|
1
|
|
Fyfield &
Tubney Parish Council have already responded to this proposal and
wish to add a further statement to that objection in the attached
document.
…Fyfield & Tubney PC
|
|
2
|
|
No comments or
concerns
|
|
3
|
|
It prepares the
way to build 100s of houses which we don’t need
|
|
4
|
|
this is purely to
add more housing to KBS. due to Fyfield winning a block on housing
in their hamlet ... there isn’t enough infrastructure to
support more housing . Dr’s , pharmacy, schools, older
persons services, busses, eater electricity and gas all suffer from
the extension to KBS .. there’s only so big one village can
be !
|
|
5
|
|
The whole area
will be built on
|
|
6
|
|
I am worried that
this is a rubber stamp for building more houses on that area
– which will not be supported by the infrastructure (notably
the already busy A415) or the facilities in the village.
|
|
7
|
|
I do not approve
of the planning permission application in regards to building on
this land as a part of Kingston Bagpuize. It will ruin the much
loved countryside and walking access.
|
|
8
|
|
There is not
enough infrastructure to extend the parish of Southmoor and
Kingston bagpuize further. Even if the schools could take more
children, the poor roads and lack of parking will cause a serious
accident. Cars already park along the main road for school runs,
making it hazardous for both pedestrians and drivers of bikes and
cars. If the parish was extended this should come with new schools,
doctors and dentists to cater for the increased population. Money
should also be spent on maintaining the roads and highways to cater
for the increased traffic.
|
|
9
|
|
We don’t
want any more houses built without an increase in the facilities
such as doctors, schools, bypass of the village
|
|
10
|
|
From what I
understand, the moving of the boundary lines is to enable the
planning application for a further 700 homes to be considered for a
second time – having been rejected on first submission. The
reasons for the plan being rejected still remain pertinent, and the
infrastructures required (water, sewage, roads, school provision,
GP surgery, pharmacy, provision for the elderly, etc.) have not yet
been met. During the recent storm, the retirement home in Kingston
Bagpuize was without power and water for more than two days. This
was partly due to the water supply not being connected to the
mains, but relying on electricity to operate a pump mechanism. This
was in part because when the large development of housing was built
in Kingston Bagpuize and Southmoor, concerns from Thames Water and
existing residents were ignored. To move boundary lines purely to
get around the planning process is frankly diabolical and for that
reason I oppose the change.
|
|
11
|
|
This is purely to
accommodate the massive development planned east of Kingston
Bagpuize which I strongly object to
|
|
12
|
|
Leave Fyfield land
in Fyfield.
Kingston Bagpuize with Southmoor has been stretched and over
developed for many many years, the village more than doubling in
size with absolutely no care or regard for local services or the
additional traffic on surrounding roads.
It is disgusting to think that this change is to enable a further
800 dwellings.
|
|
13
|
|
Moving the
boundary to wave previously rejected planning through is a
disgrace.
|
|
14
|
|
Why are you trying
to move the boundary, just because it was opposed by the parish
which incorporated Tubney & Fyfield?
There has been too many houses built in this area yet no doctors,
no extra schools & the traffic has increased too much.
There are accidents every month on the A420 & a number of
fatalities in the last 12 months, you increasing the traffic even
more is going to make it worse.
Unless we have a guarantee that a doctors surgery, schools, better
bus services nor just sporadic ones that stop at a stupid time at
night so people cannot go out or work late.
|
|
15
|
|
No gain for the
people of KBS.
|
|
16
|
|
This appears to be
an attempt to build more housing in an already pressured
community.
No more housing should be considered without improvements to local
infrastructure.
|
|
17
|
|
I know there are
planning permission applications on this site, I strongly object to
more housing on this site and any change in boundary
|
|
18
|
|
Disagree with such
a sneaky way to try and get new build houses approved that fyfield
parish council rejected. Disgusting
|
|
19
|
|
I am worried there
isn’t the infrastructure to support a new housing development
– especially GP and school access.
|
|
20
|
|
We are already
suffering lack of infrastructure and services as a result of the
significant housing increase in recent years. Our roads are so much
busier and noisier with poor quality. A420 is already at breaking
point at peak times. This is just a blatant underhand ploy to get
even more housing without further resources and investment in the
community given the extra housing was already rejected in
fyfield
|
|
21
|
|
I believe the
boundaries are only being amended so further new homes can be
built. Unfortunately the infrastructure just isn’t in place.
I believe this would put further strain on services (schools, GP,
pharmacy) that are already full.
|
|
22
|
|
If Fyfield
didn’t agree with it, because there’s not enough
supporting infrastructure to go ahead ! Why should we. We are not
prepared for this massive change. Water and gas supply is
struggling with the amount of new houses. The A420 and other roads
will become more dangerous than they already are now. Doctors are
not taking on any more clients. Schools are struggling to keep up.
Can’t even keep a Post Office open for very long. No
pharmacy.
|
|
23
|
|
The infrastructure
is not there to support more housing which will be built on the
land made available by this boundary move. This has already been
declined by Fyfield for the same reasons.
KBS already has issues with GP surgeries, services for young and
older people, bus routes are being cut, water supply is lacking,
A420 is ridiculous for traffic and accidents. The list goes
on.
|
|
24
|
|
Insufficient
support services for young people and older persons. Doctors
surgeries have no capacity as it is.
Public transport
Infrastructure (busses are being cut, A420 is already
congested)
|
|
25
|
|
Please ignore my
last entry which was from… as I didn’t realise the
reason you want it to swap. I do not agree with this land being
built on.
|
|
26
|
|
Because the
Kingston Bagpuize infrastructure cannot cope with more houses
without further investment into roads, community hubs, doctors
surgeries and schooling.
|
|
27
|
|
There isn’t
enough infrastructure to add further occupancies to the village,
and I know this would include the proposed housing. Doctors
surgeries already at capacity, no school placements available. So
that why I disagree with this.
|
|
28
|
|
It seems that this
proposal is beneficial only to the developers who have so far
failed to get permission for 700 houses on the land. This raises
some very serious concerns as to the integrity of the
proposal
|
|
29
|
|
It is not popular
proposal at all!
|
|
30
|
|
Any development on
the land included in the boundary change would have a HUGE impact
on Fyfield, particularly, but not only, in terms of traffic. The
land should remain in Fyfield and Tubney so that the community has
a say in the evolution of the development and properly receives
S106 and CIL resources to mitigate the worst consequences of the
impact.
|
|
31
|
|
This boundary
change is clearly paving the way for development of what is
currently open countryside. A planning application to this effect
has already been rejected by the planning department, this change
of boundary is an attempt to circumvent this decision and get
planning via the back door.
|
|
32
|
|
We don’t
have the infrastructure to support any further houses.
|
|
33
|
|
This is all about
house building which Fyfield keeps rejecting or
blocking.
|
|
34
|
|
The parish of
Fyfield and Tubney (F&T) is classified as ‘open
countryside’ where no large scale development is permitted
without the agreement of the residents. The proposal to change the
parish boundary is therefore a necessary pre-cursor to approving
the planning application by Lioncourt Strategic for 660 new houses
plus a care home. Residents of F&T have expressed their
opposition to this development (98% signed a petition to this
effect). It will be a commuter dormitory and not really part of
F&T or Kingston Bagpuize with Southmoor (KBS). It will
effectively close the gap between the two communities. The increase
in traffic generated by the proposed development will have more of
an impact on F&T than on KBS. If the parish boundary is changed
all Section 106 and CIL monies will go to KBS and F&T will have
no funds to pay for necessary mitigation (such as bunds to reduce
traffic noise from the A420 and to provide a safe road crossing at
Tubney). Further it will leave the small community of Fyfield Wick
isolated and cut off from the rest of the F&T parish. I
therefore object to the planning application for the development on
Land East of Kingston Bagpuize and on the proposed boundary change
to permit it. Both are unnecessary and undesirable.
|
|
35
|
|
This proposal is
so wrong on so many levels, but my strongest objection to this
boundary change is that it is so obviously in favour of housing
developers. Change the boundary, and all of a sudden the land
currently under discussion for even more homes to be built on
between KB & Fyfield comes under the KB ward. This is a stealth
move to ensure the homes that are not wanted by the local villages
are built. Neither Kingston Bagpuize, nor Fyfield have the
infrastructure to support more homes, more residents. Water,
sewers, roads, schools, Dr’s etc. etc. are all at
capacity.
|
|
36
|
|
Kingston Bagpuize
with Southmoor want to move the boundary to encompass a field?
Planning permission has already been refused on this land and since
the objections of the Government inspector to the last application
are not rectified a current repeated request for planning
permission on this land should also be refused.
It is a poor show that Kingston Bagpuize claim that other villages
will not be affected as much as they would by any future planning
grant here. The village of Fyfield has consistently led the protest
against construction on this land because of the massive effect it
would have on a small historic village. Kingston Bagpuize have no
more say as to what happens here than the other villages and
therefore their proposal is ridiculous.
See https://savingfyfieldandtubney.com
|
|
37
|
|
There is currently
no formal authority for the development to proceed except its
inclusion in the current Local Plan, but with strict conditions to
be fulfilled before it can go ahead:
- The eastern portion of the proposed development is closer to the
centre of ***Fyfield*** than the centre of Kingston
Bagpuize/Southmoor.
- The negative effects of the development, particularly on the
local roads, will be felt more in ***Fyfield and other neighbouring
communities*** than in Kingston Bagpuize/Southmoor. Any works to
alleviate these will have to be financed from the Fyfield and
Tubney and the other Parish Council funds.
- Efforts in opposing the development have been successful to date
and as regards representing the local communities, these efforts
have been entirely led by Fyfield and Tubney Parish Council, with
tremendous support, funding and input from residents of the Parish
under the banner of FLAG. This has involved unprecedented input
over the last 41⁄2 years to achieve.
- When planning application for this development was submitted
recently, ignoring the fulfilment of these conditions, objections
were recorded by all public bodies providing services, namely
transport, health and education, on the basis that these services
could not be adequately provided.
- The formal Examination process that took place in 2018 led to
very clear recommendations by the Inspector, Mr Reed. Based on
these, and specifically the requirement for significant
improvements in the local infrastructure to be completed before
further consideration for this development, the continuing efforts
of the developers to progress with this site have been rejected by
the planning authorities.
|
|
38
|
|
There is no
logical reason to move the parish boundary, other than to pre-empt
a housing development that has been refused.
I object for a number of reasons:
1) the centre of Fyfield is closer to the land Kingston Bagpuize
would like to have than it is to the centre of Kingston
Bagpuize!
2) the logic in their documentation, they are ignoring planning
conditions and pre-empting something that will not happen in the
current scheme. If it were to be developed on, then the resultant
problems would be felt in Fyfield and Tubney
3) the precedent could begin to remove further land areas south of
Fyfield under the same pretence meaning Fyifeld and Tubney lose
more land.
4) I regularly enjoy walking to and from the local amenities and
use the old road as a running and cycling area from Fyfield. I
vigorously contest their point that it is near impossible to
ambulate to Kingston Bagpuize from Fyfield. If that is indeed their
assertion, adding housing will only make that even more
impossible!
5) The proposed boundary change has no clear natural or man-made
boundary, whereas its current boundary, on the edge of Kingston
Bagpuize’s Sprawling metropolis, is clearly a man-made
boundary we can use. Fyfield (by its name) is fields and open
countryside. We have proudly protected this and will continue to do
this. We want this land in our name to protect and safeguard this
parish
6) Currently there are no neighbourhoods or houses straddling the
parish boundary.
Many thanks for your consideration. I trust you reject the
suggestion.
|
|
39
|
|
This is
gerrymandering of the worst possible sort, brought about by the
rapacious pressure of Oxford’s wealthiest college, its
multi-billion pound estate agent proxy and a developer who plies
the attractions of a rural, ‘aspirational’ idyll by
covering the countryside with housing estates. That Kingston
Bagpuize & Southmoor PC had proved itself sufficiently pliant
to propose this boundary change indicates how little they have come
to care about the well-being of their own rural community and its
ecology. Despite the past assurances of ex DC head Matthew Barber
to their PC that Kingston Park would be the last major development
in the area, it would appear that KB & S PC as presently
constituted has surrendered any wish to remain that rural community
and has embraced the status of would-be dormitory town with open
arms. It is a lasting pity that concrete, brick, tarmac and traffic
have replaced green fields, fresh air and wildlife habitat (which
are NEITHER sustainable NOR renewable) in so much of our
neighboring parish but we do not want their overspill here. What
part of the world’s environmental crisis has Kingston
Bagpuize & Southmoor Parish Council not grasped as yet? Jobs,
growth, lifestyle choice (which is what this development is
flogging) are no longer adequate excuses for tearing up our
precious green spaces – those days are over. Take some
responsibility for your children and throw out this proposal, and
let us fight our own battles.
|
|
40
|
|
I am extremely
concerned by the motivations behind this proposal. A review of the
Kingston Bagpuize parish council minutes give no understanding of
the motivation for this change. The reference in the minutes of
December 21 and January 22 is brief and vague to an extent that
indicates that they must be deliberately so given the significance
of the proposal. It is only right that the residents of the parish
of Fyfield and Tubney have access to the substance of the
discussion that is motivating this proposed boundary change.
In the absence of such information one can only speculate as to the
reason why an historic rural parish boundary needs to shift. That
the land in question represents that on which an aggressive
property development company is seeking to build an unsustainable,
large housing estate which (on numerous occasions) has been shown
to be an unsound proposal is hardly likely to be a
coincidence.
The residents of the parish of Fyfield take very seriously their
responsibilities to hold officials and companies to account when
future development within the parish is discussed. Issues of
transportation, traffic, infrastructure, services, air quality and
healthy communities have all been considered and, in the case of
the existing Lioncourt proposal, have been shown as problematic.
One could be cynical and suggest that perhaps we have done rather
too good a job. Given the minutes of KB Parish Council reveal their
grave concern about the overload of foul water systems since the
building of Kingston Park, one might point out that they have been
insufficiently robust in their response to property development in
their parish within its current boundaries.
How the erosion of a rural parish (with the land being incorporated
into a parish that appears to have no coherent development strategy
and is simply becoming an urbanised dormitory town with no
infrastructure to support its growing population and which churns
ever more traffic onto already overburdened roads) is in line with
a commitment to environmental responsibility is baffling.I wonder
what motivations those parish minutes should really have
captured?…
|
|
41
|
|
See attached
document.
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
no .. please
listen to YOUR parishioners
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
Please do not
grant permission for the new proposal of houses on this land. The
community need the old road and surrounding countryside. Also, as
the Parish council have strongly voiced opinions that they will not
adopt the maintenance of the new Bloor estate, many residents
cannot see that even more building work and potential issues with
water and even more construction will be beneficial. The joy of
living in areas such as these is the surrounding countryside. The
old road and fields should be preserved as green belt
land.
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
You need to
seriously think about the amount of development in this area as it
stands. Bowing to pressure from local and national government
to fill a quota of new homes no matter the cost to the environment
and the general welfare of current residents is something that you
should all be ashamed of.
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
Do not allow the
houses east of Kingston Bagpuize
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
Stop over
developing our village.
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
No rationale has
been given for this change. No logic. No reasons. Purely greed and
to approve housing rejected by Fyfield.
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
Think of those
ALREADY living in the area not just think of money.
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
We need more
services including a gp service with used to be excellent and is
now at breaking point The a420 needs resurfacing where
it is a dual carriageway as the noise is constant. Cars speed as do
motorbikes and at times the noise is deafening 10 years ago
we barely heard any noise. Now it is constant and makes it
unpleasant being outside The surface should be replaced by
one which causes less noise pollution given the significant extra
traffic as a result of all the development
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
Please do whatever
makes it more unlikely for that land to be built on!! Thank
you.
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
Protect the land
as rural. Don’t build on it please please please
—
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
Thank you for
sending this out for comments, but do listen to what the residents
have to say, we live here.
|
|
|
Submitted at end
of survey under ‘Any other comments’
|
Stop building
houses in the village until the infrastructure is sorted out.
Examples include, Sewage, water pressure, Doctors,
Pharmacy, to name but a few.
|
