Planning for the Future of Chipping Norton

Summary of comments received by WODC from Chippy residents

From Witney 200 residents submitted comments about their section of the proposed Local Plan. From Chippy there were 14 about theirs. Oh well nobody need complain when the hundreds of new houses are built up at Tank farm. All these 14 responses were from residents of Chipping Norton. Their comments received are summarised below.

Expansion of the town to the east
≠ Other smaller sites are available in Chipping Norton to meet the objective of modest growth. Concern that development of big sites such as Tank Farm and Fowlers Barn Farm will greatly expand the town boundary
≠ Development of land at Tank Farm will result in the loss of open fields
≠ Before development is allowed to proceed it will be important to assess the archaeological potential of the area to be affected, in particular the Tank Farm site
≠ Support for the location of additional housing off London Road (Tank Farm) the site proposed for housing would link up well with the development on the Parker Knoll site and the development on the hospital/care home site
≠ One respondent felt that allowing the Parker Knoll industrial site to be developed for housing opens the door for the Tank Farm site to be developed as well
≠ Building in the Tank Farm area will overlook housing in Brassey Close because the land is much higher
≠ Development will greatly increase the current average build rate in Chipping Norton
≠ Brownfield land adjacent to London Road should be used for future housing growth, not greenfield sites. Further extending the town will harm the objective to protect the heritage of the town
≠ One comment questioned whether it was appropriate to permit buildings so close to a water tower, outlining that they are normally only ever located in out-of-town sites
≠ One comment stated that no consideration has been given to the microclimate of the proposed housing area. Being one of the highest, most exposed points in Oxfordshire, it was felt that insufficient consideration has been given to the quality of life the landscape would offer. Houses will be exposed to strong winds
≠ Rural character of the footpath from Wards Road via Tank Farm to London Road must be maintained
≠ Problem of ground water will become a more serious problem with further housing. A comment stated that houses adjoining the site proposed for housing  already suffer from ground water flooding during periods of heavy rainfall

Shopping, Jobs and Employment
≠ With the closure of the Parker Knoll site, concern was expressed over how the balance between jobs and housing is likely to be maintained. Responses felt a key priority should be to have jobs in the town to give people the opportunity to work close to home, rather than commute. Job provision should be the overriding  priority for the Chipping Norton strategy
≠ Important to make land available for business use more positive interventions required for to actively encourage small businesses
≠ High local house prices will mean that new residents are likely to commute out of the town to achieve higher paid employment
≠ Encouragement should be given for start-up businesses, including those run from home in the town
≠ What is the justification for further employment development when the Parker Knoll planning permission is yet to be implemented
≠ One respondent noted that new houses built in the town when the economy was prosperous were slow to be sold, pinpointing this issue largely as a consequence of a lack of employment
≠ Concern over the lack of support for small market towns, such as Chipping Norton, particularly due to out of town shopping centres
≠ Concern that major retailers will damage the vitality of Chipping Norton High Street
≠ Query as to why, now that the residential element of the Parker Knoll site has been completed, no work has commenced on the construction of the employment  and services element of the permitted development
≠ Further development of the town for housing will serve to provide a dormitory for other towns, such as Oxford
≠ An enterprise development centre should be prioritised
≠ One of the town areas marked as land available for new business and employment and main employment site is presently Oxfordshire County Councils road gritting depot for which outline planning consent has been sought to erect new covers and facilities question over public money to be spent on this when further changes may be made in the future

Traffic, Parking and transport
≠ No firm plans for aim to reduce traffic; heavy through traffic remains a concern
≠ Traffic problems in the town need to be addressed; particular concerns raised over heavy goods vehicles/lorries travelling through the town centre. A mandatory weight limit was suggested in one response, others suggesting a total ban on lorries through Chipping Norton
≠ Conflict in the preferred strategy in terms of aiming to achieve improved air quality whilst simultaneously permitting HGVs to drive through the town and not supporting a bypass for the town
≠ Concerns over safety along London Road coupled with future traffic generation from the new hospital and residential care home. The former Parker Knoll site and parking outside the Holy Trinity Church were noted as main concerns in a  number of responses
≠ Need to improve pedestrian and cycle routes and access to bus services it has not been identified how this will be achieved
≠ New developments in Chipping Norton must have access to public transport within the site, for example the X8 and X9 bus services route must be extended to include the new houses on London Road and provide links to the new school
≠ Increased frequency of train services on the Cotswolds Line must be encouraged along with late evening services from London
≠ Improved cycleways and footways needed to connect any new developments to Chipping Norton town centre
≠ What provision for car parking is suggested in connection with the Albion Street development
≠ Oxford bound traffic should be compulsorily re-routed up Banbury Road
≠ Development of land to the east of the town provides the opportunity for a relief road that would by-pass the Horsefair stretch of the A44 (AQMA). It would also act as an alternative route through the town
≠ Expansion should be seen alongside improved connectivity with transport hubs and major settlements

Community facilities and infrastructure
≠ Opportunities must be taken to use S106 agreements to fund community amenities, not just on the proposed strategic site. The response includes the example of requiring a comprehensive approach to be taken as a whole to the development of the hospital, ex-ambulance station and St John Castle View care home so that the most appropriate sites are used to meet community needs, and not driven by current land ownership of the parts
≠ Preference for a mixture of uses on old hospital, ambulance station and Castle View sites
≠ Additional housing will have an adverse impact on local services, for example local doctor and dental surgeries
≠ Development of additional housing should not take place until supporting facilities and employment opportunities are in place
≠ Concern over the implications on local education provision and facilities
≠ The town requires a permanent tourist centre
≠ Provision of extra care housing is particularly important

Other comments
≠ One response noted a hammer head in Cotswold Crescent was provided when the estate was built. Modest growth in this area has the advantage of being close to the present schools, leisure centre and facilities at Greystones.
≠ Extreme care required in the design and materials used for the proposed new Coop building and the landscaping, in order to retain the historic context of the site and maintain the character of a sensitive central town location
≠ Integrity of burgage plots and green boundaries must be maintained
≠ Any development which may affect the burgage plots in the town centre should include a full assessment of both above ground and below ground archaeology (more detailed comments on this issue have been provided)
≠ To maintain a balanced community, care should be taken to include higher end housing as well as affordable housing
≠ The provision of affordable housing was a concern for one respondent - fearing that it would result in poor quality, high density housing, which will encourage less desirable occupants to locate within the town; bringing increased anti-social behaviour and crime into Chipping Norton. This will require a greater police presence. Further housing growth within Oxford was suggested as an alternative, where infrastructure is in place to manage such housing growth
≠ Area to the west of the town and adjacent to the business estates north of the A44 should be utilised. One response, although noted that the area falls within the AONB, felt this status could be overcome and the land would be more preferable for development due to; the proximity to existing business uses, and because the land is elevated and is only at the approaches to the town, therefore minimising the impact on the appearance of Chipping Norton.
≠ It would be possible to build housing sensitively within the areas adjoining or within the AONB, perhaps on several sites rather than one large development. The comment was supported by the permission granted in 2006 for new houses in the Old Quarry, which is within the Chipping Norton Conservation Area
≠ Number of houses proposed is too high to achieve the aim of maintaining the towns special character and vitality
≠ Figure of a minimum of 800 homes conflicts with the statement in the Sustainability Appraisal that a major urban extension of 500 or more new homes is likely to have an unacceptable impact on the character and setting of this small market town one response suggests a minimum of 800 homes is replaced with a maximum of 500 homes. As part of these revisions, the response noted that the current percentage requirement of 40% affordable housing may need to be increased in order to ensure an adequate supply of affordable houses from a reduced number of houses
≠ Development offers the opportunity to produce a history trail of Chipping Norton,  particularly in relation to the redevelopment of the Co-op store and Castle View
≠ Measures must be taken to protect existing hedges and trees

'We need new jobs as well as homes in Chippy'