Focused consultation on
Changes to the Cherwell Local Plan Proposed Submission
Representation Form
Please return to Cherwell District Council by Spm on 23rd May 2013
Representations received after this date and time may not be considered.
Guidance on completing Representations Forms is available at
www. che rwe 11.gov.uk/loca Ipi a n2013
This form has two parts ­
Internal Use Only
CN:
AN:
S:
C:
Part A- Personal Details
Part B-Your representation. (Please fill in a separate sheet for each representation you wish to make .
Remember to include your name or organisation name on each one.)
Part A
1. Personal Details
First Nam e
2. Agent's Details (if applicable)
Stephen
Last Name
Job Title
(where relevant)
Organisation
(where relevant)
Address line 1
line 2
line 3
line 4
Post Code
Telephone Numbe
E-mail Address
(where relevant)
PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU MUST PROVIDE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR YOUR COMMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED. BY
COMPLETING THIS FORM YOU AGREE TO YOUR DETAILS BEING SHARED AND YOUR NAME AND COMMENIS Will BE MADE
AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC VIEWING. THESE REPRESENTATIONS CANNOT BE TREATED AS CONFIDENTIAL.
Return completed forms to:
Email: planning.policy@cherwell-dc.gov.uk
Post: Strateg ic Planning and The Economy, Cherwell District Council, Bodicote House, Bodicote, OXlS
4M
Part 8 - Please use a separate sheet for each representation
Name or Organisation:
3. To which Change to the Local Plan Proposed Submission does this representation relate?
Change number
191
C Policies for Cherwell Places: Bicester C.15
4. Do you consider the Change to the Local Plan Proposed Submission is:
4.(1) Legally compliant
Yes
No
x
4.(2) Sound*
Yes
No
x
*The considerations in relation to the Local Plan being 'Sound' are explained in the National Planning
Policy Framework in Paragraph 182. (Please see guidance notes)
If you have entered No to 4. (1) and 4.(2} please continue to QS. Otherwise please go directly to Q6.
5. Do you consider the Change to the local Plan Proposed Submission is unsound because it is not:
(1) Positively Prepared
(2) Justified
x
(3) Effective
(4) Consistent with national policy
6. Please give details of why you consider the Change to the Local Plan Proposed Submission is not
legally compliant or is unsound. Please be as precise as possible.
Legality
The residents of Wendlebury were not properly consulted about the local plan. as required within the Council's Statement of
Communit Involvement. I believe that this renders the process non-compliant from a legal perspective.
I am aware that other communities were consulted; however. the village of Wendlebury. which is potentially most adversely
affected by the proposed routes for the Relief Road - was not included. nor was the village shown on any maps describing the
options. When this issue was raised with representatives from the Council, the response was that 'it was an oversight'. This is
clearly unacceptable.
The meeting organised by the Parish Council in the village hall following the production of the Local Plan cannot be said to be
involvement prior to the revision of the plan as it was merely the residents being informed by the council employees as to what
had been decided to date.
Soundness
I do not consider the changes for 191 as oullined in the Bicester Movement Study to be sound or justified.
The plan should be the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives. However I am unable to
identify a clear strategy to comment on as it is ambiguous as to whether route 2c or 3 is being recommended. or if route 1bis to
be considered as well: see 7.12 and 7.13 in the Bicester Movement Study.
The justifications used by the Bicester Movement Study for Environmental Impacts are all considered from the viewpoint of
Bicester residents. not from those who live in Wendlebury. 7.9 quotes Option 2c and 3 as having the least air quality from impact
from traffic noise and air quality. That is only the case for Bicester residents. not lhose living in Wendlebury where residents will
be significantly impacted by traffic noise and air quality.
11..11•• ,..,.... .............. ,... ....,.. _ .....- · · • - . . , ...... -. .... :t: ... -u..... ~,...
.....,.. ,.,..,,.. ...,..
Route 3 is extremely near the Atchester Scheduled Ancient Monument site and this is of serious concern. No othe<
proposed route makes a similar impact on a site of such historic significance.
•
Wendlebury already experiences a g<eat deal of "rat running" by traffic from the A41 attempting to avoid congestion at the
M40 junction. This will increase with any traffic coming directly from Graven Hill and Aylesbury having the option to make
a left turn through the village to avoid the motorway junction. There are no pavements or street lights in Wendlebury so
the danger of traffic accidents would be increased, not decreased as stated in 7.10 of the Bicester Movement Study.
•
Much of the justification for the route 3 is that it will have a moderate positive impact in terms of 'severance' from Bicester.
It will not have a positive impact on severance for Wendlebury which will now be boxed in by the M40, the dualled A41
and the Chiltern Railways development.
•
One of the objectives of the Master Plan was to protect the villages of Oxfordshire. Yet if Route 3 is used the effects on
Wendlebury will be extremely negative, clearly contrary to the objectives of the Plan.
I would ask you to carefully reconsider the options put forward for the Bicester Relief Road and I urge you not promote option
3 as the preferred option.
7. Please set out what changejs) you consider necessary to make the Changes to the Local Plan
Proposed Submission legally compliant or sound, having regard to the test you have identified at
Question S above where this relates to soundness. You will need to say why this change will make
the Local Plan/Sustainability Appraisal legally compliant or sound. It will be helpful if you are able to
put forward your suggested revised wording of any policy or text. Please be as precise as possible.
Legally Compliant
As the consultation with Wendlebury was initially overlooked I would expect the council to give extra consideration to
Wendlebury residents and to the Parish Council's concerns at this stage
Soundness
I would wish to see a firmer proposal of the routes to be considered for the relief road and justification looked at on behalf of
all residents not just those of Bicester.
I would request Option 1b to be included. I would wish to see the option of the current A41 being dualled as it passes by
Bicester Village which must decrease the cost over those options which are currently proposed.
8. If you wish to support the legal compliance or soundness of the Changes to the Local Plan Proposed
Submission, please also use this box to set out your comments.
(Continue on a separate sheet /expand box if necessary)
9. If y.o ur representation is seeking.a·change, do you wish to express an interest to participate in the
Examination?
1
No, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination
Yes, I wish to participate at the oral examination
I_
_x_ __
. _ I_ __ ,
10, Do. you have any comments on the updated Sustain~bility Appraisal?
No
(Continue on a separate sheet /expand box if necessary)
If you wish to be informed of the date of the submission of the document to the Secretary of
State, please tick this box..r
Signature:
Date:
20/05/13
PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM BY SPM ON THURSDAY 23rd MAY 2013
Please note your representation should cover succinctly all the information, evidence and supporting
information necessary to support/justify the representation and the suggested change, as there will not
normally be a subsequent opportunity to make further representations. Further submissions will only be
accepted at the request ofthe Inspector, based on the matters and issues he/she identifies for
Examination.
Return completed forms to:
Ema ii: pla nning.policy@cherwell-dc.gov .uk
Post: Strategic Planning and The Economy, Cherwell District Council, Bodicote House, Bodicote, OX15
4AA