h west oxfordshire local plan 2031 … · locally led garden cities prospectus 2014. ... church end...

Representations

on behalf of

South Leigh Parish Council

Objection to Gladman Garden Village Proposal

Prepared by

Paul Slater BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI

March 2017

H

WEST OXFORDSHIRE

LOCAL PLAN 2031

Edgars Limited

South Leigh Parish Council Response to Gladman Garden Village Proposal March 2017 1

CONTENTS

i INTRODUCTION 2

1.0 IMPACT ON THE SETTING OF SOUTH LEIGH AND CHARACTER OF

THE AREA

4

2.0 THE NEED FOR ANOTHER GARDEN VILLAGE WITH REGARD

HOUSING DELIVERY

12

3.0 TRANSPORT SUSTAINABILITY 16

4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 19

Edgars Limited


INTRODUCTION

i. These representations are submitted by Edgars Limited (Edgars) on behalf of

South Leigh Parish Council. They are in response to the West Oxfordshire Local

Plan 2031 (WOLP 2016) and the recent submissions by Gladman Developments

Limited (Gladman) promoting a Barnard Gate Garden Village within South

Leigh Parish.

ii. South Leigh Parish Council strongly object to the Barnard Gate Garden Village

which has been submitted late in the Local Plan process. Should the Barnard

Gate Garden Village be considered by the Local Plan Inspector, it is imperative

that South Leigh Parish Council is given the opportunity to respond to this

proposal, attend the Examination hearings and be heard by the Inspector.

iii. Gladman has submitted proposals for a Garden Village on 228 hectares of land

described as to the south of the A40 at Barnard Gate. The proposal is

suggested to include provision of:

More than 2,000 dwellings to 2031

A Science Park

Park and Ride Facilities

Neighbourhood Centre

Country Park

A40 improvements

iv. Although described as at Barnard Gate, the proposed Garden Village is in fact

within South Leigh Parish and immediately adjacent to South Leigh Village.

v. It extends from Chapel Lane at the western end of the village to beyond Green

Farm and the single track road to Barnard Gate at the eastern end of the

Parish. Having reviewed the historic context of South Leigh, the proposed

Garden Village would abut Church End, the historic centre of the village.

vi. The Government’s Locally Led Garden Villages, Towns and Cities Programme

(DCLG, March 2016) encourages local authorities to put forward proposals for

new settlements which follow Garden City Principles. This followed the DCLG

Locally Led Garden Cities Prospectus 2014. The Government’s intentions for

Garden Villages include a number of principles and the following are identified

as of particular relevance:

Edgars Limited


Locally led, by local authorities with strong vision, leadership and

community engagement – the Gladman proposal is not locally led either by

the local authorities and has not been subject to community engagement

with local communities;

New discrete settlements – and not an extension of an existing town or

village – the Gladman proposal adjoins the existing village of South Leigh,

will urbanise this existing rural community and will result in settlement

coalescence;

Well designed and built to a high quality with generous green space linked

to the wider natural environment, including a surrounding belt of

countryside to prevent sprawl – the Gladman proposal adjoins South Leigh

village and proposes a Country Park between the village and new built

development. This Country Park is an urban fringe feature and not the belt

of countryside envisaged for a truly discrete new settlement;

A response to meeting local housing need with a strong prospect of early

delivery – large sites and new settlements have significant infrastructure

requirements which leads to delays in delivery. Gladman themselves

accept that sustainable and immediately available sites are required to

address current housing supply deficiencies;

Integrated and accessible low-carbon transport systems with a series of

settlements linked by rapid transport providing a full range of employment

opportunities– Gladman propose a Park and Ride along with widening of the

A40 along the site frontage. There is no rapid transit system in place and

no provision for a complete bus priority scheme between the site and

employment centres at Oxford and Witney. There is no certainty that any

effective bus priority scheme, let alone a rapid transit system, linking the

site is deliverable and the traffic conditions on the A40 are a notable

disincentive to maximising low carbon transport at the current time.

vii. The Gladman Garden Village proposal does not accord with the Government’s

core principles for Garden Villages. This conflict and South Leigh Parish

Council’s objections are further highlighted in the following sections of this

representation.

Edgars Limited


1. IMPACT ON THE SETTING OF SOUTH LEIGH AND CHARACTER OF THE

AREA

1.1. As highlighted above Garden Village principles are for these new settlements to

be locally led and discrete such to have minimal impact on existing

communities. The Gladman proposal is not locally led, has not be developed

through engagement with local communities and is not a discrete new

settlement. It adjoins and would significantly impact the existing community at

South Leigh.

1.2. Before commenting on the impact of the Barnard Gate Garden Village proposal,

it is necessary to provide some background and context on South Leigh.

South Leigh

1.3. South Leigh is a rural parish 4km south east of Witney and 13km west of

Oxford. The village is a historic settlement which was first mentioned in the

late 12th Century. It was formerly a chapelry of Stanton Harcourt but was

taxed separately by the 14th Century and became a separate ecclesiastical

Parish in 1868 (Victoria County History).

1.4. The village lies along a minor road between Witney and Stanton Harcourt. This

is a rural road without pavements and particularly narrow in places. To the

south of the village, prior to joining the B4449 Eynsham Road, this road

becomes a single track lane with passing places. A spur road heads north from

the village toward Barnard Gate and is also single track with passing places.

1.5. To the west of the village the Parish extends to the river Windrush where the

alluvial deposits are subject to significant gravel extraction. To the east of the

village the landscape becomes a rolling vale landscape.

1.6. This change in topography is evident in the village form. Church End sits atop

a gravel terrace and is the historic centre of the village. The Grade I Listed

Church of St James has visible elements dating to the 12th Century and 15th

Century medieval paintings. The first vicar Gerard Moultrie established a

national school at Church End in 1871 (now the Village Hall). He also built

Glebe House and St James College, now Holyrood House.

Edgars Limited


1.7. St James College was built as a preparatory school in 1875 and was then used

as an orphanage, private tutorial college and then psychiatric hospital under

ecclesiastical patronage.

1.8. Also at Church End, Church Farmhouse (Listed Grade II) is an early 16th

century timber framed house with later additions. Within its listing, it is

identified as an early example of a two storey house with its painted beam a

‘rare survival’.

1.9. The map of 1793 (Figure 1 below, Victoria County History of Oxfordshire)

shows the village just before parliamentary enclosure including its rural

dispersed nature, patchwork of fields and extensive area of common pasture

and heathland to the north.

1.10. Church End was historically connected to The Heath and the Witney to Oxford

Road to the north by Church Lane. It was also connected to the The Green by

Bonds Lane. A further historic lane ran from Chapel Lane toward The Heath

recorded as Hill Street Lane. These lanes are still reflected in the Rights of Way

network.

1.11. The village has a polyfocal character as a result of its development at Church

End and along the Witney to Stanton Harcourt Road. There are some surviving

17th century cottages and buildings along these roads including Wayside

Cottage (Listed Grade II), Kimbles Brake (Listed Grade II), The Mason’s Arms

(Listed Grade II), Homan’s Farm (Listed Grade II) and Gunn Cottage (Listed

Grade II).

1.12. Evidence of smoke blackened thatch has been identified at Wayside Cottage

identifying earlier 14th century construction and thatching using locally derived

material. This included different types of wheat straw, oats, barley and beans,

all still grown locally as well as rye bracken and water reed. Wayside Cottage

is located at the western end of the village and will be abutted by the Garden

Village site.

1.13. The agricultural history of the village is one of mixed farming with many

families working on the land until the 1970’s. The major post enclosure

landowning families including the Sibthorp Family, and from 1875 the Mason

Family and Brasenose College, Oxford. The Sibthorp Family built several pairs

of model farm workers cottages in the 1860’s and 1870s which are an evident

feature of the village today.

Edgars Limited


Figure 1 South Leigh c 1793 (outline of Garden village area in red)

Edgars Limited


1.14. There also are a number of examples of estate workers housing in the village

due to the village’s connection with the Mason family and Eynsham Hall, which

lies to the north of the A40.

1.15. The Witney Railway, a branch of the West Midland Railway, was opened in 1861

with a station in South Leigh at the east end of the village. This marked a shift

of focus of new building toward Station Road and Witney Road and furthered

the village’s notable polyfocal and disparate form.

1.16. The West Oxfordshire Design Guide describes the village as:

…located in the transitional zone between the Limestone Wolds and the Thames

Vale. South Leigh has a disparate form, with Church End to the north, farms

and the manor off to the south-east and linear growth in between. The village

is bisected by the Limb Brook.

1.17. The built form of the village has a Cotswold vernacular with most of the early

houses built of local limestone with stone slate or thatch.

1.18. The West Oxfordshire Landscape Assessment 1998 (West Oxfordshire

Examination Document Reference LAN7) is the most detailed landscape

assessment of this area and has been adopted by West Oxfordshire District

Council as a material consideration for planning purposes.

1.19. The village and immediate surrounds are identified within the Eynsham Vale

Character Area (Character Area 11) and also within semi-enclosed rolling vale

farmland. The area is identified as having a strong structure of hedgerows and

trees and moderate intervisibility.

1.20. Overall, the area is described as having an attractive and largely unspoilt rural

character. Settlements are identified as typically linear in form with buildings

strung out along a road. South Leigh is reflective of this character.

1.21. The principal threats to this landscape character include intrusion from built

development and traffic and the suburbanisation of the wider countryside.

1.22. Enhancement priorities for semi-enclosed clay vale landscapes are identified as

to retain and extend the existing hedgerow network and allow mature

hedgerow trees to develop. Woodland planting is suggested to restore a more

mixed pattern of woodland and farmland, although in the South Leigh context

there is already a mixed pattern of woodland and farmland.

Edgars Limited


1.23. Semi-enclosed clay vale landscapes are identified as having some potential to

absorb small-scale development within a strong structure of trees and

woodland or with other buildings. The fringes of larger settlements are

identified as more tolerant of development.

1.24. Although not subject to any Conservation Area or other statutory designation, it

is evident that the village and Parish of South Leigh has a rich and interesting

history much of which survives today.

1.25. The village also has an attractive landscape setting made up of the distinct built

elements of the village as well as its rolling, agricultural hinterland and

extensive network of historic lanes and rights of way.

1.26. The focus of this historic setting is the slightly elevated Church End. From the

edge of Church End, the rolling landscape gives extensive views, particularly to

the north, over unspoilt rolling vale farmland, which forms an important part of

the historic setting of the village.

1.27. The Oxfordshire Historic Environment Record identifies Iron Age ditches and

pits suggesting this area is also of archaeological potential.

Impact of Gladman’s Garden Village Proposal

1.28. Gladman’s WOLP 2016 representations claim at paragraph 10.7 that their

Garden Village site ‘is removed from existing settlements’. It is also claimed

that there will be distinct separation between the new settlement and South

Leigh through the creation of a new Country Park.

1.29. As noted above, an inherent principle of a Garden Village is that it is distinct

from and has a minimal impact on existing communities. The Gladman

Garden Village proposal will have a significant impact on the community at

South Leigh.

1.30. The claim that the proposed site is removed from existing settlements is false.

As can be seen in Figure 1 above and Gladman’s Development Vision

document, the proposal site directly adjoins South Leigh Village and is by no

means removed from it.

1.31. It also adjoins the historic centre of the village at Church End which is located

at a local high point. Church End is also a focal point for a plethora of historic

lanes and Rights of Way which traverse north through the area proposed for

Edgars Limited


the new Garden Village. These Rights of Way are extensively used by

residents.

1.32. Within the rolling landscape of the area, the proposed Garden Village site then

sits within a slight depression in the land between the higher landform at

Church End and at Eynsham Park to the north of the A40.

1.33. The Local Plan Inspector is invited to walk the Public Rights of Way which

traverse the proposal site. In particular, it is suggested that the proposal site

is viewed from the Rights of Way heading north from Church End. There are

extensive views from the edge of Church End across the proposal site.

Photograph 1 View north from former Church Lane, Church End

(Garden Village location shown by red arrow)

1.34. The current view is of a largely unspoilt agricultural landscape to the north of

the village. With reference to Figure 1 it is evident that in this location was

Church Lane, a historic trackway connecting South Village to its agricultural

hinterland of enclosed fields with common pastures and heath beyond.

1.35. This trackway and historic landscape association remains today. There are long

views across this landscape which would be urbanised and lost as a result of

Edgars Limited


the Gladman Garden Village proposal. The agricultural setting to the north of

the village would replace almost in its entirety with a suburban housing estate.

Photograph 2 View north east from Church Lane Right of Way

immediately north of Church End (Garden Village location shown by

red arrow)

1.36. Rather than minimise its impact on South Leigh, the Gladman Garden Village

proposals seek to locate landmark buildings with direct views from Church End,

via the historic Church Lane trackway. Such buildings will be a harmful

intrusion in the local landscape character and setting of South Leigh.

1.37. Given the proximity of the proposed Garden Village to the existing village at

South Leigh, Gladman propose a buffer in the form of a Country Park. The

need for such a feature is evidence in itself that the Gladman Garden Village

site is not distinct from existing local communities.

1.38. The proposed Country Park is itself an urban fringe feature which itself will not

reflect the prevailing landscape character and historic agricultural setting to

South Leigh.

Edgars Limited


1.39. The Local Plan Inspector is invited to walk the Public Rights of Way which

traverse the proposal site, particularly from Church End where there are

extensive views across the proposal site.

1.40. These views are from well used Rights of Way and must be regarded as of high

sensitivity. The character and user experience (including views over the

landscape) of these rights of way will change significantly. The degree of

change which would be experienced can only be described as major and as

such the Gladman Garden Village will be of significant harm to the local

landscape character and setting of the village.

1.41. NPPF paragraph 17 states that planning should recognise the intrinsic character

and beauty of the countryside. NPPF paragraph 109 requires the planning

system to contribute to and protect and enhance valued landscapes. This is a

valued landscape in the context of South Leigh given its proximity to the village

and its historic association with the village, now reflected through the rights of

way network.

1.42. WOLP 2016 Policies (OS2, OS4, EH1 and EH7) require development to respect

the historic, architectural, and landscape character of the area, avoid the

coalescence and loss of identity of separate settlements and protect and

enhance the local landscape and setting of settlements.

1.43. The Gladman proposal will remove the entire historic landscape setting of the

northern edge of South Leigh village and replace it with intrusive large scale

development which is inconsistent with the high landscape quality of this area.

1.44. Such a major adverse change and a loss of the historic landscape setting to

South Leigh should also be considered harmful under Paragraph 134 of the

NPPF. The site is also of archaeological potential which should be investigated

further.

Summary

1.45. In summary, whilst South Leigh village does not fall within any statutorily

designated landscape, the village lies within unspoilt countryside and has a rich

history and a historic relationship with its agricultural setting. This setting is

visible and valued by residents using the extensive Rights of Way network,

which reflects a pattern of historic lanes.

Edgars Limited


1.46. The Gladman Garden Village proposal will result in significant harm to the local

landscape character and would impose a significant urban encroachment on

this rural community. This cannot represent a discrete new settlement of high

quality design in this context.

1.47. This is contrary to NPPF and WOLP 2016 policies. It is also contrary to Garden

Village principles in that the Gladman proposal is:

Not locally led;

Not a discrete settlement but an urban encroachment into a rural

landscape and the setting of South Leigh, a historic village;

Not of high quality design by virtue of its failure to respect the intrinsic

historic landscape setting in which it is located.

2. THE NEED FOR ANOTHER GARDEN VILLAGE WITH REGARD HOUSING

DELIVERY

2.1. South Leigh Parish Council do not support the Eynsham Garden Village

proposal. The acceptability or otherwise of the proposed Eynsham Garden

Village will be considered by the Local Plan Inspector in the forthcoming

examination.

2.2. It must be acknowledged, however, that the Eynsham Garden Village has been

promoted to the Government by the District Council and has received Garden

Village status. It has been considered to embody Garden Village principles and

be ‘locally led’.

2.3. In Edgars’ opinion, there is no requirement for another Garden Village as it will

not achieve the required housing delivery in a timely fashion.

2.4. Edgars Limited has prepared representations to the West Oxfordshire Local Plan

Proposed Modifications December 2016 (WOLP 2016) on behalf of a number of

clients including Rectory Homes (these representations are attached).

2.5. One of Edgars objections to the WOLP 2016 is a significant concern that the

Council’s approach to housing delivery involving very large sites such as

Garden Village’s will not delivery the housing required in a timely fashion.

2.6. Very large sites such as Garden Villages have significant infrastructure

requirements. Delivery of such sites will be complex with delivery rates

uncertain.

Edgars Limited


2.7. Gladman in their WOLP 2016 representations (para 5.2) are also aware of the

risks. Gladman question ‘what if the two large Eynsham sites do not deliver?’.

Edgars consider that the same question could be asked of the suggested

Barnard Gate Garden Village.

2.8. Gladman consider that the issue of unmet need should be dealt with in the

short term with greater urgency. In their representations (para 7.6) Gladman

state that ‘..the solution to achieving soundness is not to use the Liverpool

methodology as the Council proposes but to allocate additional sustainable and

immediately available sites for housing that can be brought forward for

development in the early years of the plan following adoption’.

2.9. Edgars agree. A new Garden Village will not achieve this and in Edgars opinion

is not the answer to the housing supply deficiency which is identified.

2.10. In Edgars opinion, there is a requirement to allocate additional non-strategic

sites for development which can be readily developed out to boost housing

supply and provide a contingency buffer for likely delays in delivery of large

scale housing sites. Such sites should be within or adjacent to towns and rural

settlements and be available and deliverable within 5 years.

2.11. Gladman’s WOLP 2016 representations, at paragraph 5.10, imply that they also

agree where it is stated that ‘the Council need to allocate additional sites for

housing development in the towns and sustainable rural settlements. Gladman

generally supports an approach to the distribution of housing which reflects the

needs and characteristics of individual settlements’.

2.12. There is a clear contrast here with the proposed Gladman Garden Village. The

Garden Village proposal is not adjacent a sustainable rural settlement and in no

way reflects the needs or characteristics of South Leigh.

2.13. South Leigh is not identified in the WOLP 2016 (Table 4.1, Policies OS2 and H2)

as a Service Centre or Village suitable and sustainable for any significant new

housing.

2.14. South Leigh falls within the Small Villages, Hamlets and Open Countryside

category where new housing should be restricted to meeting housing needs and

as proposed through a Neighbourhood Plan. Indeed, the village are now in the

process of preparing a Neighbourhood Plan to address local housing needs.

Edgars Limited


Development lead in times for major development areas

2.15. Large Strategic Development Areas (SDAs) with significant infrastructure

typically have significant lead in times from allocation or a resolution to grant

permission to delivery on site.

2.16. Whilst Gladman may argue that their Garden Village proposal is within a single

ownership, there will be a need to delivery significant infrastructure and

complex negotiations with regard the timing and delivery of these

infrastructure items. For the Gladman Garden Village proposal these are noted

to include major alterations to the A40, the provision of a new primary school

and a new country park.

2.17. Negotiations to secure such major infrastructure items are complex and in

themselves often result in significant delays to delivery. The site being in

single ownership does not necessarily alleviate the delay and extensive lead in

time for delivery on such large sites.

2.18. Recent experience in West Oxfordshire has shown this lead in time can be

considerable. This is exemplified by West Witney the Council’s most recent

SDA. Planning application 12/0084/P/OP for 1,000 dwellings, an employment

area, new junction on A40, local centre and primary school received a

resolution to grant consent in March 2013. The S106 had still not been signed

at December 2016 and no decision issued. The site is now expected to deliver

homes from 2018/19.

2.19. This experience would indicate that there can be a period of 5 years between a

resolution to grant consent and delivery on site. This does not include time for

the initial planning application to be prepared and decided which for a major

site is likely to be 6 months to 1 year.

2.20. With examination hearings likely to continue during 2017, the Local Plan

Inspectors report is likely to be expected toward the end of 2017 or early in

2018.

2.21. With a 5 year lead in period for a major urban extension, there is a risk that

delivery is not realised until 2022/2023.

Edgars Limited


2.22. As with the Eynsham Garden Village proposal (WOLP 2016 para 9.5.40g) the

Council may seek to prepare and adopt an Area Action Plan for this site. This

will also add to the lead in time for delivery at the Garden Village.

2.23. If the WOLP 2031 is adopted toward the end of 2017/18 and an Area Action

Plan progressed swiftly and adopted toward the end of 2018/19, this would

leave very limited time for the preparation of an outline planning application,

negotiation of a S106 agreement, reserved matters and pre-commencement

works to achieve first delivery by 2021. In Edgars opinion, delivery from at

least 2022/23 is more realistic.

Past Delivery Rates on SDAs

2.24. Edgars obtained past delivery rates from the Council for the last two major

urban extensions in the district – North East Carterton (Shilton Park) and North

East Witney (Madley Park).

2.25. The average delivery rate per annum was similar for each site at around 125

dwellings. The data shows that each site delivered in excess of 200 dwellings

in some years although this was not sustained over a long period.

2.26. Edgars consider that sustained delivery between 2021-2031 of over 200

dwellings per annum in a single strategic development location such as the

Gladman Garden Village is ambitious and up to 250 dwellings per annum overly

ambitious.

2.27. There is a significant risk that the Gladman Garden Village will not deliver the

2,000 dwellings suggested by 2021. Any strategy to deliver all of Oxford’s

unmet needs in a single location in close proximity to other areas of high

growth such as Witney is a high risk strategy and will mean that such needs

are unlikely to be met in the plan period.

2.28. Edgars consider that additional non-strategic sites should be allocated to

frontload housing delivery and achieve a five year housing land supply in

accordance with national policy.

Summary

2.29. South Leigh Parish Council do not expressly support the Eynsham Garden

village proposal but acknowledge that it is has been proposed by West

Oxfordshire District Council, is as such ‘locally led’ and has been granted

Garden Village status.

Edgars Limited


2.30. There is no requirement for a further Garden Village. The Gladman proposal is

not locally led and does not accord with Garden Village principles.

2.31. Edgars’ has raised concerns that large strategic sites will not address the area’s

housing supply deficiencies in a timely fashion. Edgars consider that this

requires a number of additional smaller sites adjacent to existing sustainable

towns and villages. Indeed, it appears from Gladman’s representations that

they are in agreement.

2.32. Allocation of a further strategic Garden Village site will not address the housing

requirements of West Oxfordshire in a timely fashion and is not required.

3. TRANSPORT SUSTAINABILITY

3.1. The WOLP 2016 paragraphs 7.23 to 7.28 set out the strategy for the A40. The

A40 is acknowledged to be subject to congestion which is amongst the most

severe in Oxfordshire.

3.2. Oxfordshire County Council (OCC) as highway authority are reportedly

committed to a long term strategy to address this congestion.

3.3. In the short to medium term OCC is seeking to deliver a new Park and Ride site

at Eynsham together with an eastbound bus lane between Eynsham and

Oxford.

3.4. OCC is also noted as ‘looking at’ longer term solutions to the A40 with options

including a west bound bus lane, a guided busway and A40 dualling.

3.5. As acknowledged by Gladman, these longer term improvements to the A40,

including between Eynsham and Witney and the Gladman Garden Village site,

remain an ‘aspiration’.

3.6. These longer term improvements to the A40 do not fall within the agreed

investment on the A40 up to 2025 as set out in the OCC ‘Connecting

Oxfordshire: Local Transport Plan 2015-2031, A40 & A420 Route Strategies

document’.

3.7. Whilst it is clear that a comprehensive long term strategy for the A40 is

required due to existing levels of congestion, a long term solution or even the

preferred form of that solution (e.g. rail, guided bus or A40 widening?) is far

from a reality.

Edgars Limited


3.8. There is no certainty as to when further improvements to the A40 between

Witney and Eynsham (a distance of 4.5km) will be implemented. Such

improvements need to be comprehensively planned given the strategic nature

of this road.

3.9. The Gladman Garden Village site frontage extends to about 2.2km and it is

suggested that the site could ensure the delivery of about half of the dual

carriageway between Witney and Eynsham.

3.10. Additional bus lanes and improved cycleways are also suggested along this

length but it is not clear whether these are in addition to a dual carriageway –

the land required for a dual carriageway, bus lanes and cycle lanes would be

extensive.

3.11. It may be deduced from OCC’s short to medium term strategy that bus priority

or a dual carriageway along the A40 between Witney and Oxford is required to

make Park and Ride facilities sufficiently attractive.

3.12. Delivery of a Park and Ride with either bus lanes or a dual carriageway solely

along the Gladman Garden Village section of the A40 in isolation will be

ineffective.

3.13. A long section of around 2km will remain as a single lane carriageway with no

bus priority. As is experienced now, bus services along this section would

experience congestion and delays and this diminishes the attractiveness of bus

services compared to the private car along this section of the A40.

3.14. The Gladman Garden Village in isolation cannot deliver the long term

improvements suggested for the A40. In the vicinity of the Gladman Garden

Village site, the congestion on the A40 described by WOLP 2016 as the most

severe in Oxfordshire would persist.

3.15. In isolation, the Garden Village will conflict with NPPF Core Planning Principles

policies which require actively managing patterns of growth to make the fullest

possible use of public transport, walking and cycling and locating significant

development in locations which are or can be made sustainable. These

principles are reflected in the WOLP 2016 including Policy T1. These principles

are also central to the Government’s principles for Garden Villages.

Edgars Limited


3.16. South Leigh Parish Council and residents are aware from first hand experience

that the rural village roads are already subject to rat-running as a result of

congestion on the A40. This is as a of result traffic routing via the village to

the B4449 Eynsham Road before crossing the Swinford Toll Bridge toward

Oxford or joining the A40 at Eynsham. This rat-running intensifies when there

are incidents on the A40 worsening congestion. The roads through the village

are unsuitable for to accommodate this traffic being rural roads, in parts

reduced to a single lane with passing places.

3.17. The Parish Council are similarly concerned that traffic from the new Garden

Village will route via the village when the A40 is congested.

Summary

3.18. In the absence of a comprehensive and deliverable long term strategy for the

A40 in the vicinity of the Gladman site, including the lack of a fully connected

bus priority scheme to Oxford, the suggested Park and Ride and A40

alterations are of little strategic benefit.

3.19. Although located on a corridor which benefits from high frequency bus services,

current traffic conditions will disincentivise a shift to sustainable modes in this

location.

3.20. Returning to the Government’s principles for a Garden Village, there is

currently no deliverable Integrated and accessible low-carbon transport system

or rapid transit system which Gladman’s Garden Village can comprehensively

deliver or benefit from.

3.21. The Gladman Garden Village is inconsistent with Garden Village and NPPF

principles with regard sustainable transport.

3.22. The suggested sustainable transport benefits of the Gladman Garden Village

are not effective and as a result South Leigh Parish Council raises concerns

regarding traffic generation on unsuitable roads through the village.

Edgars Limited


4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

4.1. These representations are submitted by Edgars Limited (Edgars) on behalf of

South Leigh Parish Council. They are in response to the West Oxfordshire Local

Plan 2031 (WOLP 2016) and the recent submissions by Gladman Developments

Limited (Gladman) promoting a Barnard Gate Garden Village within South Leigh

Parish.

4.2. South Leigh Parish Council strongly object to the Barnard Gate Garden Village

which has been submitted late in the Local Plan process. Should the Barnard

Gate Garden Village be considered by the Local Plan Inspector, it is imperative

that South Leigh Parish Council is given the opportunity to respond to this

proposal, attend the Examination hearings and be heard by the Inspector.

4.3. Whilst South Leigh village does not fall within any statutorily designated

landscape, the village lies within unspoilt countryside and has a rich history and

a historic relationship with its agricultural setting. This setting is visible and

valued by residents using the extensive Rights of Way network, which reflects a

pattern of historic lanes.

4.4. The Gladman Garden Village proposal will result in significant harm to the local

landscape character and would impose a significant urban encroachment on

this rural community. This cannot represent a discrete new settlement of high

quality design in this context to accord with Garden Village principles.

4.5. South Leigh Parish Council do not expressly support the Eynsham Garden

village proposal but acknowledge that it is has been proposed by West

Oxfordshire District Council, is as such ‘locally led’ and has been granted

Garden Village status. There is no requirement for a further Garden Village.

4.6. Edgars’ has raised concerns that large strategic sites will not address the area’s

housing supply deficiencies in a timely fashion. Edgars considers that this

requires additional non-strategic sites adjacent to existing sustainable towns

and villages. Indeed, it appears from Gladman’s representations that they are

in agreement.

4.7. Allocation of a further strategic Garden Village site will not address the housing

requirements of West Oxfordshire in a timely fashion and is not required.

Edgars Limited


4.8. In the absence of a comprehensive and deliverable long term strategy for the

A40 in the vicinity of the Gladman site, including the lack of a fully connected

bus priority scheme to Oxford, the suggested Park and Ride and A40

alterations are of little strategic benefit.

4.9. Although located on a corridor which benefits from high frequency bus services,

current traffic conditions will disincentivise a shift to sustainable modes in this

location.

4.10. Returning to the Government’s principles for a Garden Village, there is

currently no deliverable Integrated and accessible low-carbon transport system

or rapid transit system which Gladman’s Garden Village can comprehensively

deliver or benefit from.

4.11. The Gladman Garden Village is inconsistent with Garden Village and NPPF

principles with regard sustainable transport.

4.12. The suggested sustainable transport benefits of the Gladman Garden Village

are not effective and as a result South Leigh Parish Council raises concerns

regarding traffic generation on unsuitable roads through the village.

4.13. In concluding, Gladman have suggested that the Barnard Gate Garden Village

has a number of advantages. These are set out at paragraph 10.8 of

Gladman’s WOLP 2016 representations. They repeated below (in italics) and

responded to below having regard to the above representations:

It has a single landowner who has demonstrated a willingness to progress

this site and has already started working with a promoter with the

necessary expertise and consultant team actively developing proposals’;

Although a single landowner, Edgars consider that a further Garden Village

will have a long lead in to housing delivery given the significant

infrastructure requirements. It will not address the area’s housing land

supply deficiencies in a timely fashion.

Given its separation it can command an identity of a new settlement rather

than an extension of Witney or Eynsham but it is conveniently located to

ensure the proposal can be designed to avoid any unacceptable impacts to

existing villages/towns;

The Gladman Garden Village proposal is not a discrete settlement but

adjoins South Leigh, a historic settlement. It will result in significant harm

Edgars Limited


to the local landscape character and would impose a significant urban

encroachment on this rural community. This is inconsistent with Garden

Village principles, is not locally led and cannot represent a discrete new

settlement of high quality design in this context.

Being located equidistant from Witney and Eynsham, the impact of the

development on local established communities would be lessened with the

choice of destination for residents to access services and facilities if

necessary;

As above the Gladman Garden village adjoins South Leigh Village and will

have a significant impact on this historic community and the local landscape

character.

It has potential to utilise a more sustainable source of electricity from the

solar farm on the north side of the A40;

This is not in any way qualified in the Gladman Garden Village submission.

It can safeguard/contribute to the future aspirations for highway

improvements along the A40;

In the absence of a comprehensive and deliverable long term strategy for

the A40 in the vicinity of the Gladman site, including the lack of a fully

connected bus priority scheme to Oxford, the suggested Park and Ride and

A40 alterations are of little strategic benefit. The Gladman Garden Village is

inconsistent with Garden Village and NPPF principles with regard sustainable

transport - there is currently no deliverable Integrated and accessible low-

carbon transport system or rapid transit system which Gladman’s Garden

Village can comprehensively deliver or benefit from.

Due to the above (and unlike the Eynsham North proposals) it can make a

meaningful contribution to housing delivery within the plan period and

therefore a sound and valuable addition to the emerging Local Plan.

Edgars consider that a further Garden Village will have a long lead in to

housing delivery given the significant infrastructure requirements. It will

not address the area’s housing land supply deficiencies in a timely fashion.

This requires additional smaller housing sites adjacent to existing,

sustainable towns and villages. Indeed, from Gladman’s representations,

they agree.

Edgars Limited


4.14. South Leigh Parish Council Strongly object to the Gladman Garden Village

proposal. It is contrary to NPPF and WOLP 2016 policies. It is contrary to

Garden Village principles in that the Gladman proposal is:

Not locally led, by local authorities or through engagement with local

communities;

Not a discrete settlement but an urban encroachment into a rural

landscape and the setting of South Leigh, a historic village;

Not of high quality design by virtue of its failure to respect the intrinsic

historic landscape setting in which it is located.

Not able to be integrated with an effective and deliverable low-carbon

transport system or rapid transit system;

Not required or able to offer a strong prospect of early delivery of housing

to address housing supply deficiencies;

h west oxfordshire local plan 2031 … · locally led garden cities prospectus 2014. ... church end...

Documents