat activity’ is hard to believe, given local knowledge and first-hand observation, as well as the bat reports recently produced for the OUD development at Court Place Gardens, also in Iffley (these are available upon request to OUD). Please clarify.

– ‘There has been one common lizard found so far. Further visits will be undertaken to ensure no further lizards are found’ – this is a prejudicial statement. Please clarify.

– What habitat and green corridors are being secured for the survival of wildlife, following the loss of habitat and foraging area on the Horse Fields?

– Sustainable drainage – please share the surveys done.

iii) Under Key Proposals

Under A Sensitively Designed Scheme 

– This connects with the use of the phrase ‘latest emerging masterplan’ under Landscaping, ecology and biodiversity referred to on p 1. If indeed this ‘masterplan’ is being landscape-led, then landscape concerns need to inform the planning from the outset. This is clearly not the case, since the portal wording then goes on to say that the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has not been completed yet: ‘The design of the scheme will also reflect the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA)which is being completed by an independent landscape specialist. This will ensure that all sensitive views from local locations will be checked to ensure that the development does not significantly impact on existing views.’

Clearly, ‘landscape-led’ is not the case, and is highly misleading.

– Also, use of the phrase ‘latest emerging masterplan’ points to the fact that previous versions of the masterplan have been produced. Why have we not been informed of these?

– Misleading phrases such as ‘Scale and design of housing to reflect the surrounding built environment’. What does that actually mean?

– The Local Plan 2036 calls for ‘relatively low density’ and ‘sensitive housing infill’. The Key Proposals sketches show a development that is high-density, with little or no communal green space.

– It is not clear where the different types of housing are situated on the plan. Please specify which houses are for sale at Market Rate, Affordable Housing and Social Housing. Are they all to be houses with two storeys, with ‘front and rear gardens’ and ‘stone-walled boundaries’ as stipulated in LP 2036? The Masterplan suggests that the development will create a two-tier community, with social housing crowded into two blocks facing each other across concrete, and market-priced housing provided with private green space and off-street parking. The twohouses proposednear Church Way underline the social inequality: they share an exclusive private driveway and two parking places apiece, while those in social housing will have none at all. Further, their position at the top of the Horse Fields destroys the pleasant view enjoyed by anyone walking down Tree Lane, or walking along Church Way.

iv) Under Site Masterplan

– Some features appear to be incorrectly labelled, such as the cycle storage (no. 15) which seems to be in someone’s garden, while no. 4 on the other map locates a ‘Species rich wildflower meadow’ in the middle of an access road. Do you mean that this is existing species-rich wildflower meadow that will become an access road? Please explain.

– There is no reference to necessary surveys, for example on biodiversity, groundwater or site-specific flood risk assessment, or potential impact on the SSSI across the river. We cannot comment on your proposals because there is no evidence of their being deliverable within the development plan policy.  There is a lack of evidence here to indicate that the Site Masterplan is deliverable. 

 – The decision to choose Meadow Lane as the main site access has not been adequately justified with reference to highways reports. Indeed with respect to the proposed Site Masterplan and Highways and Access, FOIV has identified problems with parking provision and Highway capacity, which will be fully articulated in due course.
 

– The supporting text to the policy (para.9.201) says that the views to the riverside edge landscape to the west should be considered. The illustrative layout reveals that, far from that having been taken into consideration, the issue has been ignored: there is a line of buildings blocking views to the river from Meadow Lane, with suburban rear gardens stretching right to the river bank. 

v) Under Memorial Field

– referred to as Memorials Field lower down.

– Please ensure that this will not used as the biodiversity net gain required for the developer to fulfil their BNG obligations.

– FOIV and the village need a cast-iron guarantee that the Council/OCHL at a future point – when current councillors may have gone and Oxford’s pressing unmet housing need is still there – that this will not be built upon. What mechanism will the City Council enact to ensure this safeguard in perpetuity?

C) The online survey

a) Feedback on Masterplan

– Most of the questions cannot logically be answered, and the sliding scale does not allow for abstention. Please ensure that future consultations are logical and allow for abstention.

– 450 characters is insufficient for text boxes. Text boxes should invite people to submit further comments on email, with the email address alongside. There is no indication on this layout that longer comments will be accepted via email. Please ensure you include this information in future.

b) Feedback on Memorial Field.

– 450 characters is insufficient. Text boxes should invite people to submit further comments on email, with the email address alongside.

Clearly the future of the Memorial Field will need much further consultation. If the Horse Fields are lost to biodiversity, obviously there can be only limited public access to the Memorial Field. It cannot simultaneously be a public park and a haven for remaining wildlife. Issues such as security; the location of the entrance/exit; the field’s long-term management plan and the proximity to No 66 Church Way’s wooded area all need to be addressed.

We look forward to receiving your detailed response to this letter at your earliest convenience so that we can advise our members.

FOIV Committee

planning@friendsofiffley.org

Consultation Update
‘we will be undertaking a second phase of consultation shortly. We are currently in the process of finalising these plans. We will be issuing a
letter to all residents in the area providing answers to FAQs and to provide information on the second phase of consultation and will share
the schedule/timings as soon as all arrangements have been confirmed.’
(Will McKay I Development Manager I Oxford City Housing Ltd.)

Fund Raising
FOIV Committee is cooperating with other groups to raise funds to pay for independent professional expertise regarding the Horse Fields
allocation and development proposals. If you’d like to contribute to a Crowdfunding drive to contribute to independent expert fees, please go
to this website ASAP (the funding drive closes on 13 November): https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/save-meadow-and-horse-fields-in-iffley-village#start

FOIV Committee

planning@friendsofiffley.org

Re: Formal Consultations:

• Oxford: Barton Park – Proposed Controlled Parking Zone,
• Oxford: Iffley Village – Proposed Parking Restrictions,
• Oxford: Queen Street – Use by Cargo Bikes.
• Oxford: Bourne Close – Proposed Parking Restrictions,
• Ambrosden: Graven Hill – Proposed 20mph Speed Limit & Parking Restrictions,
• Aston Rowant: Village Roads – Proposed 20mph Speed Limit & Traffic Calming,
• Benson: A4074 – Proposed Toucan Crossing,
• Watlington: B480 Cuxham Road – Proposed Bus Stop Clearway,
• Witney: Corn Street – Proposed Shared-use Foot & Cycle Path.

 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 14th October 2021 (at 10am). Papers for the meeting will be published on the Council’s website by the close of play on Wednesday 06th October, and will be available here: https://mycouncil.oxfordshire.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=1167&MId=6652 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 11am on Monday 04th October) 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 virtually, you must contact the Committee Officer by 9am four working days before the meeting i.e. Friday 08th October 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 graham.warrington@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 12th October).
• 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 christian.mauz@oxfordshire.gov.uk) 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. 

Christian Mauz

Technical Officer (Traffic & Road Safety) Community Operations|Environment & Place

Oxfordshire County Council|County Hall|New Road|Oxford|OX1 1ND

For general highway enquiries: Tel:  0345 310 1111

For urgent ‘out of hours’ highways issues: Tel:  01223 849731For how Oxfordshire County Council manages your personal information please see our Privacy Notice.

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.